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.

 

Personal UFO Photos Never Shown Online - [HOAX]

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ancientaliens
 


Not sure if i'm outta line here but have any of you seen this ats.com?

It never really went anywhere but it kinda reminds me of the description of the o'hare ufo a couple of years ago




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


I learned about EXIF data here - on another thread.

I didn't know that there was a such thing.

Good thing for metadata!



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
maybe this thread can be closed now and we can focus on imporant ufo related stuff

thanks



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ancientaliens
maybe this thread can be closed now and we can focus on imporant ufo related stuff

thanks


These kinds of threads get thrown into the hoax forum - they don't get shut down.

This is to show an example and have a reference, I believe.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by impaired
reply to post by Advantage
 


I learned about EXIF data here - on another thread.

I didn't know that there was a such thing.

Good thing for metadata!


There are even cooler things and here is just ONE of them.. ever heard of Geotracking information found on your digi photos and cell phone pics??
If not.. look it up. In some images there is a geotag... it gives the longitude and latitude of where the photo was taken. Specifically ones with navigational capabilities like a GPS equipped smart phone or camera. Say if someone makes a claim of something or has a photo of something illegal.. it can be tracked back to the exact spot in which the pic was taken.

This should send the conspiracy folks into a tizzy if they dont already know about it. LMAO! Just look it up and you will learn how to turn it off on your device.

edit on 7-1-2011 by Advantage because: Had to clarify and change a word!



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Tvision
 

Great photograph, even better since i enhanced it myself. inverted it with paint, no apparent photoshopping. Moved it to fxfoto and used the highlighter on the Craft. No shopping on it either, i brought out the aliens riding on the outside. Next i revealed the entities that live in heaven without any shop there either. I found two other "more solid" locations peopled by humanoid type beings that were invisible to your eyes...you can see them now. There is more but i think i have shown enough to verify that i know of that which i write.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   


There is a stealth aircraft left center, kind of curious don't you think.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Amazing how the OP went down in flames lying the whole time. I feel the OP is an example of how desperate people can get for attention and how they will actually start to believe their own lies. It's also pretty sad that they would be part of a unique community in where most of us take very serious and just crap on it like that, lie to its fellow members and expect pity. And in his last post he had the nerve to blame it on "us". Sadly he will back as another member soon. Or after the ban is lifted he will still hold the same ground on his innocence. However, the evidence doesn't lie, The OP however does though. Many times.

Knowledge trumped here, not crappy Photoshop skills and a story.

Beware hoaxters. Let this be a warning.
edit on 7-1-2011 by cluckerspud because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Some of you posting here might be interested in this. Here is the OP first photo reduced in size to 640x480:



So what you might ask?

Download the photo and check the EXIF data. It no longer shows Photoshop in the "Software" field. At least it doesn't when I view it in Irfanview, some of you seem to be able to retrieve more of the EXIF data than I can.

So where did it go you might ask?

I did a simple experiment I have been meaning to try. The EXIF data is at the beginning of the file. Using a simple hex editor you can see the hexadecimal values in the file AND the corresponding ASCII text where it's available. Once you find the software data it's a simple process to zero out the hexadecimal fields that store the software used data. Then you simply save the file using the original name and presto! no telltale software used record in the EXIF data.

Try it! It's fun! It's easy! I used a free hex editor called Hex Editor Neo. It also means even if the EXIF data looks good a photo may still have been faked.

Edit:

I just tried to download my altered photo and the EXIF data was stripped out. I'm going to try and find out why but if I don't, the message is still valid I just can't demonstrate it in the post.
edit on 7-1-2011 by wasco2 because: Technical difficultys

edit on 7-1-2011 by wasco2 because: (no reason given)


Ok, apparently photos stored on ATS Media have the EXIF data stripped. The photo is now on Photobucket and contains the EXIF data. Learned something on that one.
edit on 7-1-2011 by wasco2 because: Technical Difficulty



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by B1993
 





Hey dude, I am myself new here. I am sorry if I am disturbing you. How do you guys determine an image isn't fake? I would love to know too, I just got over excited. seeing that image... until i saw "photoshopped".. Be it fake or not, the image's good for my eyes.. lol thanks


Well some red flags for me is the fact that you claim to have taken the photos yourself, but in this paragraph you seem to indicate that you "found" the images.........you also seem to admit that it could be fake....."be it fake or not" if it wasnt fake why would you say this?

Doesnt set right....

Then on the pictures, the object is dark, and when close up, theres a glint on the window of the craft, while in other photo the object seems to be in shadow.

Just too many red flags for me..........not being ugly bro just saying.....

People here on ATS get this stuff all the time, they are pretty proficient at pulling the most genuine photos from those that arent
edit on 6-1-2011 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-1-2011 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

Aha nah it's all cool, thanks man for the info.
I said "be it fake or not" because most of you were saying, it's fake.
That's why to that regard
.
But
Uh-oh. the EXIF data says photoshop cs5 xD...
It could be him using the app to zoom on it, or re-size it or something.
weird...



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Tvision
 




Wish I could ask the OP if that spanking hurt. I know I shouldn't laugh at others pain. (so just a quiet "tee-hee")



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...Why don't you put your proof where your HOAX is......Resizing a photograph in PAINT does not make a photograph a hoax. You actually have to add something or take something away that changes the meaning of the photo. Since the claim is about the flying object all you have to do is show where it is changed. I did check it, can you say the same? Problems with EXIF
Wikipedia
Apart from not being a maintained standard, the Exif format has a number of drawbacks, mostly relating to its use of legacy file structures.
The derivation of Exif from the TIFF file structure using offset pointers in the files means that data can be spread anywhere within a file, which means that software is likely to corrupt any pointers or corresponding data that it doesn't decode/encode. For this reason most image editors damage or remove the Exif metadata to some extent upon saving.[5]
The standard defines a MakerNote tag, which allows camera manufacturers to place any custom format metadata in the file. This is used increasingly by camera manufacturers to store myriad camera settings not listed in the Exif standard, such as shooting modes, post-processing settings, serial number, focusing modes, etc. As this tag format is proprietary and manufacturer-specific, it can be prohibitively difficult to retrieve this information from an image (or properly preserve it when rewriting an image). Some manufacturers encrypt portions of the information; for example, Nikon encrypts the detailed lens data in their newer MakerNote data versions.[6]
The standard only allows TIFF or JPEG files — there is no provision for a "raw" file type which would be a direct data dump from the sensor device. This has caused camera manufacturers to invent many proprietary, incompatible "raw" file formats. To solve this problem, Adobe developed the DNG format (a TIFF-based raw file format), in hopes that manufacturers would standardize on a single, raw file format.
The Exif standard specifically states that color depth is always 24 bits.[7] However, many modern cameras, such as the Nikon D70 which captures 36 bits of color per pixel, can capture significantly more. Since Exif/DCF files cannot represent this color depth, many manufacturers have developed proprietary, non-compatible Raw image formats.
Some digital cameras can also capture video. The Exif standard has no provision for video files.
Exif is very often used in images created by scanners, however the standard makes no provisions for any scanner-specific information.
Photo manipulation software sometimes fails to update the embedded thumbnail after an editing operation, possibly causing the user to inadvertently publish compromising information.[8]
Exif metadata is restricted in size to 64 kB in JPEG images because according to the specification this information must be contained within a single JPEG APP1 segment. Although the FlashPix extensions allow information to span multiple JPEG APP2 segments, these extensions are not commonly used. This has prompted some camera manufacturers to develop non-standard techniques for storing the large preview images used by some digital cameras for LCD review. These non-standard extensions are commonly lost if a user re-saves the image using image editor software, possibly rendering the image incompatible with the original camera that created it.
There is no way to record time-zone information along with the time, thus rendering the stored time ambiguous.
There is no field to record readouts of a camera's accelerometers or inertial navigation system. Such data could help to establish the relationship between the image sensor’s XYZ coordinate system and the gravity vector (i.e., which way is down in this image). It could also establish relative camera positions or orientations in a sequence of photos.
Since the Exif tag contains information about the photo, it can pose a privacy issue. For example, a photo taken with a GPS-enabled camera can reveal the exact location it was taken, which is undesirable in some situations. By removing the Exif tag with software such as ExifTool before publishing, the photographer can avoid possible problems.


edit on 073131p://pm3117 by debris765nju because: to add wikipedia problems list for EXIF

edit on 083131p://pm3128 by debris765nju because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by B1993
Uh-oh. the EXIF data says photoshop cs5 xD...
It could be him using the app to zoom on it, or re-size it or something.
weird...


But that's the thing...

He said he never used Photoshop and doesn't even have it on his computer. That's what did it - the OP's own contradictions...

So you have the OP saying that, plus the EXIF data saying otherwise = lie = hoax...

I take this subject very seriously so therefore, I very much dislike hoaxers.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by debris765nju

reply to post by Tvision
 

Great photograph, even better since i enhanced it myself. inverted it with paint, no apparent photoshopping. Moved it to fxfoto and used the highlighter on the Craft. No shopping on it either, i brought out the aliens riding on the outside. Next i revealed the entities that live in heaven without any shop there either. I found two other "more solid" locations peopled by humanoid type beings that were invisible to your eyes...you can see them now. There is more but i think i have shown enough to verify that i know of that which i write.


Dude, what are you talking about? I don't see anything that you're mentioning, and I don't see a stealth aircraft...

The inverted pics do look interesting, but I see nothing about what you're talking about.

Besides, it was proven a hoax because the OP blatantly lied about having and using Photoshop. EXIF data does not lie.

So with that EMPIRICAL PROOF, the pictures are useless because they AREN'T REAL.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by impaired
 


If the op is like me, i have adobe because my computer keeps reloading it. Adobe calls it Paint, not photoshop. I wo uld not have known that but for the "invert colors" that i use because it is not available on my photo editor. I too checked the Exif and i also saw the Adobe Css. I checked the "element" Put CSS in the document head (2)
CSS in the document body adversely impacts rendering performance.
2 style block(s) in the pg3 body should be moved to the document head.
Remove unused CSS rules (185)
I found that the number of pixels had been reduced which is computerese for the picture was made smaller. I checked everything listed and there were no other changes.
You saw what i did to his photos, any alterations would have jumped out when i went over it.
I think this person is truthful and that he was unaware of Adobes sometime hidden features. I think he/she deserves the benefit of the doubt.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by impaired

Besides, it was proven a hoax because the OP blatantly lied about having and using Photoshop. EXIF data does not lie.

.


I keep hearing this and it may not be true. Look at my post above. Anyone with a hex editor and a little knowledge can modify EXIF data. We're lucky that most hoaxers aren't even aware of EXIF data but there will eventually be a hoax photo with surrepticiously modified EXIF data and dozens of people will be championing it's authenticity because of appropriate looking EXIF data.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by debris765nju
 


You sir, again, are barking up a hoaxed tree and spreading lies/misconceptions due to "whatever it is" that drives you to invent stories that are false.

Sir, in all due respect, everything you share on this site about aliens living in your house and crawling on your skin is absolutely poppycock.

Stop trying so hard to make a false thing real. Screwing with the colors of a digital pic with basic editing software so you get artificial artifacts to "magically appear" is hardly worthy of real attention.

How I long for the day that you either stop intentionally lying or stop unintentionally being "wrong".

MM



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by debris765nju
If the op is like me, i have adobe because my computer keeps reloading it.


Why if the OP is like you, would his computer do what your computer does?! That makes no sense AT ALL. And why would your computer keep loading a $700 program that you have to pay for and register.


Originally posted by debris765nju
Adobe calls it Paint, not photoshop.


Adobe has a buttload of programs. However Microsoft makes paint. How exactly is "Adobe" calling it "Paint"?!
Explain.


Originally posted by debris765nju
I think he/she deserves the benefit of the doubt.


He deserved it, yes. However lost it when he lied. Have you even bothered to read this thread?

Let me sum it up.

OP claimed these were the originals and did not own Photoshop or know anything about it.

Originally posted by Tvision
. These are originals, and furthermore I have no clue how to work photoshop. nor have I ever had it on any computer I've owned.,


As it turns out the OP lied, when he revealed this.


Originally posted by Tvision
Yes, I admit I did open the photographs in photoshop to insure the proper size on the forum. The originals are way too large to place here, and I only scaled them down so that they'd fit properly. This is NOT evidence that I "hoaxed" anything.


Unfortunately for him it WAS evidence of a hoax. The EXIF Data does not lie.


Here's the full data:

XMP — this group of metadata is encoded in 4,066 bytes (4.0k)

Already Applied True
Color Mode RGB
Create Date 2010:05:30 17:57:18-04:00
7 months, 7 days, 5 hours, 46 minutes, 18 seconds ago
Creator Tool Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Date Created 2010:05:30 17:57:18
7 months, 7 days, 2 hours, 46 minutes, 18 seconds ago
Document Ancestors adobe:docid:photoshop:cea7ce61-c41c-11db-b625-debb853a0f7b
Document ID xmp.did:FE24B9E90D1AE011B1E9818D824B60DD
Format image/jpeg
History Action saved, saved, saved
History Changed /, /, /
History Instance ID xmp.iid:FE24B9E90D1AE011B1E9818D824B60DD, xmp.iid:FF24B9E90D1AE011B1E9818D824B60DD, xmp.iid:AC690792141AE011B1E9818D824B60DD
History Software Agent Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows, Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows, Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
History When 2011:01:06 22:26:27-05:00, 2011:01:06 22:26:27-05:00, 2011:01:06 23:14:07-05:00

ICC Profile Name sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Instance ID xmp.iid:AC690792141AE011B1E9818D824B60DD
Legacy IPTC Digest 0324B76B194E3BEF38C072B27EBFF805
Metadata Date 2011:01:06 23:14:07-05:00
29 minutes, 29 seconds ago
Modify Date 2011:01:06 23:14:07-05:00
29 minutes, 29 seconds ago
Original Document ID xmp.did:FE24B9E90D1AE011B1E9818D824B60DD
XMP (4,066 bytes binary data)
XMP Toolkit Adobe XMP Core 5.0-c060 61.134777, 2010/02/12-17:32:00


So now I have to ask, what is your motive to save OP's credibility?!



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by debris765nju
reply to post by impaired
 


If the op is like me, i have adobe because my computer keeps reloading it. Adobe calls it Paint, not photoshop. I wo uld not have known that but for the "invert colors" that i use because it is not available on my photo editor. I too checked the Exif and i also saw the Adobe Css. I checked the "element" Put CSS in the document head (2)
CSS in the document body adversely impacts rendering performance.
2 style block(s) in the pg3 body should be moved to the document head.
Remove unused CSS rules (185)
I found that the number of pixels had been reduced which is computerese for the picture was made smaller. I checked everything listed and there were no other changes.
You saw what i did to his photos, any alterations would have jumped out when i went over it.
I think this person is truthful and that he was unaware of Adobes sometime hidden features. I think he/she deserves the benefit of the doubt.


1. "Paint" is Microsoft....not Adobe. Photoshop is Adobe. It does not come with one's computer. You have to buy it and install it. Paint comes preloaded.
2. Fact: The images were edited in Photosohp.
3. Your assessment is wrong.
4. OP caught in a few lies.
5. Thread moved to HOAX because OP was hoaxing.

The end.
edit on January 9th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
sorry op but i think this is complete fake and you should be banned from ATS forever.

now to shoot down the rest of you! most of you that comment see a blurry picture of a UFO or a blurry video and you complain "its CGI" "ITS PHOTOSHOP" "the quality is no way good enough", then you will see a perfect picture or video and say "to good to be true" "CGI", you lot are supposed to be the ones trying to prove existance how are you supposed to do that when you DEBUNK everything!

peace out
think about it
and keeping watching them skies



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join