Hoaxing images - The 4 step guide

So, first thread here and I really wanted to demonstrate how easy it is to hoax relatively convincing images(depending on who's viewing them, I guess).

This is something I did earlier, spent no more than 15 minutes on this. Think the result will maybe impress some people. And help to highlight the naivity as a collective many Alien/UFO believers are willing to keep hold of.

Like to also say for the record I've witnessed UFOs on seperate occassions. Before everyone gets rowdy and wants to burn the perceived 'skeptic'. I was originally going to post the final result and claim it as a UFO to see how many people bought it, then I realised I'd be no better than a hoaxer myself

Step 1.





Step 2.





Step 3.





Step 4.








So, yeah... Discuss?

The last picture is meant to look like a scanned photo or image. That's the easiest trick in the book for trickster. A few well placed distortions to hide blending failures

With technologies available trusting anything extraordinary you did not see happening with your own eyes is problematic. And soon trusting your own eyes will also be problematic, given holographic technology advancement.
So it is question of faith.

reply to post by HeavenlyDivine

I was originally going to post the final result and claim it as a UFO to see how many people bought it, then I realised I'd be no better than a hoaxer myself

That would have got you banned

With that said. I believe everyone in this forum knows how easy it is to hoax photos. Members here spend much much time showing this. And the reason ATS has a [HOAX] forum. Spend enough time in this forum and you will learn this soon enough

The hard part is proving that a photo (and video) is hoaxed or legit. That is the challenge.

You may want to check out this thread!



Welcome to ATS



[edit on June 19th 2010 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by HeavenlyDivine

I was originally going to post the final result and claim it as a UFO to see how many people bought it, then I realised I'd be no better than a hoaxer myself

 

That would have got you banned

With that said. I believe everyone in this forum knows how easy it is to hoax photos. Members here spend much much time showing this. And the reason ATS has a [HOAX] forum. Spend enough time in this forum and you will learn this soon enough

The hard part is proving that a photo (and video) is hoaxed or legit. That is the challenge.

You may want to check out this thread!

Welcome to ATS

[edit on June 19th 2010 by greeneyedleo]

Thanks, though I've ready plenty of questionable stuff that doesn't end up in the hoax forum. One member in particular, but I'd hate to name names.

reply to post by HeavenlyDivine


Naming names would not be allowed You are more than welcome to hit the alert button on a post you believe is a hoax.

In order for something to be moved to the HOAX forum, it must be proven to be a hoax. Just shouting HOAX!!! is not going to cut it. Back up the claim with facts and evidence

[edit on June 19th 2010 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by HeavenlyDivine

 

Naming names would not be allowed

You are more than welcome to hit the alert button on a post you believe is a hoax.

In order for something to be moved to the HOAX forum, it must be proven to be a hoax.

I suppose the problem is distinguishing between a mentally insane - for lack of a better word - individual, and someone trying to purposely deceive.

All images posted here will go thru scrutiny.

[Image]
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
Software = Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Date Time = 2010-06-19 21:25:30
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 164

[Camera]
Color Space = sRGB
Exif Image Width = 640
Exif Image Height = 480

[Thumbnail Info]
Compression = JPEG Compressed (Thumbnail)
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
JPEG Interchange Format = Offset: 302
JPEG Interchange Format Length = Length: 4461

[Thumbnail]
Thumbnail = 160 x 120

Think the result will maybe impress some people.

Obviously went thru Photoshop Would never have been able to get away with it Im not sure how much it would have impressed people here. We have a very tough crowd

[edit on June 19th 2010 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
All images posted here will go thru scrutiny.

[Image]
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
Software = Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Date Time = 2010-06-19 21:25:30
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 164

[Camera]
Color Space = sRGB
Exif Image Width = 640
Exif Image Height = 480

[Thumbnail Info]
Compression = JPEG Compressed (Thumbnail)
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
JPEG Interchange Format = Offset: 302
JPEG Interchange Format Length = Length: 4461

[Thumbnail]
Thumbnail = 160 x 120

Obviously went thru Photoshop

Would never have been able to get away with it

[edit on June 19th 2010 by greeneyedleo]

You know I could have stripped the exif data if I wasn't lazy

reply to post by HeavenlyDivine


I think the point im making is: Members here know photos can easily be hoaxed. We have die-hard members committed to this forum and the intregity of the subject. Any photos go under very hard scrutiny by many members.

No exif data? It will be demanded that the original raw image is given or the "hoax" calls will start. No EXIF data is usually a sure sign of a hoax just as much as seeing "photoshop" in the exif data. It usually means the one giving the photo is hiding something.

Do, hoaxes remain in this forum? Well, yes because proving something is a hoax is not as easy as doing the hoaxing

Anyways again, welcome to ATS and enjoy your stay!

[edit on June 19th 2010 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by HeavenlyDivine

 

I think the point im making is: Members here know photos can easily be hoaxed. We have die-hard members committed to this forum and the intregity of the subject. Any photos go under very hard scrutiny by many members.

No exif data? It will be demanded that the original raw image is given or the "hoax" calls will start. No EXIF data is usually a sure sign of a hoax just as much as seeing "photoshop" in the exif data. It usually means the one giving the photo is hiding something.

Do, hoaxes remain in this forum? Well, yes because proving something is a hoax is not as easy as doing the hoaxing

Anyways again, welcome to ATS and enjoy your stay!

[edit on June 19th 2010 by greeneyedleo]

Strip data, change data, similar process.

I'm not trying to suggest ATS at large are idiots Simply that it's surprisingly easy to fake stuff

I mean I could surely get something printed in the local media, with the potential for it to be picked up by a few national tabloids(the online websites atleast), which would then lead to it probably finding its way onto ATS I'm sure.

And thankyou, I intend to. Been observing in the shadows for too long

reply to post by HeavenlyDivine


Sorry but that is not really a good fake. The little blur thing you added on to the photo at the end makes it look worse than if you did not do anything at all. A better way to do it is add the UFO to another layer and make it a little transparent. That way the color matches and you get a little haze that gives an illusion of distance from the camera. Sometimes you also have to pixelate the layer with the UFO to match it up with the rest of the photo like so. But you do not even have to put in a "UFO" most believers will believe in anything even if it is nothing but a few black and gray pixels that show nothing.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Everyone went crazy over some very poorly superimposed pixels. 3 black dots pass as jets and a grey dot passes as a UFO.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f88803b95e7b.jpg[/atsimg]



You can also edit the exif data now with free online programs. But you do not even have to deal with exif data if it is an old printed photograph that was "scanned in"

[edit on 19-6-2010 by zaiger]

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by HeavenlyDivine

 

Sorry but that is not really a good fake. The little blur thing you added on to the photo at the end makes it look worse than if you did not do anything at all. A better way to do it is add the UFO to another layer and make it a little transparent. That way the color matches and you get a little haze that gives an illusion of distance from the camera. Sometimes you also have to pixelate the layer with the UFO to match it up with the rest of the photo like so. But you do not even have to put in a "UFO" most believers will believe in anything even if it is nothing but a few black and gray pixels that show nothing.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Everyone went crazy over some very poorly superimposed pixels. 3 black dots pass as jets and a grey dot passes as a UFO.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f88803b95e7b.jpg[/atsimg]



You can also edit the exif data now with free online programs. But you do not even have to deal with exif data if it is an old printed photograph that was "scanned in"

[edit on 19-6-2010 by zaiger]

Ouch, that hurts. I'm a profressional graphic designer by trade lol

Second line

so what are we saying from this analysis that exif data no longer is justified in determining whether or not a photo is a hoax?

I'd like someone to clarify this point, if the data can be changed by internet programmes and such, where does that leave us in terms of investigation methods for future pictures?

If someone has legitimate footage or a photograph, and its edited in any way shape or form, thats going to put a question mark on the evidence straight away. theres no viable reason to edit geniune footage or a photograph unless it was absolutely necessary.

So next question is. IF these online programs do edit the exif data, is there a way of knowing if the exif data has been tampered with?

I actually think that someone posting good hoax techniques on here is a great way to identify and find solutions to investigating photos on a regular basis. Its a good counter for those interested. I'm not sure if the pros outweigh the cons, theres a good chance that if someone does view the ATS boards here then they'll already know or have an Idea how to hoax. The key to the investigation for me will always be the testimony of the witness matching the evidence offered, more often than not they dont match at all if properly. Casting huge doubt on the evidence offered.

I thought that this served as a good reminder to those who know nothing about photoshopping images, but I guess a lot of people here do.

These days, we cannot really trust any type of digital media. When enough work is put into it, anything can be forged. So i guess the only thing we can trust is our own experience and the experiences of others.

So I thought this thread was by all means OK

its kind of disgusting how many people on here at ATS can be fooled by photoshop. I mean they are obvious fakes, but people are always fooled by it, i mean, how... i dunno.

I wouldnt have been fooled by the 4th photo. looks shopped. even without knowing it was.

Originally posted by Superiorraw
so what are we saying from this analysis that exif data no longer is justified in determining whether or not a photo is a hoax?

I wouldn't say "no longer", I never thought it was that valuable if you are dealing with a photo from someone technically capable. But for an amateur who's not technically inclined, asking for the exif data can sometimes answer some questions so it's not a total waste of time

So next question is. IF these online programs do edit the exif data, is there a way of knowing if the exif data has been tampered with?

Yes and no. Yes there is a way to tell if a photo has been tampered with, no because your average Joe or Jane aren't going to have it. But it's something that the crime scene photographer for the New York City police department might have, as they can present evidence in court that the photo hasn't been tampered with. There's a Nikon technology, I don't know if the other camera makers have one similar:

D200 and D300 have image authentication.

I am a Probation & Parole Officer in Pennsylvania. I have a D-80 and often use it for forensic applications. (recording search/seizure details, sex-offender and gang surveillance, etc.). I had considered getting the D200 at the time I bought the D80 because of the Image Authentication feature (to demonstrate that the images are original and un-altered). I see that the D300 has this feature as well. Apparently it is a camera setting that allows images to be authenticated by a rather expensive software program that is sold separately and costs about $400 US.

EXIF can be easily changed by softwares...! What the O.P. means is that there is now a feature that allows pictures to have a "non tampered with" tag on D200, D300, D2 and D3...
The additional Nikon software allows one to verify if something (from EXIF to picture) was tampered with since the in the camera shot !

In legal cases it is an important feature...

Nikon Camera Control and Authentication

Nikon Image Authentication (Windows only) which enables the verification of the authenticity of images captured with the D2Xs, it can report if the image information (metadata) or image data itself has been modified since the image was taken and is clearly aimed at the law enforcment, government, media and insurance markets.

So again, yes authentication technology exists and no, no ordinary UFO hunters are likely to have it, when the software costs an extra $400 in addition to the camera cost.


[edit on 20-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Sorry OP,
I've seen my little brother (22) create better hoax images.
Really.

but sadly it would fool many here. lol

new tools for photo manipulation are pretty crazy and easy do...
the same goes for video and audio manipulation.

it's too bad so many use the technology for hoaxing.




[edit on 20-6-2010 by Zeta Reticulan]

reply to post by HeavenlyDivine

I see the difference between step 3 and 4 versus step 1, (and step 3 looks better I think, as someone else said), but what's the difference between step 1 and step 2?