Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 17
17
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Please stop with the posts that add nothing to ATS: talking about who is banned. Any further comments on, posts will continue to be actioned and the thread closed.
edit on October 5th 2010 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
As the OP has donated the image for 'serious' investigation
, I would now be happy to go into MUCH more detail about the way to properly and fully investigate an image, using that image as the baseline. The full process will show how one would investigate the image in the context of the claims made about it, and determine how it may or may not relate to reality - from a 'forensic' viewpoint, rather than the somewhat 'light' analysis it received here.

I will include some links and references that I would imagine many of you have not seen, in regard to the *real* process of image analysis as it happens in scientific or legal circles, as well as show examples of the sort of things that one looks for to detect fakery, and identify - with examples and maybe even a challenge or two - just how easy (or otherwise) it is to fake an image.


Otherwise, all this seems to be a bit of a waste of a thread, so perhaps that might be a way to make it worthwhile...

Anyone interested, or any objections?

Added..
If you would like to see this, but don't wish to post, just give this post a star.. (grin)
edit on 7-10-2010 by CHRLZ because: added the pathetic attempt to gain stars...



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
hey guys i have finally figured out how to post images directly in the post and here are the images that i have. one of them is the original and the other one is the pic that i have recreated. they will be posted in the next post.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Hi CHRLZ

Can you start off by doing mine, I changed it a bit from last time.

All the EXIF data etc is still on the image and hasn't been altered!

THIS IS NOT AN IMAGE OF A UFO IT IS A MADE UP IMAGE FOR CHRLZ TO ANALYSE


edit on 7-10-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by davespanners
 


I was able to prove the EXIF data was edited on your image by using my software. My software is capable of detecting any and all changes to the EXIF data.

One of the few inconsistencies found on your image was a missing data field in your EXIF data. The inconsistency was found by comparing original images from an identical camera.

Comparing EXIF data from a known camera is one of many techniques used to detect possible modifications on images.

Your camera type: FUJI FinePix S5500

Original images found here:
www.photographyblog.com...

Comparing original EXIF data to your image shows that your image is missing a data field that should be there.

The original images have two fields;

XResolution
YResolution

However, your image has only one data field;

YResolution

Your image is missing the XResolution field.

This would lead one to believe your EXIF data is not original and is edited. This would be the first step to disqualifying your image as admissible evidence.

Although there is a way to fix your EXIF data so this error doesn't exist, this just shows how EXIF can sometimes (but not always) be used to disqualify images as acceptable.

There is also another inconsistency that my program has found, but I don't wish to disclose that information because it is a trade secret.

Good day.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


CHRLZ.....


Anyone interested?


Absolutely!

I say again..... I find your commentary extremely entertaining, interesting & informative......a highlight!


Anyway.....

The op maintained the "object" was "real", despite having inserted the buildings.

Have you given any further thought as to the nature of the "object"?

Or.....do you think it would simply be a waste of time to do so.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


Hi...

Can you check the EXIF again, as I assure you 100% I haven't altered it.. The image is straight from my camera..

This is really annoying I'm going on vacation later today for 2 weeks... I think I will maybe have to tell someone how the image is faked and they will then be able to answer questions for me....



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
I was able to prove the EXIF data was edited on your image by using my software. My software is capable of detecting any and all changes to the EXIF data.
Sorry, but no, that isn't how it works. You may have proved it to yourself, but all we have is your word. Such 'proof' needs to be repeatable, and so you need to name your methodology. What software was it?


One of the few inconsistencies found on your image was a missing data field in your EXIF data. The inconsistency was found by comparing original images from an identical camera.
You only found a few?



Comparing EXIF data from a known camera is one of many techniques used to detect possible modifications on images.
Yes, it's one way. But I'd be questioning other stuff on this image first...


Your camera type: FUJI FinePix S5500
Yes (maybe!), and my first question, before even looking at the EXIF, is why on earth is the image only 800x600? Nobody would shoot a S5500 at that resolution, unless they had something to hide.. right, Dave????
(I'm kiddin' around, don't worry!) BTW, is it an S5500? I thought you said it was an S5000, Dave?

And as a point of fact, the S5500 doesn't offer 800x600 as a shooting mode, as far as I am aware. Dave, you're busted.



Comparing original EXIF data to your image shows that your image is missing a data field that should be there... However, your image has only one data field; YResolution
Your image is missing the XResolution field.
True.


This would lead one to believe your EXIF data is not original and is edited. This would be the first step to disqualifying your image as admissible evidence.
It wouldn't be my first step! A little more on that below..


There is also another inconsistency that my program has found, but I don't wish to disclose that information because it is a trade secret.
Really?
. A twade secwet??? And you can't even give us a hint? I do agree that *techniques* to falsify images shouldn't be given out freely, but you can't just make a handwaving claim like that and expect it to be good enough as 'further evidence'. That's ridiculous. Back it up, or don't even mention it.

BTW, there are some freeware programs around that can help expose fakery, but there are some very major caveats to their use. I'll talk about them a bit later when I spend more time on the OP image.

Anyway, Dave, I'm not going to spend too much time on your image, for several reasons, mostly unrelated to exif. Please don't be too insulted - it's just i really don't have too much time to spend here!

The reasons are:

1. At first glance, something looks wrong, even at small size. It's the lighting. Look at the clouds and you can see that they are lit from the upper left. The object is lit from the right. Bzzt.

2. It's a very small image - 800 x 600. Yet it is horribly grainy and posterised. That just makes little sense - any half decent camera should give a much smoother image in daylight, especially when reduced to 800x600.

So before I even started digging further or examining the image in any detail, I would be asking you to please explain why I should look any further..
Oh, and the ufo looks familiar....


This comes back to an important point about detecting fakery - the concept of provenance. How is the story being told? Does the source openly provide all the relevant details, and does the image match the description of the environment,situation and timeline they describe? Typically, hoaxers won't give many details unless you pry and prod endlessly, because they haven't really thought it through. From my point of view, I'm willing to take things at face value and believe the 'story' initially, but if the story-teller is reticent or starts giving details that do not add up or do not match the image, then I tend to focus in very hard on that, and see if it all unravels. Otherwise you can waste hours investigating worthless images that are obviously intended as hoaxes. Another technique often used by hoaxers is to make a big thing about how the image isn't theirs, and the person who took it is afraid to get involved or just difficult to contact, thus dragging it out and giving them the chance to evade questioning. Oh, and then there are the "how do I upload?" "what is exif?" "My camera's battery is dead" "it will only upload in low-resolution" routine.. Sometimes it is genuine, but other times...

It is very important to realise that almost everything (as in each single element of a case) can be faked. It's a simple as that. The image can be faked, the exif can be faked, the story can be faked (natch!). By getting access to the original media, you may be able to verify the image and exif (*may*!). But the best way to detect fakery is simply to look at the entire story, look for the inconsistencies and focus in on them.

More later... I'd like to spend a while focusing on the OP image now - I'll be back later, maybe not tonight...

And for MMN, no, I don't know what the blob is. I don't think it's a water droplet as was suggested earlier, as the distortion/shape of the dark area isn't quite right to my eye - it just occupies too much of what should be a relatively spherical shape, for the angle it is at. Having said that, if anything was pasted into the image (buildings or ufo), all bets are off. Again, more about that possibility later...



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


The one thing I can tell you about the image is that the EXIF isn't altered in anyway, so your going down the wrong road with that one...


I am going on vacation later, so I have asked maybe maybe not if I can tell him how the image is faked so he could answer for me, I hope he agrees

If I was going to give a story to explain the other things I guess I would say the image is blurred because I took the photo quickly and the camera just happened to be set at it's worst resolution

I do have two cameras a 5000 and a 5500 they are so cheap on ebay I bought another one when I couldn't find the original

The light is a good point!

The problem with the original pic I think is that no one can confirm or deny how it was done now
edit on 8-10-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by davespanners
The one thing I can tell you about the image is that the EXIF isn't altered in anyway, so your going down the wrong road with that one...

Have you checked the EXIF yourself? The XResolution figure *is* missing... Normally, that would result from an image rotation, or something similar. Does the S5500 have a rotation feature, perhaps? As a side issue, I'll confess I haven't ever taken much notice of those resolution figures - I'm not 100% sure that the Xres exif info is 'core' exif.. That may seem puzzling, sorry - I may cover *this* later as well - suffice to say for now that: all exif is not equal...


I am going on vacation later, so I have asked maybe maybe not if I can tell him how the image is faked so he could answer for me, I hope he agrees

Feel free, but i think you're sorta missing the point. There IS a problem with your exif. But more importantly, the camera took an image at 800 x 600 supposedly, yet that camera CAN'T do that, and it has other glaring problems...


If I was going to give a story to explain the other things I guess I would say the image is blurred because I took the photo quickly and the camera just happened to be set at it's worst resolution

See above. This ain't so much about the exif. That camera apparently doesn't do 800 x 600. So it's NOT an original image. There is no point going further and even considering exif, if you can't explain that.


The light is a good point!

Which again is unrelated to any exif examination. If you can't cover the basics, I don't move into the advanced stuff...



The problem with the original pic I think is that no one can confirm or deny how it was done now

True enough. But we can analyse the hell out of it... as a demonstration for future use on other images...

Effectively the image is worthless in it's own right, because of the provenance issues. But we can use it to demonstrate pretty well every aspect of a genuine investigation. So we can make something useless into a learning exercise..



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Hey CHRLZ.....maaaaate.........

I know what he done



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Don't tell me!! (big grin) Dya like my new avatar? I've used CSI techniques to isolate and sharpen Dave's UFO...



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Hi again.

Hmm the camera can take the image because the camera did infact take the image.

here is another picture (not mine) taken with the same camera model at 800x600 resolution,

yep thats the same picture as I used to make the image.from a google image search..

What if I had bothered to hand draw the UFO?

Like I said I'm not trying to fool you, I'm interested in how people can actually prove images are faked but asserting that the image didn't come from my camera is wrong as it did (I am not lying about this bit)

I don't see how we can learn from an analysis of something that we can't know if you are analysing correctly
edit on 8-10-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


I'm going to have to go off now, you can tell people how it was done whenever you want, It seems to be more annoying then I imagined


Just to clarify so far people have said the EXIF is wrong, which it definitely isn't and that my camera didn't take the picture, which it definitely did.

I could have made the same image without using an image from the net but using pictures I had taken.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by davespanners
Hmm the camera can take the image because the camera did infact take the image.

Yes, perhaps.. (but it didn't take that *scene*, did it..
)

Dave, my objection tothe 800 x 600 is not just because the specs of the camera don't appear to support it, and in that regard I'm simply going from many sites that reviewed the S5500 (aka S5100), like this:
www.dpreview.com...
which says:
Max resolution 2272 x 1704
Low resolution 1600 x 1200, 1280 x 960, 640 x 480
and this:
www.imaging-resource.com...
Image Resolution: 2272x1704, 1600x1200, 1280x960, 640x480

I don't see 800 x 600. Now maybe both those sites are incorrect, but again you seem to be avoiding the point - you STILL haven't addressed the simple issue of WHY it was taken at such a low resolution. Doing so indicates you have something to hide (like rephotographing another image or perhaps a montage) or you needed it small just to make it very easy to cut and paste. Either of those, and perhaps more, are possibilities.

I do understand you are playing devil's advocate, but seriously, if this had genuinely been posted as real, I would have dropped any interest in it within seconds of you not providing any plausible explanation of why it is so small, and why the lighting is wrong. Unless you could provide a larger image OR a very good explanation, i would not be wasting my time. Indeed I feel like I am wasting my time now.

And I think my ufo is an AWFULY good match for yours..

Finally... (I've been avoiding the EXIF issues as, like i said, they are secondary as they can be faked..)...do you really think we haven't noticed the ISO and exposure settings? That was a surprisingly dim 'day' for those sunny clouds...


edit on 8-10-2010 by CHRLZ because: dyslexic seplling...



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by davespanners
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


I'm going to have to go off now, you can tell people how it was done whenever you want, It seems to be more annoying then I imagined


Davespanners.....

Cheers mate.....'ave a good trip!


Cheers
Maybe...maybe not






top topics



 
17
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join