UFO photo.

OP sent me another photo....

PHOTO HERE

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
OP sent me another photo....

PHOTO HERE

EXIF data

edit on January 10th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

isnt that the same as the other image?
I havnt looked at them side by side yet, but looks almost exact

it is the same that kandisky uploaded to photobucket here:
kandisky image

reply to post by youdidntseeme


Yup fixing now.....copied wrong link

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
OP sent me another photo....

PHOTO HERE

EXIF data

edit on January 10th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

isnt that the same as the other image?
I havnt looked at them side by side yet, but looks almost exact

It is -- the same file name, also (dscf0979r.jpg)

GEL: Just to clarify, this is the 2nd picture, which was also posted earlier. Is there a 3rd picture
(perhaps it would be helpful at this stage to post all of the OP's photos in one place again.)



EDIT TO ADD:

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by youdidntseeme

 

Yup fixing now.....copied wrong link

Thanks

What about the exif data?

Yes, I know its the same....I accidently copied the wrong URL....

Fixed now..

3rd photo

Did some photoshop Levels adjustments:

and embedding to the thread for all to see:

According to the Google map location that the OP provided, the nearest town of note is Fethiye. Which is a big tourist destination for Brits according to Wiki.

In the last ten years Fethiye has become a magnet for British citizens. Apart from its climate and natural beauty, the Britons are attracted by its less expensive lifestyle and the hospitality of the local people. The British population in Turkey is between 34,000 and 38,000. As a result of the large British population and the high numbers of Britons going there for holiday, Fethiye-Öludeniz was chosen as the best tourism centre in the world by The Times and The Guardian newspapers in 2007. Over 7,000 British citizens permanently live in Fethiye, while approximately 600,000 British tourists visit the town every summer.

The first link mentions the small area that the OP says is very near where the pics where taken.

So it is possible that these photos did come from a MOD camera from soldiers on leave from Afghanistan. The fellow sitting in from of the jeep in the second pic looks like he is sporting a military hair cut.

So that leads me to ask if that copyright is legit and these are UK MOD personnel photos taken on a MOD camera does he have permission to be posting these pics?

MOD copyright FAQ's

Similar adjustments for the third photo:

i.imgur.com...

reply to post by GAOTU789


The permission part is something I questioned ealier as well,
I did find this and posted it earlier, it was a repeat of Greeneyesleo's post as well:

The material featured on this website is protected by Crown copyright unless otherwise indicated. This material may be reproduced for the purposes of non-commercial research or private study and for the purposes of reporting current events only.

Any reproduction of this material for these purposes must be acknowledged in the following way: © Crown Copyright/MOD followed by the year (e.g. © Crown Copyright/MOD 2007)

source MOD

Now the image was not off of the website, however it is being used for research and non commercial private study, and it is clear that the copyright is held by the MOD and not ATS or the OP. And in fact the copyright info is presented exactly as directed by the above link.

cant get to it sigh

reply to post by youdidntseeme


That's where I am a little concerned/.confused. First It really isn't private study/research to present them here. And secondly, if these are actual MOD copyrighted photo's and the OP has tampered with them with the intent to hoax ATS, there are some consequences for that.

reply to post by tetsuo


This seals the deal for me. Look at the artifacts that are only around the "ufo."

The third image is so clearly photoshopped in. There is a friggin box around the "ufo" if you zoom in and play with the levels. I think someone spent some time on the first two, and then tried to rush out the third to keep our interest. Why wouldn't you just dump them all on us at once unless you were seeking prolonged attention?

My verdict: Photoshopped in.

PS- Sorry for not taking the time to save images and show you what im doing or looking at. I don't have the time right now.

Originally posted by midniteracerx
reply to post by tetsuo

 

The third image is so clearly photoshopped in. There is a friggin box around the "ufo" if you zoom in and play with the levels. I think someone spent some time on the first two, and then tried to rush out the third to keep our interest. Why wouldn't you just dump them all on us at once unless you were seeking prolonged attention?

I just noticed that aswell. Good catch my friend.

To avoid confusion, here are the photo's. I have resized them, so there is no need to scroll.

Picture 1


2


3


The easiest way to remove egg from the face is, hot soapy water and a sponge. cheers

Originally posted by apodictic

Originally posted by midniteracerx
reply to post by tetsuo

 

The third image is so clearly photoshopped in. There is a friggin box around the "ufo" if you zoom in and play with the levels. I think someone spent some time on the first two, and then tried to rush out the third to keep our interest. Why wouldn't you just dump them all on us at once unless you were seeking prolonged attention?

I just noticed that aswell. Good catch my friend.

Those could be "blocking artifacts" that could be in any "real" jpeg image. That occurs because of jpg compression. The artifact comes about due to the jpg algorithm trying to compress and interpolate color information into fewer pixels than the "raw" image. The same artifact occurs where the foreground trees meet the sky in the 3rd image.

I'm not saying these images are real; I'm just saying that the blocking around the object could be perfectly normal. These would also occur if the "UFO" was photoshopped in later, then subjected to jpg compression.


EDIT TO ADD:
See tetsuo's fine description of compression artifacts (with examples) three posts below.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Touche. I guess there's no real way to tell if the image is doctored or not. Sigh. Oh well.

Originally posted by midniteracerx
reply to post by tetsuo

 

This seals the deal for me. Look at the artifacts that are only around the "ufo."

The third image is so clearly photoshopped in. There is a friggin box around the "ufo" if you zoom in and play with the levels. I think someone spent some time on the first two, and then tried to rush out the third to keep our interest. Why wouldn't you just dump them all on us at once unless you were seeking prolonged attention?

My verdict: Photoshopped in.

PS- Sorry for not taking the time to save images and show you what im doing or looking at. I don't have the time right now.

Uh, no, I just did quite a bit of fiddling about in PS w/ levels, contrast, threshold, exposure, and channels and that is a real something. The box you are referring to is a jpeg compression artifact. That blocking is expected. Here is an example of jpeg compression creating blocky things around objects in an unedited image:



The reason there are blockies in jpegs (and most compressed images) is that it works by finding retangular areas in which there is a similar color or pattern which can be repeated. It takes less storage space when the same pixel/pattern is repeated over an area of 2 or more pixels/patterns. So around the edges of objects, in smooth color gradients, and just low-quality compression (including most digital cameras, which take photos in the .RAW format and then compress to jpeg), you will see rectangular shapes. It in no way hurts the image's credibility/legitimacy.

reply to post by tetsuo


Very good example here.
When you zoom in on any image, you will find the same artifacts.

Offtopic post script:

From Philly?