It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Never before seen UFO photos - Debunkers?

page: 16
56
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Zomar
 


The guy in the video does look a lot like the image you chose to use in your avatar though Zomar... you must admit! LOL!

IRM




posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
Wait, why am I even proving you wrong. I don't even need to. Your claim is ridiculous to say the least!


Star for Zomar!

I agree with you here 100%, hopefully that was expressed in my above post.

The video is moot, and I am glad to hear that it is not you. (Just an aside
)



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
reply to post by The_Zomar
 


The guy in the video does look a lot like the image you chose to use in your avatar though Zomar... you must admit! LOL!

IRM


God, I hope not...


To clear things up, the image I used in my avatar was me being 150% sarcastic by the way. The face I made, not the BP message.

(Edit to add in) Wait, I was sarcastic about "thanks BP" as well. Oops


[edit on 8-7-2010 by The_Zomar]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
The one thing he did fail to mention, is that he never offered unedited photos, photos in which the EXIF data is straight from the Camera. (so he essentially proved nothing but his ability to use photoshop.)


I haven't tried it myself, but I've read it's easy to use software to change EXIF data.

So I'm not sure how anybody would know if EXIF data was "straight from the camera" or fabricated by using a software package to edit EXIF data?

I'm aware of a $400 software package that Nikon sells for forensic use, that prosecutors can prove crime scene photos haven't been tampered with, etc. But even that doesn't prevent someone from changing the EXIF data, it only tells you if someone has actually done it, but since so few people use that program, I don't know how to tell if EXIF data has been tampered with in most cases.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm more than SURE that EXIF data can be manipulated.

Not saying that I myself can do it, I just know that it can be done.

No data is 100% secure.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


FIRST That video was altered and not to be trusted
SECONDLY The Zomar would have done a better job on that video.

THIRDLY

(thirdly)... I took the time to read through that thread all the way to the end with plenty of ideas on things to say and....

it had been locked up and done with. read through all that to catch up & learn that it was time well spent. at least a mod saw where it was going, i'm just surprised it took one of the site owners to do it???


anyways..
The Zomar,
i think i made a few of the thoughts i entertain as clear as i can state them.
not efforting to derail your thread...
back to talking about:


thoughts, things, & photoshop learnen stuff,
ET

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Zomar
 


There are free EXIF Data viewers online that you can load your picture into. Although EXIF data can be manipulated, the average hoaxer does not have the smarts to do so... therefore inconsistencies in the EXIF data is usually contained therein. There are many members at ATS that are experts in interpreting the data.. though much of it is self explanatory.

Here's an EXIF Data viewer that you all can use for free.

regex.info...

It has proven a valuable tool at ATS before. Internos used to use it from memory.

IRM



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Well....

IPs can be manipulated easier than EXIF data Zomar, try www.hidemyass.com

So, to say the very least, you still strike a amazing resemblance......

And yes, EXIF information can be manipulated, but, even when manipulated there is methods of which you can define whether the photography is original or tampered with.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm more than SURE that EXIF data can be manipulated.
Not saying that I myself can do it, I just know that it can be done.

i gots a friend who works in a place, she does such things. so from my understanding, i think i agree, just don't don't let The Zomar from page 8 know i said that, ok?



No data is 100% secure.

No offense intended, cuz i think in context you are talking about computer data if i am correct, if not let me know.

but when you are talking about "data" and information i'm pretty sure Steven Hawking and an intellectual advisary of equal intelligence (in my opinion) have been debating this same issue for over a decade with each new discovery made. i think what they have recently and mutually agree upon for right now is that no data or information can cease to exist or dissapear. B.ut, this is based upon what they know of currently, and what they have been engaging in for well over a decade. whether this is relevent or not is personal choice

I think this is important to know, that data and information can not cease to be, and also that we seem to believe no data is 100% secure.

what if the data has no label and they give it no name?
i'm not sure this is a real scenario, and even if it was, some nameless project, how would i hear about it if it has no name to begin with?
if they refuse to give it a name, then how do we know what it is, or how to describe it?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I did not like this post, you probably just gave some more idiots new ideas to make up ufo pictures... (I noticed the first one was fake... at the end i wasn't dissapointed with the pic, i was dissapointed with the author -.- ) This kind of post makes us not believe even more... What we need is people that belieave in these things! It's up to them to believe if they are fake or not. In my country only 2 from 10 people think ufos are real... Try showing them these topics and it will be a 0 from 10...



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Anyone who knows more about photo alterations want to offer their expertise to analyze the potential of forgery for this photo?

Much appreciated,
ET

Link to ATS thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MissSmartypants



And here's their expanation...

english.peopledaily.com.cn...



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


If you look at the blur on EVERYTHING ELSE in the picture you can see it is just a long exposure so most likely a smaller light moving across the sky and exactly why photos cannot be trusted and why the UFO forums would do well to have fewer silly questions about obviously bad photos.

edit to add:Maybe double exposure but leaning towards long exposure.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
"Give up" is not two words that go together... can you provide a link or source?


It's a colloquialism. Get over it.


perhaps it would be easier to "give up" on photos of ufos rather than accept the majority of them may be a real phenomenon...


Why would I give up on UFO pictures just because the majority of them are not a real phenomenon. Why are you equating healthy skepticism with disbelief? Apparently you would rather I just accept any blurry photo and get excited. I would really rather see something truly hard to explain. Those are the photos I like. If you are looking for a forum that just accepts any blurry photo as a genuine alien craft, I can point you to some.

What are you guys seriously arguing here? Not to look into things carefully? Not to pay attention to details? Not to ask any questions? I just do not get it.

Why do you need me or anyone else to BLINDLY believe everything that comes along? That goes a long way to bland up the genuinely mysterious UFO events.



give up? this is your suggestion?


And why should ATSers believe you more than those who have PhDs????



Concerning “misperception”:
It is required learning for USAF Academy
Bankers use the word
Doctors use the word
Publishers publish the word
Who else uses the word “misperception” …


blah blah blah.

That one really got ya huh? So sorry I struck such a nerve. Funny how I said 3 distinct things about that word but you only address one and you are still failing. Get over it.

Why believe me? Because anyone that doubts me can check any legitimate English dictionary. There are several online.

Why not believe Phds? Because they are not often doctors of English. They also have a tendency to use non-words such as irregardless which, while also not an English word, is also found in your special online dictionary.

Post all the usages you like. It is not part of the English language but it is also really the least relevant point to this thread so anyone curious can go check that out themselves. If you ever care to address anything else I said in that sentence, give it a shot!



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Heres the thing. Logicaly speaking photographic and video evidence is the best that a non organised , loosely associated group like the UFO community can hope to aquire. This is because photos and video can be aquired without accessing government property, they require no liscensing , and above all are the property of the person who recorded them. Getting ones hands on the physical material of a UFO is always tricky, and with government interferance could become dangerous as well as difficult.Only with armed and armoured support would anyone of sound mind attempt to aquire information directly from military intelligence sources, because going in under armed and under manned is suicide. So photo/video evidence is pretty much a must. However the ONLY reason not to trust it, is because immature, pathetic, broken headed oafs keep spamming the community with fakes . Its bad enough we have spaced out wakkos spouting psuedo religious alien crap at us which has no basis in truth what so ever, without there being a concerted effort to stifle the real deal pictures under a layer of fakery so deep that you loose your faith in what you are doing and why you are doing it!
Now , I realise OP , that you are trying to raise awareness of that situation, and I appreciate that. But what has happened here is a failiure. You support the movement for UFO truth, but you have falsified photographs in order to give persons the impression that something is there, which in fact is not. Why did you use your talent to do that, rather than examining a questionable photograph and using your obvious talent to unpick the image and over time seperate the photographic chaff from the wheat so to speak? Is it I wonder because it is easier to create, than to examine the gaps in someones work? In either case, it would be better if you used your talents to whittle down the fakes so that others could know thier truth.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


I agree KJG... I see what appears to be a chopper on a long exposure!

IRM



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


In the OT the OP never called anyone fool and you should know very well this is what is being asked of you to prove. You instead provide “proof” where the OP is not calling someone a fool on their belief in UFO’s but for taking the OT out of context or for not reading the OT and thinking his images were real before finding out in fact they were fabricated.



I could never sum up what was going on better than this and no one wanted to give it a real throw I see.

Cool, so let me repeat it because apparently someone knows how to translate between the critical thinking and the "awwe shucks we done bin fooled ugain" crowd.

If anyone can show me a photo that can be trusted all on it's own, by itself, as a photo - please bring it to this thread. That would shut quite a few people up as well as justify all this unwarranted anger.

Just before this thread came up I had been discussing with someone else what trash the UFO forum has become on ATS. Part of the reason why was because people never pay attention. How many threads have we seen where someone posts an anomalous picture to have it cleared up beyond all doubt within 5 posts...yet for some reason people are still flagging and then posting on page 43 about what awesome proof it is? So now the front page is plagued with "popular" threads, one after the other, that are totally worthless and should have died had anyone BOTHERED TO JUST READ A LITTLE.

Do you all find that helps the UFO forum?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio

Originally posted by K J Gunderson


EDIT (To Add: )
If you wish to continue (with me), then you need to explain how this thread is not against the rules. Since the OP knowingly posted false information. (Remember that rule #1 I quoted? The one where you ignored the meat, and cherry picked.)


That would be this.


Each of these photos were created by me. The stories are all fake.


Or do you need me to hold your hand, treat you like a baby, be your kindergarten teacher, or whatever other childish name calling attacks you resort to in order to get you to READ the OP?

No you need to LEARN HOW TO READ:


1). Posting:You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered form this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.


THE OP POSTED FALSE INFORMATION. There is no dancing around that, which you know. Again, explain how posting false information is NOT against the rules.

Just because he said it was false does not change the fact that HE POSTED FALSE INFORMATION.

EDIT (To nip: )
And please note the OR in that rule quote. That means NO False information, NO misleading information, AND NO inaccurate.

IE He posted knowingly false information. It doesn't have to be "misleading" or "inaccurate" too.


[edit on 7/8/2010 by adigregorio]


Someone forgot to read again


Thank you for proving my point, even if you are "ignoring" my side of this debate. That just shows that you do not accept all forms of data, making your opinion(s) flawed.

Aww Snap!

(Of course you will reply now, cause I have called you on the carpet...)



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


LOL, read that rule a little deeper. He has broken TWO PARTS of it:


1). Posting:You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered form this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.


Part one, we already know:

You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Oh, but check this shizzle out:

You will not use information gathered form this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.


HA. I have pointed out where the OP said. IN HIS OWN WORDS THAT HE MADE THIS THREAD FOR PICKING ON OTHERS.

Jesus H f*cking Christ!
(That's to see if mods are reading this thread. F*ck D*ck C0ck. If he can break the rules, so can I.)

EDIT (To Add: Help, for the research impaired)

Originally posted by The_Zomar
...
I actually got a kick out of the people that didn't read that they were fake and complimented the photos. I got a kick out of it because it further illustrates my point in creating this thread.


EDIT (To Add: More hand holding)
From the OP, here is what he says the point of the thread is:

I took the time to create these images and write these stories to illustrate to the members of ATS that UFO photos are not to be trusted.


So which is it? Liar.

EDIT (To add: Even more hand holding.)

- Secondly For those saying that this thread is for kicks, or attention, once again I will say that If I wanted said attention I would deliberately put time into creating a realistic looking image and then pass it off as one that I had taken with my camera. Most of you didn't see me say that. I understand though, because most of you didn't read the thread.


LOL, YOU SAID IT WAS FOR KICKS, liar. See, now you know why I can call you a liar. Because you lie.

EDIT (To add: A sweaty hand)

Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by black cat
 


I know the rules, I didn't break any.

What false information did I post?

I'm asking for an answer.


Here is where you lie, yet again. Let me refresh your memory:
(From the OP)

All of these photos have something in common.


Each of these photos were created by me. The stories are all fake.


Note, Fake and False mean the same thing


EDIT (To Add: Thought I was done, guess not...)

In fact I purposely placed the reflection in the wrong spot on photo 3 as a measurement of seeing just how gullible people are.

Really, I thought this wasn't to pick on the gullible liar? What happened liar? Did you change your lying mind?

[edit on 7/9/2010 by adigregorio]

[edit on 7/9/2010 by adigregorio]

[edit on 7/9/2010 by adigregorio]

[edit on 7/9/2010 by adigregorio]

[edit on 7/9/2010 by adigregorio]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Whoa so close you almost had the full image Im choke



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Don't forget OP, I asked you this back on page 11 (and before/after)

You have REFUSED to answer this question.

That's right readers, he REFUSES to answer this!


Originally posted by adigregorio
I am posting because I want an answer to this:

You said:

I actually got a kick out of the people that didn't read that they were fake and complimented the photos. I got a kick out of it because it further illustrates my point in creating this thread.

(I put the important part in bold.)

You just said that you made this thread to make fun of gullible people, why do you want to make fun of gullible people?

(Or, why do you find their discomfort entertaining?)

I notice you refuse to comment on that part of my argument.

EDIT (To Add: )
Shucks, he logged out.


[edit on 7/7/2010 by adigregorio]



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join