[!HOAX!] Pic of UFO very close range. [!HOAX!]

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R

The stuff I added is perfect, except for one tiny error. Which I shall not reveal. I dont need to defend this to you people one bit. I owned up and will take full weight of the site MODS.

You image is anything but perfect, I have noticed to many errors to ever have accepted it as 'authentic' like you decribed it to be.

Next, you also have no clue as to the 'ability' of those member of ATS that spend time with likes of you and what they can discover in due time. The image that is posted in the OP is pathetic. IT SCREAMS HOAX, despite what you say about your imagery tampering ability.

You underestimate human beings.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R


NEWS FLASH FOR YOU Your work is not perfect.

Too bad I was such a lazy cow and said nothing!

No use being a doodysnot! You have ZERO credibility! You are a liar! You tried to

appeal to everyone's emotions using your SISTER!

Don't bother patting your own head! LIE after LIE after LIE!

No cookie for you!

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R


What can't I do, post a photo shopped blob in the sky with the EXIF data intact..

Heres one that took me about 20 minuets.

Originally posted by davespanners
Well I can think of at least one way to make the image within photoshop without even having to go to the bother of editing the EXIF data, in fact I made one last night and was talking to CHRLZ about it in a u2u as I was going to start a thread to see if people could tell how I had achieved it. It didn't take weeks though, it took about 25 minutes at the most

I was going to say it was fake from the start though.

I would like to see what techniques you used

edit on 5-10-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)

My technique? I would not share it with someone like you my friend. What people do to manipulated documents including photos is a skill. Learn. If you were going to say it was fake from the start????? Yeah right. You still even with the Origianl posting on here which I can email to you, you would never be able to tell. U2U your email and Ill email the Original photo from this Thread. In fact anyone can have it. None of you can reproduce it. There are a handful of people at best in Europe that can do that sort of work. In the states the ones that can are employed on the side by the US gov. Period.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R


So how did I fake the one I just posted? I didn't edit the EXIF data in any way at all by the way, it's the original that came with the photo

reply to post by davespanners


Please grow up. That is not even worth my time. Its simply not. My one is perfect in every detail. From the UFO to the buildings to the way it sits. It has all the marking of a shot straight of the camera.

Ask Charlz the difference between something that is professionally done and YOURS and others similar to your. give him the original. Just ask him. He will know. Email mine and yours to a professional photo company. they will tell you the difference using professional equipment. You just do not get it.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R



BTW, I just found this thread this morning, it took me 10 minutes to look at your image and find FLAWS EVERYWHERE!

So don't say you got away with anything, it took me less that a quarter hour to know you were full of bull. Plus the next thing is, you couldn't supply copy of the image that was camera --> computer to ATS directly, since it would be a sore thumb to people who actually know what they are doing.

Again it took 10 minutes to debunk you and your pathertic HOAX!

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R


What are you saying the difference is?

You can look at the EXIF data on my picture, it's exactly the same as yours.

You haven't said a single thing that would lead anyone to believe that you know ANYTHING about image manipulation in the slightest. The way the UFO sits, yeahh very technical

Did you come up with the original photos you used to fake the image with yet?

reply to post by KIZZZY



My work is perfect. I can give you all the original from this thread and no one you people would know could tell you it was not real. FACT.

Yes i lied, but it proves how dumb some people are. In fact most. Do I care.

You lot have zero clue as to how to run proper testing on things but resort to just spieling crap you have heard else where. TEST my pic. Take it to anyone legitimate.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R


Ohh dear.

I'm not talking about the picture from this thread as you well know.

You claimed that you made a composite of 7 images and a video.. Where are they?

reply to post by davespanners


You are not listening as you are too dense. Read my posts spanners.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R


I'm too dense, but you claim that you are some kind of Image manipulation expert but use phrases like "Professional photo company"

A professional photo company... Really???? I guess you must really know what your talking about with all of this technical terminology you have got going on.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R


The only thing you proved here is that you are in fact not to be trusted!

No one here can trust anything you say!

You are now branded a LIAR!

DEAL WITH IT!

reply to post by davespanners

A professional photo company... Really???? I guess you must really know what your talking about with all of this technical terminology you have got going on.

I am seriously laughing that was too funny, thanks! This person hasn't spoke of anything technical at all.

So it seems Loose is now backpedalling at breakneck speed. The source images will be posted.. after she has edited them , and she says she would not reveal her 'secrets' as again - we are not worthy.

Yeah, sure, that's why.

So to summarise this travesty of a thread, because of her dislike of a couple of folk here, she treats the entire forum as some sort of joke.

I don't think I have ever seen such low behaviour.

Now back to my original comments on the (full-size) image.. (big grin). Loose, you'll be pleased to know that I'm going to repost my comments so you and the forum can pick it apart... And you can be VERY SPECIFIC about all the stuff I missed, and why it matters.

For there is an important point here - in what way were the buildings relevant, exactly? Did ANYONE query the height, angle, whatever, in any way that was relevant to identifying the object? Indeed, the only way they came into the discussion was the observation by me and others that the blurring/distortion was different to the object and might be significant...

Anyway, see next post...

reply to post by davespanners


You are not reading my posts? You would not understand. The pic i used were all manipulated and 7 became 1. You would not understand how to take the image of a dark night and the buildings and present it as day time. you have no idea what software is used to fill in missing data as by using the limited data available. My techniques are mine. But everyone has a sig.

For example, here are the roof tops i used for the pic. You work it out brains.





Anyway you will guess away without any knowledge.

reply to post by theability


Yes i does cry hoax....but under scientific analysis the pic will hold up and thats all that matter. You fail to understand, its only scientific data that carries weight, not opinion from MR spanners or his cohorts. My pic will not be classed as a fake by any REAL test run by software analysis.

That is the real deal then if Scientific data says it has not been tampered with one bit. I say ANYONE can use the thread pic or I can email it. Maybe..maybe not and Charlz have it off get it off them.

Have it tested by whoever is legit and qualified. End OF

Just for the record, and because I stand by my words and am not a gutless coward, here is the entire, unedited set of comments I made about the image (note that it was the 3624x2448 pixel version, not the ratty little one she posted initially..) I shall highlight a few salient points:

I took a long hard look at the original, full-size image with EXIF, claimed as being straight off the camera. I found nothing to suggest that it had been edited. (Only by getting access to the original media can one be reasonably sure of that

As I CORRECTLY said, one can't be sure without access to original media. And I stand by the fact that there are no obvious signs of editing. There aren't. Indeed, as I went on to say:

.. but suffice to say it would take a fairly high level of knowledge to be able to get one past me.. )

So, let's assume it was edited. The person who edited it, in my opinion, would have to have a "fairly high level of knowledge' to scam it. I've seen nothing amongst Loose's postings suggesting she has that knowledge, so if it was edited, I'd take a wild guess she wasn't the one who did it. If she did, then I'll agree she has a fairly high level of knowledge. Pity she lies about everything, then....

Anyway, according to the EXIF data, it is a no-brand camera (ie a cheapie, sorry!), and the image was taken at 1/270 second. This is where things get a little tricky. Being a no-brand camera, we have no idea about the electronics, type of shutter, etc, so the exif may not be very accurate. It also means that the lens may be quite substandard.. Now the buildings etc are quite blurred, and it *looks* like motion blur with a strong vertical component. But if that 1/270 shutter speed is correct, then that camera was being moved quite violently to achieve that amount of blur so I'm wondering if it is more of a defective lens, than true motion blur..?
The relevance of this is that the object has significant blurring at the top, but much less at the bottom. Puzzling, but again, could this be a lens problem?

Readers will notice that I drew attention to the oddly different blurring of the object to the buildings..

Now, onto the object...

It's important to note that the next section refers to the OBJECT.

As I mentioned, it has the odd blurring effect. I'd like to see other images from this camera showing contrasty detail in the same are of the frame, if possible.

Naturally, this request met with excuses.

I see NO evidence of a cutnpaste. I find it rather alarming that some responses here have made that judgement from a very obviously REDUCED (and therefore re-saved) initial image. Such an image will, unless very carefully created, have jpeg block boundaries added, and these are often confused (by amateur investigators) as copy-pastes, when they are no such thing. I see NO evidence on the original of any cut and paste, and if it was 'photoshopped' in, it was done quite professionally (begging the question of why you wouldn't use a better image and better 'ufo', if you were that good...).

Again, I remind readers I was referring to the object.

BTW, I won't be elaborating on how you can quite easily tell the difference between a cut-paste and jpeg boundaries, as it may play into the hands of future hoaxers, but if you know the topic, you can easily see which is which. U2U me (with your credentials ) if you wish to know how, but really, if you knew the topic you wouldn't be asking me... There are minor artefacts around the object in the original, but they are quite consistent with the level of JPG compression in use.

Again, referring to the object and the incorrect claim by some that the rectangle around it in the low-res image was evidence of cut and paste...

The RGB colour readings (comparing object versus other similarly lit areas) don't really reveal much of use, but I may revisit that aspect later.
There is a slight halo around the object, which can be emphasised by careful level adjustment, but this may simply be crude oversharpening artefacts created as the camera captures the image. Cheaper cameras are notorious for overdoing the sharpening and contrast enhancement.
However, the halo effect plus the fact that the object seems a little clearer (at the bottom) than most of the remainder of the image, introduces a new possibility - this could be something that was in fact on the sensor... ie a small piece of dust or debris. Diffraction effects and the microlens design of digital sensors may cause this halo on such objects. that would explain why the object seems to be suffering different clarity issues to the rest of the image (which came via the lens)..

Again, readers will note I drew attention to the fact that the object and buildings aren't a good match.

So, back to you Loose - do you still not have the intestinal fortitude to allow your U2U to me be posted for all to see?

And would you like to actually point out all the glaring errors in what I just reposted? Or are you backpedalling even faster now? Keep up the excuses, everyone believes you...

your fatal flaw was stripping the image of the exif that you posted in the OP, no matter what you do to the image, albeit, camera, or photoshop cs5, the file is retained despite what you may think.

And guess what that image you posted is a no brainer!

NO EXIF = on the UFO Forum, HOAX HOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHO AXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAX HOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHO AXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAXHOAX

Like I said 10 minutes and i was through with your amazing knowledge of how imagery works.

reply to post by CHRLZ


charlz you are correct. the blurring is the one point i messed up on. However, no test will ever reveal that and in fact I double checked and the analysis held up even with my human error and miscalculation.,Not enough to be picked up by computer analysis though and an expert will say it holds up. Get it tested.