The end of the UFOs photos tampering?

Roger Cozien, French mathematics Phd and former criminology expert, presented in 2010 May at the French National Assembly a software called Tungstene, which should make possible to know if a photo has been altered in any way.

For Mister Cozien and for the deputy Valérie Boyer as well, at the origin of a law project for the reporting of people whose appearance has been altered by image tampering, this is an end to the lie about the photos forgeries that our society had too long and too often tolerated .

One can cite the "gummed beads" celebrities that impose a new standard for the teens and push them to anorexia, or the missile that magically appeared on a picture of war on the front page of a grand public magazine to make the scene more dramatic and increase sales....
But it must also serve in the judicial field as well, like that was the case during a recent lawsuit against a rugby player in Ireland, with the photo that involved him and that, in fact, was tampered with.

If this technology developed by the company eXo makina remains restricted to large structures due to its cost (+/- 50.000$ actually...) and special training for its use, a large public version is scheduled.
It also worth a note that the company is working on another similar technology, but for videos studies.

SOURCE (in french)

Tungstene site

Examples:










Hopefully, the "grand public" version will not be that expensive...

And the first thing that will happen is that people will find out how to spoof the software.

The open air concert was a bit of a giveaway with that huge shadow filling up the space being the 'invisible' lighting booth.

It looks to be a useful tool but excuses of cropping/Flickr compression and poor quality will make up a lot of the photos from the general hoaxers who don't use YouTube to do their dirty work for them.

Flag for a nice find though!

-m0r

reply to post by elevenaugust

The end of the UFOs photos tampering?

The first line problem here is rust so... what I am about to say means nothing.

I have been a photo hobbiest since 1997. I am comfortable with any image and can pretty much do as I please with them. Chances are that if I did a hoax photo that wasn't obvious... and I really put some effort into it, you'd either never know it or for sure, never prove it.

That's just how it is. And you know what else? There are a kajillion people out there with the same abilities... and most of them are better than I am.

You can't beat this. The only road is to accept that there is always going to be that element... those who fake UFO/paranormal images. You'll never be able to rest because the amateur photo manipulator only gets better with time and effort. After that, you either decide that all photos are fakes or you will spend hours with each one picking out the dodges.

Anyway, back to the thing about rust...

We all get old. yesterday (the 7th) was my birthday so I bought my wife a new riding lawnmower (she's from Ohio... go figure). It was her choice, lol. While she was out screaming around our lot, I took her pic and then, did the typical treatment of adding wings and claws and...

She was hot.

Anyway... so here I am on my birthday in the doghouse in the yard nd have not a doggone thing to show for any of it except that I am damned good with pictures.

So shoot me.

Originally posted by redoubt
While she was out screaming around our lot, I took her pic and then, did the typical treatment of adding wings and claws and...

She was hot.

That's quite the claim there; care to provide evidence?!

-m0r

About time!
Dont listen to those that say this is impossible or pointless. Like with anything it is a game of cat and mouse between the good and the bad guys - but techniques like this let us analyse the bad guys past works to determine which are fake more accurately - sure they will find a ways around it for future works, but the more effort required the less fakes come out. Also noteworthy - this software makes it harder for people to digitally manipulate a photo to appear real - but not harder to manipulate the viewer in to thinking an object is something it is not.

Originally posted by m0r1arty
And the first thing that will happen is that people will find out how to spoof the software.

The major problem I see with this software is that no human invention is perfect but that doesn't prevent people from thinking it is.

It does sound like a good idea, however the poster who mentioned that people will figure out how to flaw the program is right.

It doesn't matter. The new paradigm of Ufology is to concentrate on the I.C.E. (independent corroborative eyewitnesses) above all other matters. Analyzing photography is so yesterday.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
It doesn't matter. The new paradigm of Ufology is to concentrate on the I.C.E. (independent corroborative eyewitnesses) above all other matters. Analyzing photography is so yesterday.

edit on 8-3-2011 by FOXMULDER147 because: (no reason given)

I hope I never have a close encounter when I'm alone.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
It doesn't matter. The new paradigm of Ufology is to concentrate on the I.C.E. (independent corroborative eyewitnesses) above all other matters. Analyzing photography is so yesterday.

edit on 8-3-2011 by FOXMULDER147 because: (no reason given)

Analyzing photography should be an important part of any serious UFO investigation, IMHO.

You're facing a witness that have both an incredible story and an incredible photography, will you say to him: "Nowadays, moderns ufologists only concentrate on the I.C.E., as analyzing photographies is so yesterday, you can throw it to the bin..."

Originally posted by elevenaugust

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
It doesn't matter. The new paradigm of Ufology is to concentrate on the I.C.E. (independent corroborative eyewitnesses) above all other matters. Analyzing photography is so yesterday.

edit on 8-3-2011 by FOXMULDER147 because: (no reason given)

Analyzing photography should be an important part of any serious UFO investigation, IMHO.

You're facing a witness that have both an incredible story and an incredible photography, will you say to him: "Nowadays, moderns ufologists only concentrate on the I.C.E., as analyzing photographies is so yesterday, you can throw it to the bin..."

But we already have hundreds of such individual cases. It's very easy, today, to hoax a good story and good photographic evidence. I wouldn't throw it in the bin, however, as another case reported in the same location will add weight to the claim.

Originally posted by subby

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
It doesn't matter. The new paradigm of Ufology is to concentrate on the I.C.E. (independent corroborative eyewitnesses) above all other matters. Analyzing photography is so yesterday.

edit on 8-3-2011 by FOXMULDER147 because: (no reason given)

I hope I never have a close encounter when I'm alone.

edit on 8-3-2011 by subby because: (no reason given)

I hope you don't either. I'd much rather you had an encounter with hundreds of other people present. That way we could verify your claims.

Imagine if I saw Bigfoot in the forest. I take a photo of his back as he runs away. My experience could be real, my photograph could be real, but what value would my experience have? The answer is very little, especially in the modern world of easy CGI and computer fakery. If another two people, unconnected to me, saw the same thing, then we would have a case of some value.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
It's very easy, today, to hoax a good story and good photographic evidence. I wouldn't throw it in the bin, however, as another case reported in the same location will add weight to the claim.

Yes, I agree.

But people who have the ability to create a "perfect" photographic hoax are not that many, and this new tool will increase the difficulties.

AFP bought this logiciel and used it on the fake Bin Laden photo:

AFP Uses Specialist Software to Detect Manipulated Photos By: Press Release Published: May 06, 2011 Agence France-Presse has recently begun using forensic software to alert photo editors to manipulated images produced by third party sources and amateur witnesses.
AFP is the only global news agency to use Tungstene, high-technology image interpretation software which combs through the information contained in digital images to detect potential tampering. Using a suite of filters, it can identify tell-tale discrepancies in pixels and analyse harmonisation of light and colour.
The Agency has set up a specialist unit within its photo department to trace edits and manipulations in suspect photos. If an editor expresses doubts about the veracity of a particular image, it is passed to the unit for analysis using the software.
AFP has equipped its regional editorial centres in Washington, Paris and Hong Kong with the new software. AFP is recognised for the excellence of its photojournalism and Tungstene is aimed at "preserving the authenticity of the work of its journalists," said Roger Cozien, a former criminology expert who created the software package.
AFP used Tungstene to identify tampering on a recent photograph purportedly of a dead Osama bin Laden, an image broadcast in Pakistan and subsequently widely used around the world, before it was withdrawn as an obvious hoax.

Source

Okay guys, some interesting news that I really would like to share with you.

Since I've posted my first message here on March, I decided to go further and see if this software (or some other similar) could really help in our understanding/analysis of UFO documents, i-e photos and videos.

First step for me was to contact Mr Cozien, the French Maths PhD who created "Tungstene", in Paris, at the end of September.


Mr Cozien and "Tungstene"

I'll not fully detailled neither what Tungstene is nor how it works here, as I prepare a full presentation of it (and another called "IPACO") both in French and in English to be posted here before the end of November.

However, what i can say is that:
1- It compiles a lot of known maths filters
2- It has an intuitive and attractive interface
3- In most cases, it gives a good indication whether the photo has been manipulated or not however
4- It absolutely don't have to be an end by itself, I mean that only a thorough and serious investigation can give credits to the results. In other words, an analysis done by Tungstene alone have zero credit, and usuals methods for an UFO investigation are needed.

See also this interesting and complete article about Tungstene here


Tungsten allows the user to analyze the way and the propagation of the light on an image in order to check the consistency of the informations.

What I obtained from Mr Cozien after our meeting is:
1- The principle to buy the software licence and the right to have full ownership for the results
2- Due to the very restricted field of study, a "low cost" software, around 20.000$, divided in 10.000$ for the software itself and also 10.000$ for a full week of formation, which is essential for a good control of the capacities of Tungstene.

Back at home, I remembered that there was another imaging specialist in France, well known in the UFO field: François Louange. (Full biography in French here)
Louange is an engineer who worked as an imagery expert for the GEPAN (CNES) and the ESA.
In 1989 he founded and was CEO of Fleximage corporation, specialized in photo-interpretation by computer, providing all the French secret service, as well as lots of European countries, which allow softwares to work on images taken by satellites and other sensors. Subsequently Fleximage, holding 95% of the photo-interpretation market's in France and other countries, become an affiliate of ESA (European Space Agency).



François Louange also participated to the Pocantico symposium who took place from the 29th september to the 4th october 1997, as a scientist.
It was organized at the initiative of Rockefeller (and headed by Sturrock) and in which he participated, with Velasco, Vallee and Veyret, among many others researchers. This symposium was intended to take again Condon report's conclusions to try to contradict one of it, in which it was said, in substance, that the UFO phenomenon was not worth any scientifical study.
Thanks to the substantive diplomatic work of Peter Sturrock, it ended with a consensus that was far from a foregone conclusion, as there was so much various point of view on the matter.....
Full report of the Pocantico symposium can be seen here


From left to right: T. Holzer, V. Eshleman, Rodeghier, Schuessler, H. Melosh, J. Jokipii, H. Puthoff, D. Pritchard, Sturrock, C. Tolbert, F. Louange, Laurance Rockefeller, Vélasco, I. von Ludwiger, H. Diamond, M. Sims, J. Vallée, B. Haisch, B. Veyret, Haines, Swords, J. Papike, G. Reitz, E. Strand

We also talked about many famous UFO cases, including "Petit Rechain" in Belgium, which we now know that it was a hoax.

Then, the state of research in France has been mentioned and I came to realize how much he was happy to talk to someone on the photo/video analysis subject, which, from his own mouth "does not happen every day."
Louange, although officially retired, continues to gradually develop its specialized analysis software "IPACO" (version 2.19 as of today)
He made me a demo and gave me a CD with software and a license key valid until the end of the year.


IPACO graphic interface

I told him about my meeting with Mr Cozien, the cost of the software and my plan to conciliate on solid basis (which does not yet exist) the UFO world and the one, more scientific, of photographic analysis.
What interests Louange is my excellent contact among the ufology characters, that he do not have (he do not go on forums, blogs and do not follow closely UFO news).

Going back to its software, it is developed in three phases:
1 - Materials for picture analysis
2 - Materials for video analysis
3 - Establishment of databases: UFOCAT (based on "UFOCAT" from Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos), IFOCAT and CAMCAT (cameras and camcorders database)
François Louange is actually at the development of phase three.

I must also say that I am both surprised and flattered by the confidence that Mr Louange put in me, which proves that it is still quite possible to be able to do some good job based on reciprocal and mutual trusted relationships.

Compared to those of Mr Cozien, its software uses less powerful mathematical filters, leaving a greater share in logical reasoning and scientific interpretation than Tungstene, which is more like a "turnkey" supplied product.

In short and in conclusion, I would say that my trip wasn't vain. Many positive things came out of these meetings and I now have good raw material to work with confidence.

As I have already explained many times here and on other French and English speaking forums, I think, and it is a constant since I'm in the UFO field, that there's still lack of education, seriousness, professionalism, in the study of UFO documents.
It goes without saying that very few ufologists in the world are specialized in this area and, when they are, they also lack the tools, that could be able to help to support them in their efforts to unravel facts from fictions and fakes
I started, some years ago, a substantive work and education on most UFO forums/blogs in French and English, but I think I have reached the limits of what I could show; now I miss many powerful tools designed to help to detect fakes.

IPACO, like Tungstene, in my opinion, are certainly such tools, from what I saw from Mr Louange and Mr Cozien, they are fast, efficient and scalable, although different in their practice with the user interface, IPACO being simpliest to use.



In short, my goal, to today's date, can be summarized in three points:
1 - Make a detailed and objective presentation, as far as possible, of the capabilities, possibilities and techniques used of both softwares dedicated to forensic analysis, and supported with concrete examples such as the already existing studies of UFO photographic documents.
[Incidentally, a technical connection with the operation of the license proposed by Mr Cozien is that I'm not operator of this license on behalf of Tungstene or owner of such license, but only the owner of the analysis results. I'm then free to do what I want with these results; to get paid for the work done, for example.]
2 - Present this document to all my contacts in the UFO world (who know me also for my analysis work done here, for the MUFON and some others ...) specifying them that I have now much more powerful tools able to help me to do this work more thoroughly and professionally, and opening a subscription (or using an existing one) to help me to buy the rights to operate a license (either Tungstene or IPACO).
3 - If points 1 and 2 take place without problems and if I succeed in interesting enough subscribers to my project, the purchase and operation of the license will follow, with either the opening of a new specialized Internet site or a dedicated section in an existing forum / blog dedicated to photographic analysis, and the opportunity for private organizations or UFO independant researchers of ordering.

So, here's, quickly and roughly outlined, what I intend to do in the future, the most difficult point is obviously to raise enough money to buy a license ...
But hey, there already has been generous subscribers in France who helped me to finance the necessary travels to meet people, so I do not despair!

Of course, I'm opened to any suggestion, opinion and comment; I'll do my best to try to answer any of these.

Just a guess, but a simple subroutine that uses the getcolor() funciton and searches an image and highlights any pixels with suspicous values for the alpha channel might be able to catch most digital manipulation, although it wouldn't help with double exposure done with film.

Dear ATS members and friends!

The IPACO software for UFO photo/video analysis is available now. Please, check out the link below, in my signature.

Thanks to all of you that helped me in a way or another in this project.

3.500 € is quite a bit for the average joe.

I guess we'll have to rely on those that can afford that.

I mean, many Can afford it, but I think this will be something bought by "specialists" and "rich privates" only.

Maybe ATS can do a petition around for getting one for the general use.

I say any kind of technology that combats these CGI annoying idiots is good and as with any development, time allows for it to be perfected.

Screw you CGI annoying, idiots!

Originally posted by PlanetaryStorm
3.500 € is quite a bit for the average joe.

Right, but the starting point for a "classic" analysis is 50€. I guess that 90% (if not more) of interested people will choose this option to work on a precise photo rather than to buy the whole software.

Good news! Too bad it can't be used on all those pesky saucer photos from the 50s and 60s