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
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.
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
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
. 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...