"VerifEyed" - a whip on photoshop hoaxers

A Czech-made software can state whether or not the image has been modified with exceptional reliability (in effect 100%) and speed (in a fraction of a second).

In 2011 VerifEyed beat out over 160 international teams to win the first place in the New York City’s Next Idea Contest, hosted by the New York City Economic Development Corporation in collaboration with Columbia University. The first place award was presented to the VerifEyed team in New York City by Mayor Bloomberg.

Look here: verifeyed.com...
Maybe you can also pull a screenshot from some (ufo) video but I'm not sure about that.

good...now maybe the gestappo debunkers will finally quit squealing "bug" or "lens flare" or other trivial garbage, for once....sorry...but they sound like broken records, and it's getting real old.

reply to post by moonweed


Well if it is a lens flare or bug (which it most cases they are) this program s not going to help anyway.

reply to post by homeslice


seems to me "everything" is a bug, etc...according to the fine experts we have on this site *cough*bull#*cough*

reply to post by moonweed


Yea that is true, but it doesn't help when there are so many people on here that are so eager to see "something" that they post blatant CGI fakes/flares/bugs/birds etc. and try to convince people they are alien spacecraft's. You would think that if you are into ufos and spend alot of time watching apparent "sightings" and looking and photos (which I don't bother with anymore) you would be able to tell what a lens flare/flying bug or bird looks like.

I find it a bit frustrating. Maybe it is because I am in the video and post production industry and spend most days watching and editing video/animating but some people just really do see what they want to see. And the majority of videos can easily be explained as fakes or misidentification.

But then there are those 1% of videos that no one can really explain... Thats what keeps me watching.

Some of the tech they use has been out there for years like measuring pixel size.

other parts are new but this is the first time they have been put in a format that the public can use.

now its time to check the drone photos.

i've been working with digital audio, video and photography for several years...i know what you're saying....it's frustrating to see too many screaming "hoax" as soon as they look at something...you can bet i'll be looking for that photoshop plug-in, and grab it as fast as i can....most of the lens flares, etc are pretty easy to spot....but...some are questionable...seen several photos posted on here that were definitely questionable....i'd like to get that plugin, and see what it says about those pics...one more thing...photoshop hoaxers should be flogged, the teleported to another dimension for a good ol fashioned cosmic flogging!

reply to post by PapagiorgioCZ

And that quickly someone else will figure out how to defeat this software package. If you really want to see a real one you have to go up onto mountain tops every night it is clear and look around until you see one for yourself. You will know it when you do... I did. Might take years. I know that looking on the internet is a pretty useless way of confirming any UFO story. What remains is always that bit of doubt, especially now in the digital age. This is by design.

There are safe guards against our knowing anything besides what the powers that be want us to know. That's why they invent and embellish unproveable time worn distractions like, Area 51; no one can go there, get in and snoop around, ever. Its too well guarded. Bermuda Triangle; vast storm tossed track of ocean that swallows all the evidence (like flight 19). Atlantis; thousands of years ago somewhere under the worlds oceans. And Roswell; well, we all know that "story". Then there is Loch Ness, Bigfoot, and other minor players in the dog and pony show to keep our minds occupied and away from the truth. These are repeated in the media over and over again with "Shocking New" twists that never amount to anything but the same old crap.

Remember, I seen one, I know they exist. So when I say that the evidence presented to us in the MSM (yes, even here), is far from empirical, I don't think anyone disagrees. Forums like YouTube are overflowed with hoaxers; those who would be out ringing your doorbell or making prank phone calls if they didn't have a computer with CGI. Gurus; using spirituality and "alien contact" to draw followers and get rich. Mistaken identities; pffft... NEXT>>>. And the official channel; the case where there is a photo or vidbit but no "source", and the famous cases where radar and military and police and governments have lots of here say, but little to no actual evidence. Those are like Rendleshem forest, Shag Harbor, Roswell, Belgian wave, etc, etc. (spelling).

I'm like the rest of you, there are cases here that I have mentioned that contain a grain of truth and we can smell more, but we will never see the whole story as long as our Government has control of the evidence and the Media. So if you want to know, you are going to have to stop looking here, go outside and look up... a lot.
Maybe you will get some once in a lifetime, in the "right spot right time" type experience that you can always treasure. But proof... actual proof, from here? pffft...NEXT>>>

Intrptr

speaking of area 51...did anyone see that..i hate to say it....youtube video of the 2 old ladies running like hell down the road, past the sign? one of the cammo dudes took off after them in an awful big hurry...i'll get the link to the vid here, if anyone wants it

Originally posted by homeslice
reply to post by moonweed

 

Well if it is a lens flare or bug (which it most cases they are) this program s not going to help anyway.

Lol, time to dust off those back up debunking methods. At least it should cut down all those people who post only to say "It looks shopped to me".

lol i nearly started a rant about how i hate photoshop and its nut huggers. but the article also mentioned GIMP so all is well.

Originally posted by The Cusp

Originally posted by homeslice
reply to post by moonweed

 

Well if it is a lens flare or bug (which it most cases they are) this program s not going to help anyway.

Lol, time to dust off those back up debunking methods. At least it should cut down all those people who post only to say "It looks shopped to me".

lmao.....that would be great...but...i'm not holding my breath on that..they're a bit of a psycho lot, if you ask me...lmao...i use photoshop a fair amount, but i don't use it to alter a pic, and say " oh, lookie...a real ufo"....those schmucks that do that kind of thing, are a boil on my ass...always have been..as i mentioned in another post..i think i said something to the effect that hoaxers should be flogged and teleported to another dimension....then prepare for a good ol fashioned cosmic flogging

reply to post by The Cusp

I can think of some promising pictures that would benefit from the extra verification that this test might help supply.

Originally posted by moonweed
reply to post by homeslice

 

seems to me "everything" is a bug, etc...according to the fine experts we have on this site *cough*bull#*cough*

You're very naive
2nd

Originally posted by flice

Originally posted by moonweed
reply to post by homeslice

 

seems to me "everything" is a bug, etc...according to the fine experts we have on this site *cough*bull#*cough*

You're very naive

2nd

edit on 18/11/11 by flice because: (no reason given)

hmmm.....so i'm naive? well...the same could be said of a lot of people on here

No need to be personal and start a rant about ufo - yes or not, but I understand it is the most altered and controversial area.
Well now we just have one more cool tool and a bit less space for pure speculation. I'm thinking about other areas too. MSM and US government fakes like Lybia, Laden, 9/11, even Moon pictures etc. There were many speculations too.

Just one question: can anyone use it, and if we can, is it free?

(I guess that was two questions )

reply to post by ArMaP


Well, i did sign in - so everyone can use it. But they do charge for verification of photos. Several packages for different prices. Sorry guys - I better invest in lens.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


Thanks for that.

I guess that means the doubts will remain.

reply to post by ArMaP


Few cents for a picture or constant doubts. That is the question.