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.

 

Legs missing in picture

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Fake or not. It's a great shot




posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by d1k
Thanks man, still waiting on Muppet to post what he has to say about the meta data he was talking about. If he can see original info that can confirm the pics were not faked I would really like him to post it.


I've been looking for a hex viewer, but I can't find one on the Mac. anyone with a PC though should be able to download one from zdnet, and open the files. They will contain what looks mostly like junk, but there may be some plain text near the start describing the file format version etc. If this matches all the others from the camera, then the file is original... sorry I can't check it myself (no PC!)



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 07:17 AM
link   


Thanks man, still waiting on Muppet to post what he has to say about the meta data he was talking about. If he can see original info that can confirm the pics were not faked I would really like him to post it.


Sorry D1K,

The good news, metadata from the JPG says it comes from a digital camera,

bad news is, if you edit that JPG in photoshop, the metadata stays in...
I could edit that picture, i dunno, adding a flying saucer in the background, it would still say that it comes from a digital cam...


But still, i believe you about the yahoo album and the picture and all, it's just that the guy is leaning forward and to right so it appears he's missing legs but they are behind the girl.

Have you seen that girl's butt?



EDIT : maybe you can send me all the originals and i can compare to see if there is a "edited" or "edited # times" field. I have some hex editor...

U2U me or something




[edit on 15-7-2004 by stephq]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by stephq
bad news is, if you edit that JPG in photoshop, the metadata stays in...
I could edit that picture, i dunno, adding a flying saucer in the background, it would still say that it comes from a digital cam...
[edit on 15-7-2004 by stephq]


Does it? Oh..b*g*er. I though that might clear it up. My mistake. I'd assumed it would re-write it when re-encoding the image.

That's useful to know for the future though.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:30 AM
link   


Does it? Oh..b*g*er. I though that might clear it up. My mistake. I'd assumed it would re-write it when re-encoding the image.


Yeah well photoshop keeps the metadata... maybe other apps won't... But i doubt it.

That's why i asked for the set, could run more tests like seeing if there is other fields that are not showing up or that have a modified flag...

EDIT : d1k has u2u'ed me, and will send the pics, i'll check them out and analyze them.

[edit on 16-7-2004 by stephq]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 09:13 AM
link   
If you look closely at the edges of the black t-#, it's uneven. It looks like a Photoshop job to me!



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   


If you look closely at the edges of the black t-, it's uneven. It looks like a Photoshop job to me!


Any edges in that picture are uneven, blurry and edgy, as all other picturse that d1k sent me from this set. I believe d1k and will now say the reasons why i believe him.

1: metadata all the same in each pictures
2: file sizes are all around the same size for pictures complexity. When you photoshop, sometimes it's hard to get the compression to the exact right filesize you are looking for. ie : you have 10 pictures 680~700 kb, you try to fake one, and save it, depending on the compression settings, you may get these options : 640kb and 750kb. His pictures are all about the same filesize.
3: they all have the same timestamp, yes could be faked but i believe him on that.
4: nobody is stupid enough to do fakes and hoaxes at that resolution/image size
5: all edges look blury/sloppy, it's called jpeg artifacts

Why don't you people accept that this was a lucky shot? The guy is probably leaning forward and on the orange bikini girl. His legs are way behind the picture on the right and with perspective, well his legs would appear muuuuch smaller. It's so much of a lucky shot that it's pretty hard to believe but just try to figure it in your mind. Anyways, just look at all the edges, they all are looking weird when zoomed up. And i'm looking at the background between the girls, well... if someone deleted the guys legs, well he found one heck of a good background to paste there cause it can't be more real than that....

For my part, i believe the guy, how many of you use photoshop to say that it has been photoshoped that much? I use it many hours a day. I've seen many females saying this is a fake but on what grounds? That these girls are hot... wtf... that's not a reason...




posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   
One simple question - is there any reason for this to be on Above Top Secret? Has ATS become this weeks Maxim? As for the chicks being so hot, hmmm I can see lots of guys who haven't had dates in a while other than the two obvious ones.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
One simple question - is there any reason for this to be on Above Top Secret? Has ATS become this weeks Maxim? As for the chicks being so hot, hmmm I can see lots of guys who haven't had dates in a while other than the two obvious ones.


Couldn't have said it better myself. There really is no purpose in this being on ATS. Even if he had no legs, how does that fit with paranormal? The whole thing's a hoax. While he claims he doesn't own the pictures or did not take the pictures, why is he so adamant that they're not fakes or photoshopped. Too bad this is what ATS is slipping to!



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Guy?

What Guy?



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Does this post have anything at all related to conspiracy theory or ATS? I thought that was why there was a BTS. Isn't there a rule against posting false material? This sure is!



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Wait a minute,

many things in these forums are false materials or are based on forged articles etc... what people do in this forum is discuss about it and try to find proofs against or for these things, anyhow, its mostly what i saw



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   
The ATS rules clearly state that it is against the rules to knowingly post false or misleading information. I agree with paraclete, this doesn't belong in ATS and it sure looks like a complete crock to me.


d1k

posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Funny that you, Commonsense, would choose a name like that but fail to have any. Just because you don't like seeing girls in a picture does not make it false, a hoax or from a Maxim article.

This was a very serious post about a picture with a guy missing his legs, just because you and Mynaeris cannot get over the fact that there are girls in the picture does not make it BTS material. Frankly that is your problem and no one elses. Grow up.

[edit on 24-7-2004 by d1k]



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   
dk1,
Trust me - I like seeing the girls! The fact is there's plenty of other ways to handle that. Right now, I see something that, at best, belongs in BTS. Again, what's paranormal about a photoshopped pic? How can you so absolutely defend the authenticity of the photo if you weren't there when it was taken? This is nothing but a farce!



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   
dk1,
Trust me - I like seeing the girls! The fact is there's plenty of other ways to handle that. Right now, I see something that, at best, belongs in BTS. Again, what's paranormal about a photoshopped pic? How can you so absolutely defend the authenticity of the photo if you weren't there when it was taken? This is nothing but a farce!



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   
dk1,
Trust me - I like seeing the girls! The fact is there's plenty of other ways to handle that. Right now, I see something that, at best, belongs in BTS. Again, what's paranormal about a photoshopped pic? How can you so absolutely defend the authenticity of the photo if you weren't there when it was taken? This is nothing but a farce!


d1k

posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by CommonSense
dk1,
Trust me - I like seeing the girls! The fact is there's plenty of other ways to handle that. Right now, I see something that, at best, belongs in BTS. Again, what's paranormal about a photoshopped pic? How can you so absolutely defend the authenticity of the photo if you weren't there when it was taken? This is nothing but a farce!


Just because you say its photoshopped means it should be in BTS? I have been sending these pictures out to people whom use PS everyday to try to get some answers and to prove it was not ps'd. So far 3 people whom use PS everyday for their job has said in this thread there is no evidence of any tampering.


How can you so absolutely defend the authenticity of the photo if you weren't there when it was taken?


What does that matter, you cannot edit pictures when they are still on the camera.

And what's paranomal about a picture with a guys legs missing.......gee nothing /sarcasim

Again, please do your name justice and try to use some common sense instead of posting in spite.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Well dk1,
That's great for them! That really doesn't change things. It is what it is! I'm not buying!
CS



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I guess this pic brings all whole new meaning to being swept of your feet by beautiful girls..lol..he lost them

Rynaldo



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join