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.

 

Mark Bingham's Obituary was ready 13 days before 9/11

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
...
Object Name : ATTACKS AIRLINE VICTIMS BINGHAM
Date Created : 2001:08:30
...



This date is what interests me.




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
so we have:

A = a bug in the data/software

B = a wrong date in the pc/camera

C = a glitch in the matrix
edit on 9-12-2011 by Hessdalen because: mindcontrol



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glargod
This date is what interests me.


This is what you call "cherry picking". The time stamp indicates a date problem on the computer the photograph was edited with, to add the vertical Associated Press watermark. IT is my metier. What's yours?

BTW, on a related note: here's Ziad Jarrah's boarding pass:



Fake, is it?
edit on 9-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hessdalen
so we have:

A = a bug in the exif/iptc - picture data

B = a wrong date in the pc AND/OR camera (right)?

C = a glitch in the matrix

(missing something?)
edit on 9-12-2011 by Hessdalen because: mindcontrol


A: not in the data, but perhaps in the software. However, to locate such a bug, and whether or not it applied to the computer the Associated Press photo archive worker was using, is extremely difficult. One would have to traverse, for every piece of software hypothetically used (impossible to tell, we see Photoshop in the EXIF data, but what else?) the bug report archives and look for relevant EXIF related and developer acknowledged bug reports.

B: There is no camera EXIF information in there. Only Photoshop added EXIF metadata. In other words, we are not looking at photo camera data.

C: I don't think so... An incredible amount of other evidence must be fake then too, including the FDR, the cockpit voice recording, DNA evidence, radar data, etc. etc.
edit on 9-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: Removed off-topic stuff



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
Could it be faked or altered? Is that possible?

"Let's Roll Forums" is a known disinformation cesspool. They peddle and create known hoaxes and disinformation such as the "pod", "fake victims", "no planes at the WTC", "September Clues", "tv fakery", etc.

The date on the photo shows the last time the photo was edited, period. But, Phil Jayhan would like you to believe that the entire obituary was ready on that date. There is absolutely zero proof of that. That photo could have been altered on the Bingham-family's computer on that date, but there is no date available for the creation of the obituary because a photo is not indicative of an obituary.

Since this is coming from "Let's Roll Forums", this will be classified as a deliberate HOAX, just like with everything else they peddle as "fact".



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
what would one think when many of us know that 911 was a fales flag attact.
We know the FBI lied about thier DNA because the hijackers were using stolen identities, to whom where they matching it to?
As the years go on more and more lies are being exsposed in the OS. We know people in our government carried out 911 and Historians will write that in our history if they havent already. So much denial...



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


there was absolutly no tv fakery Oo

there was a plane at the pentagon Oo

...

maybe the picture story is fake but to say that everything from this and that is just not the way to do research...



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
So I like to verify things before believing them, rather than take everyones own analysis of the situation. This seemed fairly simple to do. Download Exfil Reader, grab the photo, read the details myself. I went to edition.cnn.com... to get the photo ... and his is the only one thats now removed from the webpage?

Its not even the default candle picture. Its just removed completely.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Hessdalen
so we have:

A = a bug in the exif/iptc - picture data

B = a wrong date in the pc AND/OR camera (right)?

C = a glitch in the matrix

(missing something?)
edit on 9-12-2011 by Hessdalen because: mindcontrol


A: not in the data, but perhaps in the software. However, to locate such a bug, and whether or not it applied to the computer the Associated Press photo archive worker was using, is extremely difficult. One would have to traverse, for every piece of software hypothetically used (impossible to tell, we see Photoshop in the EXIF data, but what else?) the bug report archives and look for relevant EXIF related and developer acknowledged bug reports.

B: There is no camera EXIF information in there. Only Photoshop added EXIF metadata. In other words, we are not looking at photo camera data.

C: I don't think so... An incredible amount of other evidence must be fake then too, including the FDR, the cockpit voice recording, DNA evidence, radar data, etc. etc.
edit on 9-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: Removed off-topic stuff


I disagree with your "B" answer, only because I just experimented with the program myself. I uploaded a photo from my camera I took yesterday, put it on my computer now, and opened it with Exif reader. The "OriginalDate" is yesterday, at the time I took the photo.

So clearly we're seeing "photo camera data" .. as you call it. Its not data from my computer, its data from my camera.

What that means for the OP, I don't know. Perhaps 08/30 they were creating the memorial in photoshop and thats the Exif data we're seeing? If so, thats kind of important to point out.
edit on 9-12-2011 by Ryanssuperman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Glargod
This date is what interests me.


This is what you call "cherry picking". The time stamp indicates a date problem on the computer the photograph was edited with, to add the vertical Associated Press watermark. IT is my metier. What's yours?

BTW, on a related note: here's Ziad Jarrah's boarding pass:



Fake, is it?
edit on 9-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)


I don't know if it is fake, but I could swear you were also on that plane...seeing here is YOUR boarding pass:


IT is MY metier. TYVM



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Glargod
This date is what interests me.


This is what you call "cherry picking". The time stamp indicates a date problem on the computer the photograph was edited with, to add the vertical Associated Press watermark. IT is my metier. What's yours?

BTW, on a related note: here's Ziad Jarrah's boarding pass:



Fake, is it?
edit on 9-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)


That has to be fake, nobody willingly takes first row and not take a window seat.

I'm just being funny, carry on.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glargod
I don't know if it is fake, but I could swear you were also on that plane...seeing here is YOUR boarding pass:


IT is MY metier. TYVM


LOL! Good form.

Hats off to you, sir. Star awarded.
edit on 9-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Anyone can modify the EXIF data at a later date so I don't see what proof this is supposed to be



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glargod
I don't know if it is fake, but I could swear you were also on that plane...seeing here is YOUR boarding pass:


IT is MY metier. TYVM


There's just one problem, Glargod..... Your forgery is easily exposed:



Should you elect to use more sophisticated means, next time don't convert a 16.7M JPEG into a 256 color GIF, erasing the EXIF data, giving you away immediately, and prepare to deal with advanced forgery detection methods, such as published by Popescu & Farid et al. and Lukas & Fridrich et al.

Cheers!



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Anyone can modify the EXIF data at a later date so I don't see what proof this is supposed to be


I commend the discovery of this anomaly. However, before jumping the shark, the totality of the evidence has to be considered. The implications are, of course, that Mark Bingham's supposedly "in on it". That notion is belied by the evidence and therefore this claim warrants close scrutiny. It's not surprising to me to find that the conclusions were again drawn prematurely. Consider the source, too...



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
I disagree with your "B" answer, only because I just experimented with the program myself. I uploaded a photo from my camera I took yesterday, put it on my computer now, and opened it with Exif reader. The "OriginalDate" is yesterday, at the time I took the photo.

So clearly we're seeing "photo camera data" .. as you call it. Its not data from my computer, its data from my camera.

What that means for the OP, I don't know. Perhaps 08/30 they were creating the memorial in photoshop and thats the Exif data we're seeing? If so, thats kind of important to point out.
edit on 9-12-2011 by Ryanssuperman because: (no reason given)


Incorrect. As far as I can tell, there is no camera information in the EXIF metadata in this file. All EXIF metadata was either stored by photo editing software or EXIF modification scripts. In this case, the EXIF data fulfills a common function: to tag photo material with contextual information for purposes of archiving by news organizations. EXIF data serves more purposes than just technical camera information; compare the tag names stored by your camera with the dump I posted here. Run a tag extraction script, run the tag names of both sets through an array difference algorithm and you'll notice the dissimilarities between the two.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Mark Bingham was not even supposed to be on Flight 93. He was scheduled on a later flight and changed to the earlier flight.

All this is, is one more example of the sick freaks who get their jollies off manipulating photos/videos to help fan the flames.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Mark Bingham was not even supposed to be on Flight 93. He was scheduled on a later flight and changed to the earlier flight.


Yep... strong circumstantial counterevidence to any sort of "fake victim" claims, which, frankly, I find extremely repulsive. I trust that rational, formal analysis will win the day, and considering the totality of the evidence, "letsrollforums" have no claim anyway.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
All this is, is one more example of the sick freaks who get their jollies off manipulating photos/videos to help fan the flames.


Well, who do you suppose did so? The CNN site maintainers? The folks who run the Internet Archive? The true modification date of the file states 9/12... The EXIF creation date states 2001-08-30.... however the time stamp is 00:00:00, which suggests to me the EXIF date is in error.
edit on 10-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
probably the most interesting piece.



When someone edits the picture, the IPTC data is overwritten and the picture being taken day is changed to the day of the last edit. Since this picture is allegedly from his 1993 graduation, 8.30.2001 cannot be anything other then when the picture was last edited and prepared for it's 9/11 release. Before 9/11!




If you can't confirm the statements made, doubt them for the sake of accuracy. This is just flat out wrong information I was almost 100% sure because I've gone through the hassle of trying to REMOVE EXIF data, and it is very difficult to do quickly and easily. Say you have 400 pictures from your vacation and you want to remove the EXIF data to prevent people from knowing things like:
a) what camera you used
b) where you were exactly (coordinates - some models have GPS built in)
c) when it was taken
d) what settings you used to take the picture
d) so many more things...

So how to remove the data from all those pictures? You'd think there would be a simple tool to strip it from the files, right? No. There isn't. I have looked for one months ago. (I'm pretty experienced with computers, by the way.) I believe I found one that worked on a mac, but that was it. Can't remember.

But, the way around this is to make a selection using a marquee tool, then copy that part and create a new image from that. Now, if you save that, it will not have information regarding what camera you used, when you took it, etc. It WILL though still say what program you used to save the file.

Adobe PS Elements has an option to duplicate an image. While this accomplishes about the same thing as selecting the pixels you want for a new image, it preserves ALL the EXIF data.

More importantly is that EXIF data is dependent upon the camera it was taken with! So, if you forget to set the date on your camera, it will use whatever it defaults to. If you set it to the WRONG date, it will show that date. If you purposely set it to the wrong date, it will show that also. So, the EXIF "date taken" has nothing to do with the actual date it was taken. End of story!

Here's a screen shot from a Firefox EXIF image information viewer that I use. Look at the second paragraph. (It can be downloaded at the link given at the end, if you rather not take my word for it.)



verify this screenshot if you like:
EXIF Viewer add-on for Firefox
edit on 10-12-2011 by daynight42 because: text color isn't appearing????



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by daynight42
 


lol it isn't hard to remove exif data AT ALL. Its about 3 clicks in photoshop to do so. And you can do it manually as well...

You should have googled the topic at first before writing an essay about how it is impossible to do,when it is REALLY easy.



lmgtfy.com...

There are even multiple programs that will do it in bulk

www.steelbytes.com...

cocoviewx.en.softonic.com...
edit on 12/10/2011 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join