Crystal clear ufo pics must see

Pictures were taken with a Canon EOS 60D which is a pretty decent dslr.

Make: Canon
Camera Model Name: Canon EOS 60D
Orientation: Horizontal (normal)
Software: Adobe Photoshop 7.0

but they have all been altered in some way with photoshop 7 like Phage said.

reply to post by Phage


I think that was what I was going for. Isnt CGI for video and not static images?

reply to post by proob4

Nope. Not strictly speaking.
If a computer is used in creating part of it, it's CGI.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Pictures were taken with a Canon EOS 60D which is a pretty decent dslr.

Make: Canon
Camera Model Name: Canon EOS 60D
Orientation: Horizontal (normal)
Software: Adobe Photoshop 7.0

but they have all been altered in some way with photoshop 7 like Phage said.

All at a focal length of 135mm.All this means is that they've been opened in Photoshop,as a '60D takes images considerably bigger than shown there,all they've probably done is maybe cropped and re-sized in Photoshop.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

Not necessarily altered. If they were just viewed and saved with Photoshop they get the stamp.

reply to post by Imagewerx


It MIGHT mean that all they did in photoshop was crop the images. Theres absolutely no way of telling for sure. All we know for sure is they have been processed in photoshop to some degree.

reply to post by Phage

True, but they have must been cropped or resized because that camera take much higher res photographs.

^Agreed. However, I use Lightroom and script to resize groups of photos.. Now if it's just a photo or two, I have Photoshop at the ready.

So this could very well be the case, although unfortunately as much as 'I want to believe', you still cannot discount the notion that they could've been altered in PS.

Damn technology these days... Just leaves us hangin' sometimes! Haha

reply to post by Phage


I guess my confusion was that often CGI is coined as a term for video manipulation as "being photoshpped" is reserved for static images. Just my 2¢

reply to post by PhoenixOD

It is possible to examine the hex code that makes up a digital image and if you know what you're looking at it's apparantly easy to see if it's been manipulated in any way.

reply to post by Imagewerx


Well, what are you waiting for?! Get to it! Haha

reply to post by Imagewerx


First time ive heard that , are JPG's stored in HEX format?

reply to post by Imagewerx


Since you seem well educated in this. The 1st photo under the alledged UFO there are four dots. Maybe this will provide some clues?

I am not a photographer nor am I proficient in the use of photo manipulation software. (I use Hornil and paint, lol) The reflection in the photos makes me think that the pics were taken through a window. If that was a legit light, and that Canon camera mentioned, regardless of the type of camera or media used to store the original image, the reflection would still be there.
I also agree about the focus of the trees. They are blurry up close in the first pic, but the trees closer to the UFO image itself are clear in focus.

With ALL UFO sightings in still imagery, ANYTHING is possible. Real or fake, there's really not an easy way to tell.

I also agree about multiple UFO sightings in China. Not too long ago, they closed all air traffic because of a UFO sighting near the airport, so the chanced of this being legit go up as opposed to down due to image fakery.

In the end, people will believe what they want to, and there's nothing to say otherwise in the minds of those people.

Personally do I think it's real? I'm usually torn 50/50 on still images. (I prefer videos. My faves on YouTube are under the search term "UFO Wormhole" the Asian couple getting the sight in broad daylight is the best out of all of them)

Originally posted by Phage
According to the EXIF data the original dates of the images were March 22, 2010. All three within 4 minutes of each other.

They were then saved again on May 25, 2011 using Photoshop, all within two minutes of each other.

The use of Photoshop itself doesn't really mean anything but the fact that the dates are wildly different is a bit...odd. Add that the file names seem to contain yesterday's date, I'd give it a big H.

edit on 12/27/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Photo's shot on 22nd 2010, 3 shots of trees with 135mm, but waited over a year to post manipulations. very odd time line for hoax... pretty good one so far... but that's a stretch of time even for a junior CGI artist.

But just as odd if they are real, why would you wait a year to crop and release these?

3rd one has a bit of a "video game" look to it.. perspective doesn't quite mesh... interesting... to say the least... anyone with any further insight ?

This is the Exif image data for the first image :

Image Size 1,181 × 787
Make Canon
Camera Model Name Canon EOS 60D
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
Software Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Modify Date 2011:05:25 15:32:19
7 months, 1 day, 23 hours, 34 minutes, 7 seconds ago
Artist
Y Cb Cr Positioning Co-sited
Copyright
Exposure Time 1/80
F Number 10.00
Exposure Program Manual
ISO 200
Sensitivity Type Recommended Exposure Index
Recommended Exposure Index 200
Exif Version 0230
Date/Time Original 2010:03:22 00:43:31
1 year, 9 months, 5 days, 14 hours, 22 minutes, 55 seconds ago
Create Date 2010:03:22 00:43:31
1 year, 9 months, 5 days, 14 hours, 22 minutes, 55 seconds ago
Components Configuration Y, Cb, Cr, -
Shutter Speed Value 1/83
Aperture Value 9.93
Exposure Compensation 0
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Flash Off, Did not fire
Focal Length 135.0 mm
User Comment
Sub Sec Time 00
Sub Sec Time Original 00
Sub Sec Time Digitized 00
Flashpix Version 0100
Color Space sRGB
Focal Plane X Resolution 5728.176796
Focal Plane Y Resolution 5808.403361
Focal Plane Resolution Unit inches
Custom Rendered Normal
Exposure Mode Manual
White Balance Auto
Scene Capture Type Standard
Owner Name
Serial Number 0780420324
Lens Info 18-135mm f/?
Lens Model EF-S18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Lens Serial Number 000021e6fb
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Resolution 300 pixels/inch
X Resolution 72
Y Resolution 72
Thumbnail Length 2,030

and the photoshop stamp

IPTC Digest 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
X Resolution 300
Displayed Units X inches
Photoshop Resolution 0x0003 2
Y Resolution 300
Displayed Units Y inches
Photoshop Resolution 0x0007 2
Print Scale (14 bytes binary data)
Global Angle 30
Global Altitude 30
Print Flags (9 bytes binary data)
Copyright Flag False
Print Flags Info (10 bytes binary data)
Color Halftoning Info (72 bytes binary data)
Color Transfer Funcs (112 bytes binary data)
Grid Guides Info (16 bytes binary data)
URL List (4 null bytes)
IDs Base Value (4 bytes binary data)
Photoshop Thumbnail (2,030 bytes binary data)
Version Info Adobe Photoshop
Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Photoshop Quality 8
Photoshop Format Standard
Progressive Scans 3 Scans

I left out the slice data because it was huge.

Originally posted by wolffe69
I am not a photographer nor am I proficient in the use of photo manipulation software. (I use Hornil and paint, lol) The reflection in the photos makes me think that the pics were taken through a window. If that was a legit light, and that Canon camera mentioned, regardless of the type of camera or media used to store the original image, the reflection would still be there.

I hate to be not-picky, but you can use a circular polarizer to remove unwanted reflections when taking photos... Then again, provided you had enough time to frame the shot, get a good idea for lighting, and so forth - Which one would assume, totally would NOT be the case when you're trying to catch something on camera per se

However, I do agree with the rest of your post though!!!

reply to post by admiralmary


It seems to me

that for most naysayers hereon

IF AND WHEN a UFO lands in their front yard . . .

. . . unless and until they abduct the naysayer and begin to castrate him with a rusty serrated knife, he'll be likely to

EXCLAIM: BAH HUMBUG: CGI!

Originally posted by weavty1
reply to post by Imagewerx

 

Well, what are you waiting for?! Get to it! Haha

It means nothing to me,just random numbers and symbols that could just as well be a recipe for ratatouille.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by Imagewerx

 

First time ive heard that , are JPG's stored in HEX format?

Yes it seems they are.If you use Irfanview as your default image viewer,under the "view" heading it gives you "HEXview"

Originally posted by proob4
reply to post by Imagewerx

 

Since you seem well educated in this. The 1st photo under the alledged UFO there are four dots. Maybe this will provide some clues?

The only clue it gives me it isn't a composite image,unless the person putting the two images together put in some random reflections for some unknown reason?

Originally posted by niceguybob
The lights look like they're from Home Depot, not Mars.

Oh well. MAYBE Mars has Home Depots?

Of course Mars has a home depot, its to the right of the giant faces, left of the spaceship port, and to the right of the pyramids.

Originally posted by nawki

Originally posted by Phage
According to the EXIF data the original dates of the images were March 22, 2010. All three within 4 minutes of each other.

They were then saved again on May 25, 2011 using Photoshop, all within two minutes of each other.

The use of Photoshop itself doesn't really mean anything but the fact that the dates are wildly different is a bit...odd. Add that the file names seem to contain yesterday's date, I'd give it a big H.

edit on 12/27/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Photo's shot on 22nd 2010, 3 shots of trees with 135mm, but waited over a year to post manipulations. very odd time line for hoax... pretty good one so far... but that's a stretch of time even for a junior CGI artist.

But just as odd if they are real, why would you wait a year to crop and release these?

3rd one has a bit of a "video game" look to it.. perspective doesn't quite mesh... interesting... to say the least... anyone with any further insight ?

Please read the whole thread prior to posting comments such as this one, being that I clearly distinguished that soon-to-be 'fire' of a false assumption.

This is my response to that original thought: "Ps, if I may add, the exif data from the third photo, particularly the date, doesn't mean anything because it goes by the date/time that you have your camera set to. It could very well be newer, or possibly older - So we can't just base thoughts or opinions on just that date alone.. Just a little FYI for those that aren't photog-savvy"