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: 16
13
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
[Well dog gone I went to that site to see and it said it was removed.




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I think the OP was pushing us to look at the HEX data because of this..
After the copyright in the EXIF there is:- F.O.I.S.2.2.C.L.A.S.S.I.F.I.C.A.T.I.O.N..



Also.. the FOI Classifications all beginning with 22 are Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations.
FBI FOI Link
edit on 12/1/2011 by UKWO1Phot because: 2 add foi



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Hmm ...

The compression signature on the image dscf0979r.jpg. Looks like this image has been edited.


EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality

The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
SW :[GIMP ] [092 ]
SW :[IrfanView ] [092 ]
SW :[idImager ] [092 ]
SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [092 ]
SW :[NeatImage ] [092 ]
SW :[Paint.NET ] [092 ]
SW :[Photomatix ] [092 ]
SW :[XnView ] [092 ]

And the same with the image c23ed8783102.jpg

The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
SW :[GIMP ] [080 ]
SW :[IrfanView ] [080 ]
SW :[idImager ] [080 ]
SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [080 ]
SW :[NeatImage ] [080 ]
SW :[Paint.NET ] [080 ]
SW :[Photomatix ] [080 ]
SW :[XnView ] [080 ]

edit on 12/1/11 by defiler because: I found them



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by defiler
Can someone please give me a link of the page that contains the original photos. I will see if they have a signature that matches some of the photo editing software.


This has been done many times already by various members.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by defiler
Can someone please give me a link of the page that contains the original photos. I will see if they have a signature that matches some of the photo editing software.


This has been done many times already by various members.


The originals the OP uploaded are unavailable at the host site.
The 1 you posted is the only original available and that image can't be downloaded from the link you posted.

So if anyone has the originals zip them up and post a link..



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by defiler
Can someone please give me a link of the page that contains the original photos. I will see if they have a signature that matches some of the photo editing software.


This has been done many times already by various members.


The originals the OP uploaded are unavailable at the host site.
The 1 you posted is the only original available and that image can't be downloaded from the link you posted.

So if anyone has the originals zip them up and post a link..


The photos are posted on the thread somewhere...including some uploads to photobucket by a member. I do not know what page. You will have to read the whole thread to find them. They have been analyzed by many on this thread. Analysis can be found throughout the thread.
edit on January 12th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by defiler
Hmm ...

The compression signature on the image dscf0979r.jpg. Looks like this image has been edited.


EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality

The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
SW :[GIMP ] [092 ]
SW :[IrfanView ] [092 ]
SW :[idImager ] [092 ]
SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [092 ]
SW :[NeatImage ] [092 ]
SW :[Paint.NET ] [092 ]
SW :[Photomatix ] [092 ]
SW :[XnView ] [092 ]

And the same with the image c23ed8783102.jpg

The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
SW :[GIMP ] [080 ]
SW :[IrfanView ] [080 ]
SW :[idImager ] [080 ]
SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [080 ]
SW :[NeatImage ] [080 ]
SW :[Paint.NET ] [080 ]
SW :[Photomatix ] [080 ]
SW :[XnView ] [080 ]

edit on 12/1/11 by defiler because: I found them


Can you please elaborate on how you draw this conclusion?
Thanks for helping out.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by defiler
Hmm ...

The compression signature on the image dscf0979r.jpg. Looks like this image has been edited.


EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality

The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
SW :[GIMP ] [092 ]
SW :[IrfanView ] [092 ]
SW :[idImager ] [092 ]
SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [092 ]
SW :[NeatImage ] [092 ]
SW :[Paint.NET ] [092 ]
SW :[Photomatix ] [092 ]
SW :[XnView ] [092 ]

And the same with the image c23ed8783102.jpg

The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
SW :[GIMP ] [080 ]
SW :[IrfanView ] [080 ]
SW :[idImager ] [080 ]
SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [080 ]
SW :[NeatImage ] [080 ]
SW :[Paint.NET ] [080 ]
SW :[Photomatix ] [080 ]
SW :[XnView ] [080 ]

edit on 12/1/11 by defiler because: I found them


First....what software did you use....second...explain your analysis.

Thank you.

If you would read the entire thread you will see there are MANY members who have done an analysis on the 3 photos.
edit on January 12th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


That's the problem. The OP originals (or his copies) aren't available now.
He sent you a full size original whereas the other 2 weren't.

The reason is I'm looking at the hex data and everytime it was moved/edited etc extra HEX data is added. I just wanted to compare them all before I can confirm something..



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
to the op.
i couldnt even open it..
later on i saw it in the thread...looks like a good shot of a disc shaped ufo



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I finally made it to the end of the thread....and I forgot what I was going to say



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
@ cluckerspud

I used JPEGsnoop



One of the latest features in JPEGsnoop is an internal database that compares an image against a large number of compression signatures. JPEGsnoop reports what digital camera or software was likely used to generate the image. This is extremely useful in determining whether or not a photo has been edited / tampered in any way.


You can try it. So if someone has the originals please run them through this program.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Such pic is very easily photoshopped. Very very easy. Just mark an area and press delete with white bacground, then use rubber tool around it with 1% hardness to make it seem like it glows.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by EricLintScD
 


Photographing trough a window and using the indoor light to create reflections. Nice try.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
people do use a photo editor ro resize the image before posting online ....



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by defiler
 


The problem is that that method is not a guarantee that any program was used, a camera can use the same compression signature and not be on their list.

Any system like that depends on how complete and up to date their cameras and programs database is.

And the signature can be altered in the same way as the Exif data.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Yes a signature can be altered, and this method isn't 100 % certain. But I don't think there are compression methods on some cameras that can give a false positive like some photo editing software maybe as another camera but not the other way around. And the jpeg format is lossy and I'm sure that you are aware when you reopen the image with the intention to edit it and then save it it will further loose its quality. So the signature will be different. That program hasn't fail me so far..
There are other ways to determine if the image is edited but they are way to complicated for me.
Maybe I'm wrong...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Every edit/look shows up in the HEX data..
IF I can get the originals then it's all up in the air..




top topics



 
13
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join