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.

 

Disc shaped metallic flying object above the clouds - Study case....

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


That seems to be a problem with these digital cameras no matter how good, they MAKE a picture rather TAKE a picture, sometimes the result seem sanitized.




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 
I've e-mailed a couple of guys who know their aircraft. It's a start to identify what plane that wing belongs to.

If we know the plane, we can identify what airline (if any) uses them and runs flights from Budapest to London at the time in question.

The object doesn't look real to me...



Returning to the wing...have you checked whether it's CGI? Perhaps it's the limitations of my graphics card, but it appears very sharp and I wonder if we're looking at a composite whereby the originator might have added the wing and the object....



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
my droid phone takes 3264x 2448 pictures.....so YES it can be done....and yes EXIF data can be manipulated

so the facts are:
*phone cams CAN take these huge pictures
*EXIF data can be manipulated to read anything
*there are smartphone apps that look just like that object....
*this photo is NOT in original form. the file name has been changed. that means: photo is tampered with.

....so the probability of that image being a hoax isnow much higher than not....

OK, but is there any droid phone that can take a photo at the exact resolution of 3888x2592?
If no, then I don't see the point for a hoaxer to manipulate the resolution of such a droid phone photo to make it appears like if it was a Canon EOS 500D, and then take the risk to modify the JPEG compression that could be detected.
I know that EXIFs datas can be manipulated to looks like anything needed and that there are Iphone apps that looks like this object.
But what is the simpliest thing to do for a hoaxer?:
1- Take a photo with a Canon EOS 500D, add an artificial object using Photoshop and remove all the traces in the EXIFs with a hex editor or
2- Take a photo with a droid phone, insert the object with an app (BTW, is there any other droid phone than the Iphone that allows this?) manipulate the resolution to make it appears like the one of a Canon EOS 500D and remove all the traces in the EXIFs with a hex editor?

My guess is that a hoaxer will not try to complicate things and choose to do things like in (1-)
Anyway, my interest is to try to find how it was exactly done for reinforce our knowing.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by elevenaugust
 
I've e-mailed a couple of guys who know their aircraft. It's a start to identify what plane that wing belongs to.

If we know the plane, we can identify what airline (if any) uses them and runs flights from Budapest to London at the time in question.

Very good idea!
A start for a real deep investigation!


Originally posted by Kandinsky
The object doesn't look real to me...

It doesn't look real to me either.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The object doesn't look real to me...

Here's the problem. The sunlight is supposedly reflecting off the top of the object but the reflected light from the clouds is not reflecting off the bottom. It's missing the second highlight. Looks like somebody didn't go to art school.

EDIT: It should look more like this:



edit on 8-2-2012 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


I highly doubt it's a UFO app. The quality of images in the UFO apps are very low, and I haven't seen one that looks like it was taken from above the UFO. My guess is it was added with some software like Photoshop or something similar.

This is actually a well done fake, not for creativity of the craft, but the compositing is way better than the average fakes that get posted here and on MUFON.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


I found the original photo.

gk.lka.hu...

from this page gk.lka.hu...

No UFO!



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


I found the original photo.

gk.lka.hu...

from this page gk.lka.hu...

No UFO!


Well done!!
I guess that you used tineye?

Comparing the exif datas could be interesting....

Edit: there's NO differences, except the add of the tag "JFIF Version" in the faked version, plus the weight is slightly important.

So the faker took an original Canon EOS photo, add the "UFO" and then replace the EXIFs datas tampered with by the legit one.

I already noticed in some other similar cases the add of this "JFIF Version" tag in faked photo (even with the full replace of the EXIFs datas), not sure when it come from thought....
edit on 8-2-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Thanks, no Tin Eye this time, just Google Image search.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevenaugust

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
my droid phone takes 3264x 2448 pictures.....so YES it can be done....and yes EXIF data can be manipulated

so the facts are:
*phone cams CAN take these huge pictures
*EXIF data can be manipulated to read anything
*there are smartphone apps that look just like that object....
*this photo is NOT in original form. the file name has been changed. that means: photo is tampered with.

....so the probability of that image being a hoax isnow much higher than not....

OK, but is there any droid phone that can take a photo at the exact resolution of 3888x2592?
If no, then I don't see the point for a hoaxer to manipulate the resolution of such a droid phone photo to make it appears like if it was a Canon EOS 500D, and then take the risk to modify the JPEG compression that could be detected.
I know that EXIFs datas can be manipulated to looks like anything needed and that there are Iphone apps that looks like this object.
But what is the simpliest thing to do for a hoaxer?:
1- Take a photo with a Canon EOS 500D, add an artificial object using Photoshop and remove all the traces in the EXIFs with a hex editor or
2- Take a photo with a droid phone, insert the object with an app (BTW, is there any other droid phone than the Iphone that allows this?) manipulate the resolution to make it appears like the one of a Canon EOS 500D and remove all the traces in the EXIFs with a hex editor?

My guess is that a hoaxer will not try to complicate things and choose to do things like in (1-)
Anyway, my interest is to try to find how it was exactly done for reinforce our knowing.


I wouldnt be so fixated on the resolution. The photo is TAMPERED with. They could have opened it in photoshop and messed with the sizse.....after all the file name is not what the camera named it and we already know exif data can be altered.

If my Droid can take pictures that large im sure other smart phones can too and im sure that each phones' resolution varies.....



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevenaugust

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


I found the original photo.

gk.lka.hu...

from this page gk.lka.hu...

No UFO!


Well done!!
I guess that you used tineye?

Comparing the exif datas could be interesting....

Edit: there's NO differences, except the add of the tag "JFIF Version" in the faked version, plus the weight is slightly important.

So the faker took an original Canon EOS photo, add the "UFO" and then replace the EXIFs datas tampered with by the legit one.

I already noticed in some other similar cases the add of this "JFIF Version" tag in faked photo (even with the full replace of the EXIFs datas), not sure when it come from thought....
edit on 8-2-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)


THANK YOU!

here is the EXIF data.....clearly the hoax picture's exif data was.......altered
 

[Image]
Make = Canon
Model = Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
Date Time = 2009-08-14 09:02:21
White Point = [313/1000, 329/1000]
Primary Chromaticities = [64/100, 33/100, 21/100, 71/100, 15/100, 6/100]
YCbCr Coefficients = 299/1000, 587/1000, 114/1000
YCbCr Positioning = co-sited
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 320

[Camera]
Exposure Time = 1/400"
F Number = F16
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 400
Exif Version = Version 2.21
Date Time Original = 2009-08-14 09:02:21
Date Time Digitized = 2009-08-14 09:02:21

Components Configuration = YCbcr
Shutter Speed Value = 8.64 TV
Aperture Value = 8 AV
Exposure Bias Value = +0.33EV
Metering Mode = Pattern
Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length = 31mm
Maker Note = 4876 Byte
User Comment =
Flashpix Version = Version 1.0
Color Space = Uncalibrated
Exif Image Width = 3888
Exif Image Height = 2592
Interoperability IFD Pointer = Offset: 5902
Focal Plane X Resolution = 4433.295
Focal Plane Y Resolution = 4453.608
Focal Plane Resolution Unit = inch
Custom Rendered = Normal process
Exposure Mode = Auto exposure
White Balance = Auto white balance
Scene Capture Type = Normal
Gamma = 2.2

[Interoperability]
Interoperability Index = R03
Interoperability Version = Version 1.0

[Thumbnail Info]
Compression = JPEG Compressed (Thumbnail)
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
JPEG Interchange Format = Offset: 6132
JPEG Interchange Format Length = Length: 5163

[MakerNote (Canon)]
Camera Settings 1 = 92, 2, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 4, 1, 7, 32767, 3, 2, 0, 1, 65535, 169, 200, 18, 1, 128, 285, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 65535, 65535, 0, 0, 0, 0, 65535, 0, 32767, 0, 32767, 65535, 65535
0002 = 2, 31, 907, 605
0003 = 100, 0, 0, 0
Camera Settings 2 = 68, 0, 224, 316, 256, 276, 12, 0, 3, 0, 8, 8, 159, 0, 0, 12, 0, 0, 1, 431, 518, 252, 276, 171, 0, 0, 252, 0, 65535, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
Image Type = Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Firmware Version = Firmware 1.1.0
Owner Name = GK
Camera Serial Number = 1330871844
 
 

compared too........

[Image]
Make = Canon
Model = Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
Date Time = 2011-08-13 09:07:24
White Point = [313/1000, 329/1000]
Primary Chromaticities = [64/100, 33/100, 21/100, 71/100, 15/100, 6/100]
YCbCr Coefficients = 299/1000, 587/1000, 114/1000
YCbCr Positioning = co-sited
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 320

[Camera]
Exposure Time = 1/400"
F Number = F16
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 400
Exif Version = Version 2.21
Date Time Original = 2011-08-13 09:07:24
Date Time Digitized = 2011-08-13 09:07:24

Components Configuration = YCbcr
Shutter Speed Value = 8.64 TV
Aperture Value = 8 AV
Exposure Bias Value = +0.33EV
Metering Mode = Pattern
Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length = 31mm
Maker Note = 4876 Byte
User Comment =
Flashpix Version = Version 1.0
Color Space = Uncalibrated
Exif Image Width = 3888
Exif Image Height = 2592
Interoperability IFD Pointer = Offset: 5902
Focal Plane X Resolution = 4433.295
Focal Plane Y Resolution = 4453.608
Focal Plane Resolution Unit = inch
Custom Rendered = Normal process
Exposure Mode = Auto exposure
White Balance = Auto white balance
Scene Capture Type = Normal
Gamma = 2.2
 

edit on February 8th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by freelance_zenarchist
 


Outstanding catch! Helps prove my point though: Got a UFO pic? Better be on film, and have negatives ready (and even then it can be faked).



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


I found the original photo.

gk.lka.hu...

from this page gk.lka.hu...

No UFO!



You did an awesome job bringing this to a resolve
Thank you!



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 





See that one? I made it myself, took me about 5mins including upload/hosting time. Can you imagine now if I had hours to spend on faking something? Why do people fake stuff? Probably for fun, or for hits/views/pageviews.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I've seen UFO's before and the one in the pic you posted is 200% fake and I have no knowledge on how to use photoshop so lolz



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


I agree. It seems to have a separatedness about as if it really was occupying the space it seems to be in. It is also a beautiful picture.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Don't you hate the digital age. 99,9% of the "sightings" seems to be photoshopped. Don't they have better use of their time and skills?







 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join