An old photographic alien case solved?

I was just reading one of the UFOData Magazine issue (n°10 of July-August 2007) that IsaacKoi released today on PDF (see its thread ""UFO Data" magazine collection (2006 to 2008) online - free PDFs download) when I came up with the article written p54 and that I reproduce below:



I hope that the resolution is enough big for everyone to read.... Anyway, and in case of, here's the full transcription:

In September, 2006, UFOData Magazine received an email from a lady (we have her name, but she preferred
to remain anonymous) along with a photograph of a mysterious figure apparently strolling in the Hampshire countryside

"I am writing in the hope that you will be able to help me and also take me seriously. I am 46 years old, I have never had any kind of UFO experience, I am not mentally ill, I don't use drink and drugs and I am not a liar. The following letter is 100% true, although 1 would not blame you if you did not believe me."

"I recently moved to a new area because of a job opportunity and one of the big attractions to the area was all the green land and woods as I love the outdoors, especially as I have a large dog which needs a lot of exercise. On Monday the 8th May, 2006, I had been out for several hours with my dog and throughout the afternoon I took a series of photographs ofthe area to send to my sister who lives abroad."

"Later that evening I was down loading the images from my mobile phone to the PC [and] when I looked through the photos, 1 was very shocked to see that on one of the images there was what appeared to be a greyish figure either running or walking through the shot, all the other images were fine except this one.
"The photo I have sent you is the original photo down loaded straight from my phone; the phone is a Motorola Razr with a VGA camera."

"The photo is very low resolution (160X120, 4.40kb) this is because the camera was set to full zoom (4X) when I took the photo. The photo was taken at 2:20p.m on the afternoon of Monday 08/05/06. I showed the photo to my
husband and asked him for his opinion. He said that the photo is a digital fault and shows nothing more than either a small child or a jogger and, because of the fault, this makes the figure look unusual."

"This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard from my husband. I pointed out that it took me about 2 seconds to take the photo and if anyone such as a child or jogger was in the area I would have seen them. I
have very good eyesight and I can clearly say without any doubt that there was no-one there when I took the photo, plus I pointed out to my husband that the figure does not look anything like a child or a jogger or neither does it look anything like a human."

"I haven't shown the photo to anyone except my husband because I don't think anyone would believe me, plus
I don't want to be the subject of ridicule. It was my husband's sarcastic comments about "the aliens coming to get me" that sparked my interest in the unexplained, and over the last few months 1 have become very interested in the subject and carried out some extensive reading."

"A single day has not passed since I took the photo that I haven't looked at the image. 1 look at the photo on a
daily basis and I am just as baffled as to what the figure is in the photo. I am sending you the image to ask if it
would be possible for you to carry out some analysis of it to see if you can extract some information from it.
Under no circumstances am I trying to say that the figure is an alien, but I know 100% in my own mind that no
one was visible when I took the photo and it does not show a child or a jogger. If the photo is nothing more
than a digital fault then that's fair enough, but even that explanation sounds utterly ridiculous as the figure is too well defined in my opinion, and also I have taken hundreds of photos with my phone and never once have I had any faults or errors show up."

Here's what UFOData Magazine editor said at the time:

It is an intriguing image, but being so small, it is difficult to make any definitive analyses of it. We published
it on our website, in the hope that one of our readers could shed light on what was captured in the photograph. Unfortunately, nobody could come to any conclusion about it, with it being variously described as a hoax, a ghost or an alien.

The photographer has returned to the area many times and never seen anything like the figure again. She said:

"My friend and I visit the original location all the time. It is very close to the New Forest, Hampshire.
We leave food and water and it is always gone when we return. Yes, this could be wild animals, but several
times we have had dark shadows darting past us at the corner of our eyes and when we turn to see what is
there, nothing is visible."

Her friend took some photographs of the tree, in front of which the figure is seen in the original image. She also
posted the photograph around the web, in the hope that somebody could explain what it was she snap-ped.
Thus far, the 'figure' remains an enigma.

The photo was reproduced in the paper:



Now, the interesting thing is that, nowadays, we have tools that wasn't created yet back in 2006/2007. for example, here's one that I used almost every day, it's the Google Search Image Tool that allow you to search all other the Net any exact (or similar) picture to a given one.
So, as usual, I used it to try, at first, to find if there's a better resolution of this "alien" photo.

To my surprise, among the 56 results, and beside the facts that there was various resolution between 170*145 and 636*480 (and that leads nowhere, at least for any explanation of what it could be), there was other slightly different results at the end of the list that reproduce the exact same landscape of those in the "alien" photo......but without the "alien":



....with a resolution of 653*612 and that came from a landscape gardening Russian Site

I haven't found anywhere neither here nor all over the Net any explanation about this case and how it was faked.

Now, I think that we have the solution: the faker took the original photo from a gardening site, insert the fake "alien" in it, damage the photo by lowering its JPEG compression, invent a cool story and post the whole to UFOData website.

Do I get it right?

I think you solved the case Sherlock.

Awesome, all the branches on the tree is the same, the cut grass.

Good job well done

Edit.
Oh wait a second

Is this with or without the alien?

Her friend took some photographs of the tree, in front of which the figure is seen in the original image. She also posted the photograph around the web, in the hope that somebody could explain what it was she snap-ped.

reply to post by elevenaugust


Sorry to burst you bubble, but case not closed by a long shot. EXIF for the russian photo is January 25, 2009

I can't read russian, perhaps that is a known public garden taken from the same place? That's my best bet, as they do seem to match very nicely.

To look at some EXIF data, this place has a simple viewer.

reply to post by elevenaugust


I think you nailed it....especially since photoshop has been around quite awhile

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

Sorry to burst you bubble, but case not closed by a long shot. EXIF for the russian photo is January 25, 2009

I can't read russian, perhaps that is a known public garden taken from the same place? That's my best bet, as they do seem to match very nicely.

To look at some EXIF data, this place has a simple viewer.

edit on Fri, 09 Mar 2012 20:07:25 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

where did you find the original "alien" photo?

reply to post by greeneyedleo


I mean the one without the alien is stamped 2009, and the alien one was published July-August 2007. So the alien one came before the one on the russian garden site.

reply to post by TKDRL


That is because it was opened and saved in Photoshop....which does not mean the photo was taken AFTER...it just means it was edited in 2009...could have been cropped or renamed or whatever...still possible it was taken before and the "alien" was edited in....we need the original unaltered alien photo AND original unaltered landscape photo until then...alien looks very photoshopped to me...

[Image]
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 150
Y Resolution = 150
Resolution Unit = inch
Software = Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
Date Time = 2009-01-25 14:41:58
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 164

[Camera]
Color Space = sRGB
Exif Image Width = 653
Exif Image Height = 612

[Thumbnail Info]
Compression = JPEG Compressed (Thumbnail)
X Resolution = 150
Y Resolution = 150
Resolution Unit = inch
JPEG Interchange Format = Offset: 302
JPEG Interchange Format Length = Length: 10361

[Thumbnail]
Thumbnail = 160 x 150

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Yeah you have a point there, you do. And the site, according to the copyright has been around since 2007.

Would be interesting if there were a way to tell when the picture was put on the server. I have no way of telling that, maybe someone more into website technical stuff can do it though.

reply to post by elevenaugust


Well done. Very awesome work! Everything between both photos seems to match up pretty much exactly too.

Foliage of the main tree subject matches same in every respect. Lighting and shadows match. Cut and lay of the grasses match. Everything matches.

The photo you found without the alien, I'm quite sure, as you suspect, as i also suspect, is the source photo used in creating the fake alien photo.

Excellent work and Thank You.

reply to post by elevenaugust


Great work!

If you look for that image on Google you can find other versions that show a wider view than the "original" Alien photo, like this one, found here.





But as the "original" image also shows a little more to the left, I guess none of these are the real original.