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.

 

12/12/12 UFO Picture taken on Hong Kong flight

page: 7
51
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pcchris
reply to post by zeeon
 


lol i bet half of us on ATS are in some field of IT (conspiracies and ufo's are just a side effect of our interests)
im only A+ certified at the moment and working on my net+ ...what course would i have to take to jump on the security side CompTIA Security+?


(This is the last question im asking zeeon people not trying to thread jack)
edit on 18-12-2012 by pcchris because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2012 by pcchris because: (no reason given)


I am also A+, Network+ as well as Security+ certified. Security+ is a great cert, not to hard to achieve and is mandatory if you work in any IT field for the DoD (as I do). Other great certs for security related fields are SSCP (systems security certified practioner) as well as CEH (Certified Ethical Hacker, or in the DoD it is referred to as CNDA - Certified Network Defense Architect). I'm working on both them right now


Check out obviously certifications from Comptia but also ISC(2) (pronounced ISC squared), and EC-Council. Almost all of those mentioned have lots of security related certifications. If you have ever served in the military, the GI Bill can help pay for a lot of them as well. Also check out Vocational Rehab if you are a veteran.
PM me if you want some more info


Also sorry to de-rail thread, last post about it as it is off topic




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


The original resolution cannot be changed, but can be enhanced by adding in pixel layers that weren't there before.


Yes. That is why I responded to this statement:

Right now I am in the process of turning this picture into a more high resolution picture.

With this statement:

That cannot be done. You cannot obtain more information than is in the "original" image


You have not produced a higher resolution image. You have enhanced certain aspects of the original. You have also introduced information which was not in the original image at all.


Wow Phage, you just went through all of that posting to prove that I should have rephrased my sentence around. Are you kidding me?

Seriously, you are posting off topic....rather than worry about my wording and editing of a photo, you should be more concerned about posting evidence for or against this object in question.

Why don't you do some research, work, and effort into proving this UFO to be real or not. So far all you have done is try to create some drama on here by making yourself appear right. Thanks Phage.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 




Why don't you do some research, work, and effort into proving this UFO to be real or not.

Without more details, witness corroboration, and the original image that is not possible.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So why don't you sit down and try to see if image manipulation was done? Do you not know how to do this?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 

Somewhat.
Just provide the original image complete with EXIF data.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


While your work on the image has produced what looks like a copy and paste operation, and could be a forgery I am inclined to agree with Phage. Until you can work with the original image, and we have exif data we can't make any conclusive analysis.

It's unfortunate because who knows what processed that image you are working with before you got your hands on it? Someone could have highlighted the UFO to bring it out more (hence the faint highlight of a box around the UFO) or something that isn't present in the original. We just don't know until the original is found.
edit on 18-12-2012 by zeeon because: Main I suck at typing...



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 

And to be clear. I think you are right about the image being a hoax but without the original image it can't be definitively demonstrated.

edit on 12/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I have contacted The Telegraph with a request for a copy of the original as well as EXIF data. I await their response.....



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
- No camera model provided in the original article
- Impossible to find the photo in any "original" sources (Rex features, HAP, Quicky China News)
- No EXIF data, except IPTC and APP14 tags which are typical of the use of Photoshop:



- JPEG Compression Signature of Photoshop "Save for the Web" in 060 quality:



- Image size 508x620 with a 1.22 ratio which is in any way an original ratio for a digital photo (1.5 or 1.3333), and a classic sign of a cropped picture.

In short...




Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
I have contacted The Telegraph with a request for a copy of the original as well as EXIF data. I await their response.....

Great initiative


edit on 18-12-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011

It appears those lines are all over that picture.
It may be over-processed?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


How did you do all that data inquiry???? Simply amazing!

Phage..eat your heart out


Btw, to add, I had to register to become a member before actually contacting them. The things I go through to get to the bottom of the "secret truth"

edit on 18-12-2012 by Skywatcher2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Agreed on everything, thanks for doing all that. Unfortunately, since it was published on a web article, chances are any website that used the original may have photoshopped it or altered it for publication. This is why obtaining the original is crucial.
edit on 18-12-2012 by zeeon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


Phage..eat your heart out

Huh?
The point is there is nothing there.
With your mad enhancement skills you don't know how to check for EXIF data?

edit on 12/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Sometimes I think the more you mess with digital on digital, the more you gather structures, especially in a noisy picture like this, and when it is already affected by the compression. Now as someone said earlier, it in fact looks too clear..again plausible in a noisy picture, but where the 'object' is, it is fairly quiet, and out of the glare caused by the dirty window, although there is still residual noise, but much less. Then there is impatience, since there are supposed to be different pictures. What tickles me is that the 'object'... with a little imagination for darkness resembles the Kumburgaz, Turkey UFO. All the bits are there.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


Phage..eat your heart out

Huh?
The point is there is nothing there.
With your mad enhancement skills you don't know how to check for EXIF data?

edit on 12/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I don't have all softwares out there but I have the basics.

Phage, why don't you try to do some of this stuff rather than throwing sarcasm in your post?

So far you haven't contributed anything yet except for your sentence correction statement and also needing the original photo and EXIF data.

Did you contact The Telegraph as well? Did you become their member and ask for the photo? Did you do anything proactive rather than sitting back and counter my posts on here? HUH????
edit on 18-12-2012 by Skywatcher2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I found the image on Rex Features. It might be the original. However you have to sign up or something I can't do that from work.

Rex Features UFO Photo



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
I found the image on Rex Features. It might be the original. However you have to sign up or something I can't do that from work.

Rex Features UFO Photo

Great!

I've just registered under my company name...

Have to wait until tomorrow


Originally posted by zeeon
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Agreed on everything, thanks for doing all that. Unfortunately, since it was published on a web article, chances are any website that used the original may have photoshopped it or altered it for publication. This is why obtaining the original is crucial.
edit on 18-12-2012 by zeeon because: (no reason given)

Yes, but there's something else that is not right:

In the EXIF screenshoot below...



...the tag "Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling" is 4:4:4 (1 1) meaning that NO chroma sub sampling was applied to the picture during the JPEG compression process and that therefore the image quality must be optimum (and its size originally huge), which is obviously not the case here.




In the above comparison, the 8x8 JPEG square that are visible especially at strong contrasts edges in the 4:1:1 sub sampling almost disappears in the 4:4:4 process. This 4:4:4 scheme is sometimes used in high-end film scanners and cinematic post-production,

Moreover, I'm not aware of any camera that do not use chroma sub sampling in its compression process.

Chroma Sub Sampling


Originally posted by Toadmund

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011

It appears those lines are all over that picture.
It may be over-processed?


No, not necessarily a sign of over-process, but rather a sign of strong JPEG compression:



...that divided the picture in 8x8 blocks and artificially then add what I'll call "false lines" in there.
edit on 18-12-2012 by elevenaugust because: spelling and the JPEG compression explanation




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Star for effort


2nd line
edit on 18-12-2012 by Skywatcher2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I believe I have also found the actual guy who took the photo.

Larry Siu, lives in Hong Kong, and is pictured with a...drum roll please....camera in hand on his facebook!

Larry Siu Facebook



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


Phage, why don't you try to do some of this stuff rather than throwing sarcasm in your post?

Um...

Phage..eat your heart out




So far you haven't contributed anything yet except for your sentence correction
No. It was a factual correction.


Did you contact The Telegraph as well? Did you become their member and ask for the photo?
Nope. Good on you though.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join