Help Analyze a Photograpic Anomaly

reply to post by Section31


Dude, it's not a fake.

Maybe its light hitting the lens.

Maybe its a glitch.

It is NOT photoshop.... and your lackluster attempt to recreate it does not come close to do it justice.

I don't think anybody I know would be able to pull off a glitch as natural as that in photoshop... if it is a glitch at all.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

Wow, call me an idiot, but I never seen what you are talking about. Where do you find that? I own CS4, in case that matters.... I never had a reason to check my own exif/metadata, I usually save to PNG to strip it out.

I believe the file browser in CS4 is similar to PS7 in form as well as function, a quick google search seemed to be in agreement..?

Below is a screen capture of the default palette locations in PS7, the tab to access the Metadata is found at the bottom right corner of the file browser palette.


Photoshop 7 file browser Metadata tab location, Click picture to enlarge...

Apologies for upsetting anyone with the temporary thread hijack although the subject is image processing...

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by Section31

 

Dude, it's not a fake.

Maybe its light hitting the lens.

Maybe its a glitch.

It is NOT photoshop.... and your lackluster attempt to recreate it does not come close to do it justice.

I don't think anybody I know would be able to pull off a glitch as natural as that in photoshop... if it is a glitch at all.

Something like this 'CAN' be done in Photoshop. It took me only ten seconds to create my version.

Someone either lied to you, or you created the photo yourself. Since I have proven it is possible to manipulate the photo, I do not believe you are being genuine.

Its a fake.

Thanks for posting the pictures OrganicAnagram33
SnF


I've examined this picture and came to the conclusion...

It is not fake...

The two pictures in the OP are not the same...
They are different

If you think it is the same picture... you need glasses

Please Schedule an Eye Exam

I can honestly testify and conclude that:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/329a4d980e07.jpg[/atsimg]


HAARP the solver of the unexplained since 2007

Your welcome

DERPITY DERP I HAVE 10000 YEARS OF PHOTOSHOP exp, I'm level 124 photoshop, this is truully FAEK!!!!11one DERRRRRRP and ur lvl 1 cause u suk


In seriousness at the OP, you said it was a digital camera? Could there be glitches? Are any other pictures like that? I wont lie, it does look photoshopped since it's just random white and some of the stuff got smudged. Was the camera dropped? It would ideally have been best if it was one of those were on the old style cartridges where you can just whip them up, then take a photo of that. Of course everyone will claim it's just light blur though.
One of the problems with the picture is that so many pictures can be manipulated this way in photoshop and other image editing programs. Was the 2nd image made from the first one? If so was there content-aware photoshop manipulation cause that's also a bit worrisome.

reply to post by Section31


It's possible that I was lied to... I'm not going to deny that, I'm lied to all the time.

...but when we're talking probability and plausibility, the % of chance is close to zero.

If you want to show it, you better come up with some better 'proof' than that lacking picture you produced.

reply to post by EvolEric


HAARP causes most things... it constantly transmits Justin 'Biebler' into my head, slowly severing the interneurons between my prefrontal cortex and everything else, effectively preforming a hands-off frontal lobotomy. António Egas Moniz, ain't gots nothin' on HAARP.

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by Section31

 

It's possible that I was lied to... I'm not going to deny that, I'm lied to all the time.

So, you said with confidence that this was real, but you admit that someone may have lied to you. If you are not sure if you were told the truth, how do you know if this is real?

Even though my version was cleaner, I just proved to you that Photoshop has the capability to make similar anomalies. I used the first untouched photo as an example.

Like it or not. Your image was manipulated in Photoshop.

You just have to live with that reality.

reply to post by OrganicAnagram33


I'm sorry

I feel your pain...
HAARP has been transmitting Lady Gaga into my head recently...
I have possibly listened to about 8 hours worth of Gaga since thursday...

Problem is......

I HATE LADY GAGA!

I'm a metal musician and Gaga = Death of Metal...

haha



Look it is possible to recreate that effect in photoshop...

I mean come on its photoshop! You can do anything with that program!

I'm a self proclaimed digital artist... like so many on here...

So while it is possible to create the "effect" in your photo...

I am also a "ghost hunter"

I have also seen several things pop up in photo's that were not photoshopped

and were not ghosts...

If it is not due to photo manipulation...

or an actual ghost...

then I would bet everything on it being a...

Reflection of some sort... that would possibly be the most logical answer...

Looks to me like the reflection of an IR Beam


Take a remote... hold it up to a digital camera and press a button and look at the IR beam...

now take a picture... it will look very similar to that...

lots of things can cast an IR beam... haha it actually might be HAARP...

but it could just as well be a Ghost...

But 99.9% of every "ghost" I have caught is some sort of reflection



-All the Best

-Eric

reply to post by Section31



I'm admitting to a possibility, not a fact.

You're possibly a super intelligent walrus hooked up to circuitry implanted directly into your brain that enables you to communicate with us via the internet...

Do I believe it? No, of course not.

Do I believe this photo was altered via photoshop or some other similar program? No, I do not.

In fact, I believe it with such certainty, that I am willing to post here on ATS and have my peers scrutinize it in hopes of stirring up some productive debate on what this anomaly is. I trust my source.

You trust your senses every day, but they lie to you. Take a undergraduate course in Sensation/Perception and you will see this. However, you are relying on your senses for accurate information currently... it would appear you are caught in the dance of questionable plausibility and beliefs as well.

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by Section31

 

Dude, it's not a fake.

Maybe its light hitting the lens.

Maybe its a glitch.

It is NOT photoshop.... and your lackluster attempt to recreate it does not come close to do it justice.

I don't think anybody I know would be able to pull off a glitch as natural as that in photoshop... if it is a glitch at all.

Something like this 'CAN' be done in Photoshop. It took me only ten seconds to create my version.

Someone either lied to you, or you created the photo yourself. Since I have proven it is possible to manipulate the photo, I do not believe you are being genuine.

Its a fake.

edit on 5/21/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

Argh- the photo really hasn't been tampered with, so can we please move past that? I don't blame you all-trust is a difficult thing to gain over the internet- but I'm being honest about the photo's legitimacy. I have no reason to lie to anyone about this sort of thing. I'm simply curious about the shot, that's all.

First time poster! This thread generated enough interest for me to sign up to ATS just to post my thoughts!

I've read all the posts and some people clearly think the photo has been 'manipulated' but from my experience looking closely at the photos in the link, I'm certain these haven't been tampered with. Its easier to show you guys so I did a little experiment in photoshop cs4 to try to 'fake' the anomaly in the photo.
I can think of 2 methods in PS how this could have been done, these are:

1 - Eraser tool

Few people have already mentioned this as possible method in this thread but here is my take on it




From a distance it looks convincing but at closer inspection around the edges of the figure you see lack of colour fringing (aka chromatic aberrations). Colour fringing occurs when the lens fails to focus all colors to the same convergence point. With this eraser method it is difficult to fake chromatic aberrations but there is another method where faking it becomes easier.

2 - New layer

This is essentially creating blank layer over the photo and simply using the brush to draw in a figure. Using different brushes with varying opacity & flow, you can also create convincing figure similar to the original




But there is more, with this method I could layer more layer on top (or below) each other which allows me in this case to create a layer dedicated to 'faking' the chromatic aberrations. here is the result




Very similar no?
But here is where it gets interesting, after exporting the shopped photo I re-imported back in to PS and analysed it for a bit and found something interesting. I used the Curves tool which is normally used to adjust contrast to photos, and I dialed in pretty extreme settings which left only the extreme white end of the spectrum. Here is the tip of both the figures blown up




Its pretty clear from this image that what ever is on that original photo was not edited in using brushes. The edited in figure shows varying degree of edge softness probably caused by the varying levels of the brush opacity. The original shows no such variation in levels and the chromatic aberrations look genuine.


Personally I think whatever is on that photo was not edited in using any photo edit software but was captured on that day.

Here's the deal!! I believe that this photo is not altered in any way, shape or form. It could be a glitch in the mechanics of the camera, or a possible reflection or a ghost?!? The problem is and always will be Technology!! Every since we've been able to "photoshop" or alter photo's digitally, people will always believe it's been done to a photo they can't explain or comprehend. It could be the fact that it scares them? or because they can re-create the image themselves with "Photoshop." So, MANY people will choose to dismiss almost any picture given as evidence.

If you look at it that way, I don't understand why any one even takes pictures anymore, because apparently everything has, and can be faked so why bother? Take the photo for what you take it for and F&%K everyone else. If you trust the source, then draw your own conclusions.

That's my opinion !

reply to post by Prevaricator87


Thank you very much for taking the time to analyze the photo and provide links to your work.

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by Laokin

 

Well, since you do this for a living, you are clearly a valuable asset in getting to the bottom of this. However, if you haven't read the whole thread, I suggest you do. This is not a hoax, and the person I received these photos from commented in this thread a short time ago. Can you at least hypothetically entertain the idea that is was simply opened in an editing program in order to be viewed? Look at Drunkenparrot's post.

Sure I can entertain the idea, it would be quite awesome if it was absolutely legit...

Here, maybe I can help you afterall....

In my experience, it would be impossible for this anomoly to be produced by the camera's optics... It's simply to bright on the color chart to be considered a digital anomoly, as well as it's lack of pixelization in the actually anomoly itself.

There is only two conclusions that can be made;

1.) The seemingly obvious that it is in fact a hoax, or
2.) The possibility that it is indeed real, and if so -- the camera caught something in an invisible (to the human eye) spectrum of light, in which case this would be a fantastic find.

If option 2, it will probably go unnoticed for the fact that it's not easily cooberated, and can be reproduced using after effects programs relatively simple, with little effort.

As I already stated, Exif data doesn't really mean anything, as it can be added or removed with relative ease.

(To add it to a picture that is authentic, you simply open the picture in your favorite editing program of choice, and save it to a new container via that program. To remove it from a fake, you would take an authentic picture of the fake after the effects have been done... It may be a little tricky to not lose some saturation, but someone with a little bit of know how can match the lighting with relative ease.)

Hence, Exif data has no merit on either side of this argument.


That is about the best I can do... Hope I could satisfy, as my intent was never to be malicious to begin with...

I apologize for seeming brash, maybe it was an instict reaction since I've seen so many photos like this before, that I carry over previous dogma from other examination into this one... and I admit, that -- that isn't entirely fair.

All things considered, I'm still on the side that it was most likely a hoax, but I do verify that if the story hasn't been sensationalized... and is in all it's glory, the absolute truth.... than this theoretically could be true... and the fact of the matter is that reproduction doesn't prove that the original wasn't authentic.

But again, I don't subscribe to that chain of thought.

With Respect,
Laokin.

P.S.

I'm not one of those people that is scared, I believe in the potential for there to be ghosts. I don't just look at pictures and scream fake either... I analyze them to see if there is any evidence left over by the tools of my trade. If I can't find any evidence of alteration, I will proclaim that the image is most likely real. People will always claim "shop" against anything that they personally don't believe in.... but these are the very same people not qualified to make such statements, and as such... their statements hold no merit.

I.E.

It's the opposite of an urban legend, just because mass people don't believe something is possible, doesn't make it a fact, and vice versa, would be the case of any urban legend... where in people completely believe things that are known to be false.

These people don't get a voice, when it comes to credibly investigating such cases. I just thought, I should make that clear.

P.P.S.

Prevaricator87 is the exact reason I think the image is faked, his conclusion as to why the original is real, is really only a matter of photoediting skill... if I wanted to create anomolies to remove smooth edging to proport that fact that it's indeed real, I could easily rough it up a bit...

But like I said, reproduction doesn't prove if the original was fake or not, all it does is prove that a different means can reach the same end. Although with my experience in photo editing, and me considering the official story, and not being able to cooberate it myself, I can only go with Occam's Razor here, that the simplest solution is most likely the most accurate... and as such, I come to deduce that the original photo is most likely a fraud, for the afformentioned reasons above....

Like I said though, there is no way of knowing for sure, short of being the person who took the picture.

What caught my attention were the three straight edges on the ‘figure’.

The inside of the right and left leg are the same angle as the left side of the ‘body’.

This is unlikely to be a mistake made by someone competent in photo manipulation and intending to deceive, having made a reasonable effort overall.
You’ll see this better in the full resolution image posted earlier.

reply to post by OrganicAnagram33


I'm only a casual CS4 user, so take this for what it's worth. I noticed some bizarre things when I played around with the RGB input levels. Strangely, when I cloned some sections of the anomaly, similar, but far from identical artifacts showed up in extreme input levels, such as 253 1.0 255. I only tried a few times, but I tried some other photos real quick and was able to get identical clones in extreme input levels.

Pretty unscientific, but it seems to me that Photoshop would have an easier time matching things it created and harder times matching anomaly.

In summation... I'm not going to weigh in at all about it being normal vs. paranormal, only just to add one more chip to the "unaltered" pile.

Good luck.

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by loves a conspiricy

 

Idiots?
Wow, I hate to break it to you, but your analysis actually proves to me that this is authentic. Your so called debunking site says that this doesn't prove the photo was manipulated.
You can see that the darker area where the entity is standing is not an exact match of the photo. A shopped image would be exact. Plus, do really think that our technology can explain how these energies are going to appear in a photo? Perhaps your software savy can.
Stop insulting everyone just because you THINK you solved the case super sleuth.

That's actually quite the opposite of what that tool does. But, yes... it still proves it to be authentic.

It says, red outlines aren't an indication of editing, they are just the edges of the 3dimensional faces that make up an object and or, lighter areas in the image. What you are supposed to be looking for in that image is digitization.

So how it works is like this, it takes a picture, saves it at a default low quality level. That's all it does. The rest is the explanation of what to look for.

So, if a photo was shopped, it would be apparent, because the objects that were altered in the picture would have digitizing (or more) than anything else in the photo, as the object would have been compressed 1xless (or more) than the original photo.

So the middle of the ghost has no digitization, making it look like a shop, but this is because the source image, the very center of the anomaly is the brightest point of the picture....

So real quick recap, of how it works...

Saves picture at really low bitrate, the entire picture should look digitized equally. If there is modification present, what ever was altered will be lower resolution, because it's been compressed at very minimum 1x less than the original source picture.(or MANY TIMES MORE, if what they added was an older picture that has been floating around the internet being resaved hundreds of times as it goes along) And as such, the image will have double the amount of digitization present per pixel than the original picture.(Or Double Less.)

The image looks legit on that forensics website. No part of the ghost stands out, in either direction from the rest of the image... indicating that it wasn't a photoshop. The reason why the center of the ghost seems to stand out, is because it's hollow, meaning... it's the brightest point in the image.... and isn't being rendered(much like the sky) in the low res version of the picture, because it's so much brighter than the rest of the image, it's now rendered clear at such a low bit rate.

In super short, what it's doing, is it's analyzing the digitization that happens due to the quality loss, if editing is present, the editing digitization isn't going to match the source images. If you have an old photo and add something new, the new object will have less digitization, and will stand back from the source image. If it's a new picture, and it's combined with elements from an older more compressed lower resolution image, than the edit will be more digitized and stand out from the source image.

I'd have to say, the forensic error level analysis actually reads that it's NOT a shop, hoax, and is indeed... a very real picture...

Which leaves me, quite.... flabbergasted.

reply to post by TKDRL


Try JPEGSnoop. it pulls ALL the info. including the coding tables used to compress and color.

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
They aren't 100% identical....second photo may have been taken 10 seconds later.

Oh lol...


..Therefore they are not identical. They are sequential.