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.

 

UFO photo.

page: 14
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


No, there's no such thing as time passed since the photo was taken in the EXIF data, the EXIF data only shows the date and time when the photo was taken, it's saved with the photo as part of the file.

I guess that information was added by the program used to read the EXIF data, and probably uses the "File Modification Date/Time" part of the EXIF data that is created when we save the photo to another disk.

Sorry...


Can you please explain this further. I do not understand. If there is something wrong with the exif data....I think it would help all of us (including the OP).

Photo was posted. And Jeffrey's EXIF viewer was used. Is there a fault with that site? Is reading EXIF data now pointless?
edit on January 11th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by EricLintScD
I'm going to explain as clear as i can, it seems some people are not satisfied until they prove this as a fake which it isn't so we could be here all year arguing over something that isn't true and people trying to find errors in what i say which also doesn't exist.

Here we go...

1) The camera which was used was set up NOT to store time, only date.

2) These photos were obtained by a friend I know only online, not in real life, I don't know what his job title is and i've never had a reason to ask what it is, I've known him for about 4 years and he is a similar age as me (56).

3) I was not aware of the copyright, I didn't even bother looking for one if I'm honest.

4) I can only give you details which are available to me, I wasn't there so i cant be 100% sure on the specifics.

I think ive answered all the questions, I do not have an answer to every question. Sorry

Kind Regards
.
Eric.


You're right Eric, and I apologize if I made it seem as if I was trying to shoot the messenger. Myself along with many others are just looking to have questions answered. As we speak, certain methods of analyzing photos is now being scrutinized. We shall see what the outcome is.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by believerofgod
 


Its fine
, I want these analyzed just as much as you do, I don't understand why people make so much deal of me trying to make a hoax, why would I want to create a photo of a blob on a photo, what would i gain except being banned from forums which i enjoy reading and participating in, seriously... it's not as if I'm trying to make you believe it's an alien from planet zorg, I'm as interested as everyone else to find the truth about the photos, that's why I posted them here, but people are calling me a liar and I really don't understand.... If I came here and said "Hey i have 3 photos of an alien space craft from the planet zorg" then I could understand, but I haven't.

I guess people here automatically assume that's the way I'm trying to present them, but that's not the case.

Kind regards

Eric.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


I would assume the website has a built-in program to provide that information off of the date/time the pictures are taken in the exif. Could very well be that Jeffery's isn't the best place to go for exif checking, though.

But the point you made still remains valid, if the dates and times are that far apart on any other exif viewers there's a serious problem.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


I would assume the website has a built-in program to provide that information off of the date/time the pictures are taken in the exif. Could very well be that Jeffery's isn't the best place to go for exif checking, though.

But the point you made still remains valid, if the dates and times are that far apart on any other exif viewers there's a serious problem.

Yeah. It is used often...by many here...so if that site is flawed somehow...we need to know so we can all stop using it.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
EXIF data has never been safe. You can just change the internal time from the camera. It's like having a wireless network. If somebody wants to break it, they can do so in about 5 minutes if they really want to. EXIF data is to keep honest people honest, like wireless networks are to keep honest people out.

When security methods are easily bypassed by the opposition but seem solid to those "protected" they really aren't security measures. Similar thing for EXIF data. It's quite easy to totally alter and falsify.

Here, I'll do it for ya'll to show you.

i52.tinypic.com... - random image from wikipedia, original link upload.wikimedia.org... I saved and uploaded for posterity to tinypic (which doesn't strip EXIF data)

Here's the same image with the "Make", "Model", and most of the date fields edited: i54.tinypic.com...

Use Jeffrey's EXIF Viewer: regex.info...

There has never been a time when EXIF data could not be manipulated.
edit: If you're wondering why I put what I put, then you need to see Akira, don't watch this if you haven't seen it though as it is a MAJOR spoiler: www.youtube.com...
edit on 11-1-2011 by tetsuo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by tetsuo
 


Yes, I do know that.

Im trying to understand Armap's comment about the EXIF data in regards to the 10 hour time difference on the 3rd photo.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Ah, I misunderstood. So ArMap was talking about an EXIF viewer or online photo hosting service that could automatically change the EXIF data when the image is uploaded/viewed. This is common, but I really don't know if it would change ALL the date fields...

One very popular image host which I use regularly for quick and easy uploading is www.imgur.com, and it strips EXIF data. Here's that same image again, but uploaded to imgur. When you run it through an EXIF viewer, there will be no EXIF data; it's been stripped.

i.imgur.com...

It's certainly possible that this data would be altered, and conceivable that it could alter just the dates.
I'll edit this in a sec once I figure out the default photo dimensions for the camera that took the photos - if it's larger, then that would be evidence that the photos HAVE been sent through software which could have caused the discrepancy in the dates. Just a sec

edit: fugifilm's site www.fujifilm.com...
Looks like the pixel dimensions 2,816 × 2,112 are the defaults for medium image quality (which these photos certainly seem to be). That doesn't really tell us anything...and I'm about at the end of my usefulness in determining whether the EXIF or the image itself has been manipulated.

I don't know of any breadcrumb trails for EXIF data editing, HOWEVER since these images seem like they might be unedited, maybe the "Date Modified" or "Date Created" fields of windows/mac/linux will have different times? If date created is, for example, 9/23, but date modified is the same date in the EXIF data, then we will know that the images were taken on the 9/23 and then later the EXIF data was altered, likely as part of an automated processing. I think that might help? Help me if my logic is off in this, if the date created/modified field works differently than I think it does...
edit on 11-1-2011 by tetsuo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by tetsuo
 


Thanks for your response and help!
Hopefully we can figure this EXIF issue out....it is important for this forum!



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by EricLintScD
 


just so you understand how this works, in order for anything to be a real "UFO", it first has to be proven what it isn't. So people are going to go with the obvious things first, then try to prove them. The easiest thing is CGI, or Photoshop manipulation. You have done a good job at answering questions as best you know them. There will always be the ones who think they know but don't, thankfully, there are a few here who will take the time to study these things and dissect them to figure it out. Please take the positive with you and ignore the negative.

Aramap is one of the best at dealing with these things. Just try not to let the aggressive posts get to you.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
The exif data is intriguing, I didn't know such thing existed!

I've been reading up about it this afternoon and I understand how important it must be to this community as a tool to debunk rubbish so i've acctually found something foolproof! i think...

What i've been told is that if you strip the exif data from a file, it isn't really gone, quite like when you format a computer, even though it's gone kind of, it's still there deep down!

If you open a file using HEX?? (not sure what hex is but i'm sure you do) all the information about the file is still intact and you can't remove it, because if you delete any hex data then the file becomes corrupt so it's technically impossible to delete any data from a file completely.
.
I might be totally wrong, but this is what i've read so it might be worth checking out this idea and use hex instead of exif in future??

Like i said i'm no expert so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Kind regards

Eric.
edit on 11-1-2011 by EricLintScD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
This might help (but greeneyedleo you'll have to run the images through since only you have the original, hi-res copies): www.impulseadventure.com...

I found it after reading this post on a digital photography forum regarding a photo contest where image processing was not allowed. They recommended this JPEG Snoop app to do a quick rough check on images to see if they look to be processed in any way, and what apps they might have run through. It snoops the compression methods used, or something like that. Then we can compare that to the EXIF data and make sure they match...

edit: here's that post, it's actually quite informative: forums.dpreview.com...

Or if you can upload the originals to www.sendspace.com or www.rapidshare.com in a zip file, that way there's no change the image host would alter EXIF data.

Most of what we are doing will either prove nothing, or that it was manipulated. We can't really proved it was not manipulated, methinks.

EricLintScD - we aren't trying to tear your quite intriguing photos up. We really appreciate you posting and being so forthcoming with information. We just have to be very harsh questioners and investigators to ensure we don't pass off a fake as the real deal. Please understand our attitude is just because we all have a FIERY passion for this kinda thing


edit on 11-1-2011 by tetsuo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Just to make you aware so you don't think i've ran away, I finish work now so I'm heading home, I'll be back on here same time tomorrow unless i can access ATS from home this evening!

Kind regards

Eric.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by EricLintScD
 


Eric
Thank you for being so forthcoming to this process. Often times someone will run away as soon as their submission is questioned, which only makes people question them more honestly. At the end of the day, these are intriguing images, and if they are proven to some as manipulated or dishonest, I dont think abyone will be blaming you. It will most likely be a case of someone giving you these imagesand you sharing them in good faith.

The conversation has been good here, and it has become a learning experience for yourself and other members as i read through the thread.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
There's a ten hour gap between the photos if im reading that right .

I stared at the time for quite some time and yet did not notice that before now. :O



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by EricLintScD
reply to post by believerofgod
 


I dont get your point? I said it was a slow moving UFO, and I've come to the conclusion it could be a weather balloon, what's wrong with that? Weather balloons move slowly, I couldn't zoom in to the photo and use all the fancy tools like everyone else can, your point is totally invalid.

Kind regards

Eric.
edit on 11-1-2011 by EricLintScD because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2011 by EricLintScD because: (no reason given)

I am sure the weather balloon magically titled and followed the angle of your camera in every single picture.
This is now weather balloon, it is a photoshopped picture. Next time you or your friend hoax something dont try to make it so perfect.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
BigFurryTexan used this site in analyzing another pic on another thread. Has anyone used it here?

Here is the analysis of the second pic

errorlevelanalysis.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Sorry for not being clear, that happens frequently with posts I made in a hurry during my lunch break.


What I meant is that the Exif specification does not have a specific field for the time elapsed since the photo was taken, like "two days ago".

That site, probably thinking it was a good idea, uses the current date and time and shows how long ago the photo was taken. You can see it for yourself if you use the same photo twice, it will show a different time lapse according to the time you let go by until you used it a second time.

I don't use any site to see the Exif data on images, Opera does that by itself, I just have to right-click and chose "properties".



But when I want to see the complete Exif information (Opera only shows the most common attributes) I use ExifTool, a simple and very good Exif viewer and editor.

In the case of the photos that are this thread's topic, I could only get two photos with Exif data, and this is what ExifTool shows:


---- ExifTool ----
ExifTool Version Number : 8.15
Warning : [minor] Unknown APP14 segment
---- System ----
File Name : dscf0976a.jpg
Directory : (information removed)
File Size : 2.7 MB
File Modification Date/Time : 2011:01:09 23:58:29+00:00
File Permissions : rw-rw-rw-
---- File ----
File Type : JPEG
MIME Type : image/jpeg
Exif Byte Order : Little-endian (Intel, II)
Image Width : 2816
Image Height : 2112
Encoding Process : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample : 8
Color Components : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:4:4 (1 1)
---- JFIF ----
JFIF Version : 1.02
Resolution Unit : None
X Resolution : 100
Y Resolution : 100
---- IFD0 ----
Make : FUJIFILM
Camera Model Name : FinePix F200EXR
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
X Resolution : 72
Y Resolution : 72
Resolution Unit : inches
Software : Digital Camera FinePix F200EXR Ver1.20
Modify Date : 2010:09:29 00:00:00
Y Cb Cr Positioning : Unknown (65535)
Copyright : © Crown Copyright/MOD 2010
XP Comment : S22
---- ExifIFD ----
Exposure Time : 1/111
F Number : 9.0
Exposure Program : Not Defined
Exif Version : 0210
Date/Time Original : 2010:09:29 00:00:00
Create Date : 2010:09:29 00:00:00
Compressed Bits Per Pixel : 4
Shutter Speed Value : 1/111
Aperture Value : 1.$
Brightness Value : 9.01
Exposure Compensation : 0
Max Aperture Value : 3.2
Subject Distance : 0 m
Light Source : Unknown
Flash : No Flash
Focal Length : 6.4 mm
Exif Image Width : 2816
Exif Image Height : 2112
---- Ducky ----
Quality : 100%
Copyright :
---- Composite ----
Aperture : 9.0
Image Size : 2816x2112
Shutter Speed : 1/111
Focal Length : 6.4 mm



---- ExifTool ----
ExifTool Version Number : 8.15
Warning : [minor] Unknown APP14 segment
---- System ----
File Name : dscf0979r.jpg
Directory : (information removed)
File Size : 2.6 MB
File Modification Date/Time : 2011:01:10 23:19:39+00:00
File Permissions : rw-rw-rw-
---- File ----
File Type : JPEG
MIME Type : image/jpeg
Exif Byte Order : Big-endian (Motorola, MM)
Image Width : 2816
Image Height : 2112
Encoding Process : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample : 8
Color Components : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:4:4 (1 1)
---- JFIF ----
JFIF Version : 1.02
Resolution Unit : inches
X Resolution : 72
Y Resolution : 72
---- IFD0 ----
Make : FUJIFILM
Camera Model Name : FinePix F200EXR
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
X Resolution : 72
Y Resolution : 72
Resolution Unit : inches
Software : Digital Camera FinePix F200EXR Ver1.20
Modify Date : 2010:09:29 00:00:00
Y Cb Cr Positioning : Unknown (65535)
Copyright : © Crown Copyright/MOD 2010
XP Comment : FOI S22 Classification
Padding : (Binary data 2014 bytes, use -b option to extract)
---- ExifIFD ----
Exposure Time : 1/111
F Number : 9.0
Exposure Program : Not Defined
Exif Version : 0210
Date/Time Original : 2010:09:29 00:00:00
Create Date : 2010:09:29 00:00:00
Compressed Bits Per Pixel : 4
Shutter Speed Value : 1/111
Aperture Value : 1.$
Brightness Value : 9.01
Exposure Compensation : 0
Max Aperture Value : 3.2
Subject Distance : 0 m
Light Source : Unknown
Flash : No Flash
Focal Length : 6.4 mm
Exif Image Width : 2816
Exif Image Height : 2112
Padding : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
---- Ducky ----
Quality : 100%
Copyright :
---- Composite ----
Aperture : 9.0
Image Size : 2816x2112
Shutter Speed : 1/111
Focal Length : 6.4 mm

(I only removed the information about the location of the files on my computer, you don't need to know that)

edit on 11/1/2011 by ArMaP because: tag mess-up




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiteraryOneTwo
reply to post by lewtra
 


I have followed through this interesting study in photography and wonder at everyone who wants to subject themselves to all this massive amount of photographic jargon when all one did was to take a picture and post it to share. I recall the original statement was to see a genuine ufo. The debate about it has been incredible.


(Scratching head) I enjoy reading the massive amount of jargon, even though I don't know what half of it means.

Thanks to Tetsuo's contribution and his incredible knowledge of photography, it has made for great read, thus far.



I did learn about imageshack and how to join and share photos there as a result of this ats sharing method. Thanks for introducing me to another photo share group.

I prefer photobucket.com... it includes a nice little editing program too. Media to use on Ats, just upload to your Ats media.



I would hope that all those who claim to have seen this ufo keep and maintain a journal of all their experiences from now until whenever to see if life goes on normally as it had before the sighting or if it somehow changes on them. I find that ufo experiences often have strange consequences for those who see them

Yes I agree, you should start a thread on it.
With all the discrepancies concerning exif data, I don't think it can be used has a proof of anything really, like ArMaP shows, it is all too easy to manipulate, but I have seen it trip up a few hoaxers.
I don't think there will be a conclusion to the Photo's presented, it is all in the eye of the beholder, me thinks.

Thanks for the chat, goodnight.

Lewtra


edit on 11/1/2011 by lewtra because: Gramma.,';#



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Just a quick question..
Are these the only images they gave you? Did they mention video?

I ask as this model camera also has video capability..

p.s. Anyone got an original as you can try the hex headers through
Hex Editor Neo (free)
edit on 11/1/2011 by UKWO1Phot because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/1/2011 by UKWO1Phot because: 2 add ps



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join