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.

 

Is photographic evidence of the Incredible 'Worthless in the computer age ?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   
I was chatting with friends in a bar the other day and we was talking about Photoshop and doctoring pictures. This got me thinking about all the photo manipulation software thats available today, alot of it free and CGI.

So do you think in this day and age that pictures of Aliens, UFO's, monsters, ghosts and all the fantastic and wierd that get posted here on ATS can now be verified as authentic... Or..

Has computer software destroyed our faith in the ATS saying "Pictures or it didn't happen"?

I'd like to hear the opinions of ATS'ers old and new.



Peace

Rock Ape




posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
I wouldn't go so far as to call them worthless. I might not accept a photo as conclusive proof of something, but as evidence? Sure.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
To a degree yes. And on another note - it depends.

The same with video. You see, we live on a very LARGE ball of dirt. And on that ball of dirt there are many many people.

If someone claims to have fascinating pictures of something, then we have avenues to pursue to verify it - exif data at the VERY least. And that's not static - you can edit exif info to your hearts content.

Video, we can ascertain things such as tracking failure, composition effects and other inconsistent evidence - none of which is 100% conclusive.

My main problem is when someone claims to have 100% evidence, yet they alone are the sole point of interest. If someone is in an open area, in a populated area, or in broad daylight, then with footage of supposed UFO activity there must be others who have witnessed it for it to be taken as valid.

A one off snap shot from a camera, we can never know. Those are not the issue, at least to me.

But when someone purports to have evidence over and over of things, yet they alone are the ones putting up youtube videos, and no one else can concur, it does not satisfy to me an adequate amount of evidence.

Most of them tend to claim massive sightings, yet no media, no external reports, no buzz from the locals about it, etc etc.. the silence of the surroundings says more than the noise of those generating the attention.

All we can do is hope.. charlatans are everywhere. looking beyond the cracks they leave is all we can do.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Thing is, some people will believe others not.

Yes, photos and videos can be faked, and to the believer, or non believer it does not matter.

You can show a believer a pic of a little spec against a black backdrop and they will believe that its a ufo, others again you can show an ufo in full detail, and they will still call it a fake.

Thankfully, on this site, and many others there are people who can analyze pics, and thus detect the fake from fiction.

In conclusion I would not say its worthless, it just means you have to be more alert.

vvv



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Rock Ape
 


It does not matter what is presented an image or video or even a body, it will still be torn apart as either swamp gas, light house, chinese lanterns etc.. I had a real experience but because my pics weren’t the best they were even put down as street lights , over the sea!! What a joke

I am sure Gov disinfo agents play a big part on this and similar websites to discredit real images and videos, so yes the new image tech software can make it real easy to fake, but why do people bother to do it as even the real thing gets shot down and called hoax, this has a very negative effect on the honest person just trying to show the world some real evidence.

For example: I saw the cylinder shaped ufo that crossed the UK a few weeks back and had the jets chasing it, and I saw it 3 times that day over south wales, but I didn’t bother taking a pic because:

What is the point???

If I had taken the clearest video or pic ever of a ufo, BUT if it was to clear and showed to much detail it would have been called fake or a cgi, but without enough clarity it is called a bird or balloons or radio controlled - the point is YOU CANNOT WIN so don't bother!

edit on 15-5-2012 by bsalert because: added text



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsalert
It does not matter what is presented an image or video or even a body, it will still be torn apart as either swamp gas


You know, as someone who does often refute claims of UFO stuff, this one always friggen sh!ts me. It really does.

Some smart arse will say "Swamp Gas
" and get away with it.

Show me swamp gas. SHOW ME. otherwise, please, you who are 100% sure aliens are here and feeding you information blahblahblahblah STFU about that crap?

It's akin to using Nazi's in an argument.

As soon as you hear "Swamp gas" as a joke, you may as well give up because you know the person you're trying to talk to is a dick head.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by mainidh
 


totally agree! swamp gas my arse!



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Most would take video if they saw something weird probably safe to say. That's a little more tricky unless you work in the field. Even then there's things like physics that are still hard to reproduce even by CG artists. As well as odd video length, bad acting, ect, and there are things that can still set off red flags.

edit on 5/15/2012 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Some cameras include GPS like the iphone photos, with this photos that have a gps location and other information is not easy to fake a photo because when you try to edit a photo like that one you remove the gps and other important info.

A video also can be faked but it is not easy to make it real, there are cases where more than 3 people take the same video from different positions like the one in jerusalem.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by lke123
 


Thats a good point actually, my new Lumix has GPS stamp technology. Not sure how hard it is to reproduce this information digitally. And others are also right that if multiple pictures show an event, it's more likely to be real.

Thanks for the replies so far, more brain food for me to process



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 

Thing is, some people will believe others not.

Yes, photos and videos can be faked, and to the believer, or non believer [color=FFE57D]it does not matter.

That's the cold hard truth of it ≈ It does not matter at all.

There will never be any sort of irrefutable proof, during my lifetime. It may, or may not happen at some point in the future, but even if it does, it won't be anytime soon.


Some will believe. Some will not.
The bottom line ≈ NO INDISPUTABLE PROOF! for either side.





 
 
reply to post by mainidh

Originally posted by mainidh

Some smart arse will say "Swamp Gas
" and get away with it.

As soon as you hear "Swamp gas" as a joke, you may as well give up because you know the person you're trying to talk to is a dick head.

I'm not so sure about the 'Get away with it' part, but I agree with the rest.

'Swamp Gas' or 'Weather Balloon' etc.. Nobody ever says any of those seriously. It is no more than a blind believer's failed attempt at discrediting a debunking, but long before anyone has even attempted to put forth a plausible explanation.

Those excuses accomplish only one thing:
Show the ignorance of both the blind believer who says it, and the others who think it's funny.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
We've been down that road before there is a software called Tungstene designed to reveal possible computer generated effects on pictures and soon videos; It cost some money that's the problem.

Links:
www.exomakina.fr...
other link (english)
droneteam.com...
edit on 15-5-2012 by themaster1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
most of the CGI is completely recognizeable, it doesn't fool the skeptic majority.


and the other half is almost always dirt or lens flare.

leaving like .01% that it's aliens or plasma critters on any of the youtube videos



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Now bearing your OP in mind, imagine what an ultra-consolidated and corporate controlled war profiteering run media could do, and have been doing, to public opinion with that kind of technology as well.




new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join