light objects fly off ground into sky.(picture)

reply to post by xyankee


I think so too. There are some red necks in the area and god only knows what they are up to.
...however there was no noise..it was completely silent. Cheers.

reply to post by Druscilla


Kudos to you for publicly apologizing, and greatly explaining your position as to why you thought so. Too bad the OP doesn't show the same courtesy.

The fact that the image has been edited in Adobe Photoshop 7 (as shown in the EXIF info), plus the OPs refusal to post the original image, and hateful comments to other forum members, seems to indicate this is just a HOAX attempt. Hopefully the mods will move this to the appropriate forum or just lock it all together.

What other activity has gone on there? You mentioned other strange activity? Just curious....

reply to post by gavron


Are you kidding me pal? Hateful no. Amazed at the ridicule. As far as you go I have no reason to believe you are not a government shrill paid to make me look like a fool. This is not a hoax I will debunk your adobe edit accusation within time. Give me one week when I go back up north and I will get the original capture device and image and prove you wrong. Cheers. Oh...and how much do you get paid to do this?

Originally posted by mahon
reply to post by gavron

 

Are you kidding me pal? Hateful no. Amazed at the ridicule. As far as you go I have no reason to believe you are not a government shrill paid to make me look like a fool. This is not a hoax I will debunk your adobe edit accusation within time. Give me one week when I go back up north and I will get the original capture device and image and prove you wrong. Cheers. Oh...and how much do you get paid to do this?

Seeing that your post was removed by a mod, it was hateful.

The photoshop remarks are not accusations, they are a fact. Anyone can download the image you posted and see the EXIF info...which clearly states you used Adobe Photoshop 7 on it.

reply to post by gavron


okay okay, ill find a way to dis-prove that, I will find out why it is saying that, just like the resize and the crop issue you had. Let me get my hands on the phone that took the picture and i will send it directly to you. I will help resolve this adobe edit issue you seam to be having.


I have been traveling for a week, I finally got off the android and back to my laptop. I will look into the image data myself. Possibly wednesday, more likely this weekend I can reach out to the individual with the phone. Then we can work from there. Give me till the weekend. Stay tuned dude. I may be rude. I am also honest. Word for word I said nothing of false nature.

reply to post by gavron


It says the image may have been edited in not only "possibly" adobe 7 but it also continues down listing other editing software that doesnt just include adobe 7, it suggest it was edited in Adobe quicktime, mspaint, Zoombrowser, GIMP, XnView, ect.

I think I just need to upload directly from his phone. Or perhaps the HTC EVO is editing the image somehow.

EXIF data is not a bullet proof case against photo images authenticity.

Is this sufficient information to prove that an image is "original"? In a word, no.

JpegSnoop - What is "Original"? How confident can we be?


I'm not done...like I said, give me a week. I'll prove authenticity.

Originally posted by mahon
I'll prove authenticity.

edit on 25-9-2012 by mahon because: (no reason given)

It should always be the first step to do when presenting a new UFO photo, before discussing the UFO by itself.
You don't know how many steps there are between the camera and the shot posted in the UFO forum and what kind of software could have been (volontarly or not) used.

So, if you find the original untouched photo with the full EXIF data, good!

I would be interested to know however where the photo you showed at first p1 came from and what process could have been stripped away the EXIF data.

It doesn't matter if Photoshop have been used or not, what's matter is the fact that there are no EXIF data and that JPEGSnoop detect it, as well as the use of a post-process software (Photoshop or whatever...) that modify the JPEG compression signature of the original photo.
This alone shows undoubtely that the photo is not original, and not necessarily that it have been tampered with.

That's why I said in my first post here that without any original photo, any work on it is useless.