What is this thing in the sky?

a reply to: VoidHawk

I'm pretty sure anyone coming to this thread can read it for themselves to realize nothing you just said is true...

My first post in this thread:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

Edit, NM, saw the exif data, but it seems strange that the speed says 0...even if it is set to auto it would show that. Are you showing settings from the phone or the exif data from the photo? Can you upload the original photo unedited?

My second post:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

What details are you worried to post? The model of the phone?

My 3rd post:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

It just seems extremely strange that there is no shutter listed and that ISO says 0, since that doesn't really seem like a valid setting for a camera taking a picture at night...

You blacked out two settings, one I am assuming is the phone make/model. What is the other? What is the model of the phone?

Edit: And there is actually a very easy way to tell if someone has edited the exif data. Most people don't know how to change everything they need to change.

My 4th:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

Posting the undedited image without the exif data may quell my notions, but I still find it odd you refuse to offer up the raw image with exif data.

Edit: also, you redacted two lines from the exif, not 1. What was the other line? What is the model of the phone?

My 5th, and this is my one and only reference to cropping...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

And again, it is extremely easy to catch 9 out of 10 amateurs who try to change the exif data. There is a key thing they don't change usually that gives it away.

Are you going to upload the unedited photo sans the exif data?

Edit: and not once have I said you added anything into the photo. However there is clearly a blowup in the OP indicating that is a doctored image if at least for easier viewing. How much else was cropped out?

You said none was cropped out. That was the end of it. You are the one who started to get super defensive.

Another post:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

The image in the OP is edited...I'm asking for the unedited photo...you said you would upload it...

Again, no mention of cropping, but the image in the OP is clearly edited as it has a blow up in it...

Up to this point you had answered ZERO of my questions and still had not uploaded the original photo. We still don't know what model of phone it is. We could easily see if the phone would report erroneous ISO data based on the model. The model would in no way indentify a person.

Another post:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

What other angle are you talking about? Again I haven't changed angles once.

I don't care that it's cropped, I just want to see the full unedited image. It is seeming more and more strange that you seem to be delaying posting it.

I'm not trying to find anything wrong with it, but you asked us to say what we think it is so the original image would be nice.

It wasn't until this point that you actually provided the photo. This was THREE DAYS after my initial post requesting it.

And my 2nd to last post:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: intrptr

Exactly, I don't think he realizes how he is coming off...

It looks like he's dodging/deflecting as much as he can...

Also, you still haven't provided the model of the phone.

Nowhere have you been insulted..

I just don't see why you are being so defensive. You claim to have seen this craft, but all you have is an image that appears to have image noise caused by a long exposure and a shifty camera? Do you not have other pictures of it? You took just the one? From your description it was there for a while.

So all along you have been asked for the same things, and you are acting like they were asked for at different times.

From the beginning you were asked for: Exif Data, The Original Image (Which would have contained the exif data) and another shot of the window.

You provided the Original image 3 days after the request. You chose to withhold the exif data, that is fine, so you posted data minus a phone model (which had been requested several times) and a serial #. Also, geotagging of pics is disabled by default on android, so the exif data probably does not contain GPS information. Geotagging comes into play when uploading to social media from your mobile device. It is the social media site that tags the photo with a geo tag.

Another user asked you to re-take a picture of the same window from the day time so the window can be compared to the night shot to see if the blending look of the night shot is from image noise due to exposure or just how the window looks. Again though, the shading at the top and right to me is clearly image noise from a long exposure.

Wow, you get so defensive when people ask you reasonable questions. It's coming off as is you're dodging them. If I had some mind blowing experience and only had a crappy pic, I'd do my best to help my case by answering peoples questions. No ones being unreasonable here.

On that note, taking a daylight pic(which a lot of other people have done before) would help everyone get a better perspective on your experience. It's a black pic with some window sill looking thing that gives absolutely no reference to this grand experience you've had. Wouldn't you want to go out of your way to share as much as possible? You've come this far.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
To anyone coming through this thread. The camera/phone used didn't enter a value for the ISO speed and that was used to attack this thread. A quick search of google shows that errors in exif data is common for android devices. Exif data is just text, it can be altered by anyone and is useless as proof that a photo is genuine.

Can you link to some of those easy finds? I found one article on the HTC one not showing ISO higher than 125 but that's it. I found nothing that reports it as zero as being a common occurrence.

a reply to: VoidHawk

Bay w_indow.

I see a brick wall and some cornice work. How does a bay window play into this?

My first thought when I saw this picture was that it’s the burning casing falling from a firework…

A few nights ago I took lots of fireworks photos and in most of them there was the same object. It was always a lot lower than the firework explosion itself and when I showed to the pics to my fella he explained that they were just the firework casings burning whilst falling to the ground.

I'm gutted that I deleted most of the pics, I did keep a couple but I've edited them by zooming right in on the explosions so they don't show the casing falling to the ground.

Voidhawk, do you think it’s possible that you didn’t see the actual firework explosion but did witness the casing falling to the ground? You seem to have a pretty limited view from where that shot was taken?

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: raymundoko

Have to say, by the number of times you've mentioned bs, I'm beginning to wonder if your trying to inject doubt into this thread.

Exif data is meaningless! I've said it in other threads and in this one too!
As for the exposure time of zero, do you not think I couldn't have inserted ANY number I chose into it? I could have, I could have it read 1984 if I wanted to!
The exif data I posted is exactly how my pc presents it to me minus possible identifying data.

You seem to have ignored my comments about exif containing identifiable data such as GPS, do you agree that it would be silly to post such data on a public forum?

Why would it be silly? Having an exact location would allow proper scientific investigation.

On the other hand deleting Exif data makes this look very hoaxy and as such renders your entire photo/incident non-interesting or meaningless from a scientific point of view.

To my eye it looks as though its a flying model aircraft with lights attached.

I can see why you'd be edgy about posting the unedited EXIF data containing the GPS location/

Someone could come around while you or someone else was flying it.

Due to the lack of effort from the OP and how he reacted to basic requests for information I am considering this a hoax. I think he knows full well what he got a shot of.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Due to the lack of effort from the OP and how he reacted to basic requests for information I am considering this a hoax. I think he knows full well what he got a shot of.

Since when has it been your responsibilty to deciide whether something is a hoax?

You were given all the info requested other than an exact location. I hesitated over uploading the original photo because I was concerned over it revealing my friends house location, but I did upload it once I knew it was safe to do so.

You make a lot of assumptions without ANY evidence and do your utmost to discredit me, but then you do proclaim to be a disinfo agent and your behaviour matches your ocupation exactly, so I suppose we should expect nothing less of you.

originally posted by: JadeStar

Why would it be silly? Having an exact location would allow proper scientific investigation.

It would be silly to reveale a friends home location on a public internet forum, would't you agree?

As for "proper scientific investigation", please tell me what this investigation would consist of. Are you and Raymondo goint to fly over here to investigate? How many other "proper scientific investigations" have you carried out?

originally posted by: JadeStar
On the other hand deleting Exif data makes this look very hoaxy and as such renders your entire photo/incident non-interesting or meaningless from a scientific point of view.

So uninteresting, yet you still felt compelled to post, why is that?

As for the exif data, well you say that makes it look "hoaxy", but your wonderous scientific mind ignores the fact that I could have made that exif data say ANYTHING I wanted it to say. If I wanted to create a hoax dont you think I'd be more likely to hoax the exif data? I didn't did I, infact I even drew attention to it by not revealing it.
Exif data is meaningless, ANYONE can alter it to say whatever they want, and anyone with a scientific mind would know that! Wouldn't you agree?

originally posted by: JadeStar
To my eye it looks as though its a flying model aircraft with lights attached.

I can see why you'd be edgy about posting the unedited EXIF data containing the GPS location/

Someone could come around while you or someone else was flying it.

And you got all that by looking at a blur of light?

a reply to: VoidHawk

You never provided the model of the phone. Again, it was requested from the very beginning of this thread by several people. Taking a long time off doesn't mean we forgot about this hoax.

Edit: Also, you never answered the question: Why only one image? Why did you not take multiple if it was there for so long?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

You never provided the model of the phone. Again, it was requested from the very beginning of this thread by several people. Taking a long time off doesn't mean we forgot about this hoax.

Edit: Also, you never answered the question: Why only one image? Why did you not take multiple if it was there for so long?

There you go again, injecting the word "hoax" into your reply.
Will you include it in every post?

Your main argument was that I wouldn't provide the original picture, and you focused on that heavily! You were supplied with the origianl photo minus the exif. You ignore the photo! which is what this thread is about! and focus on the non existent exif as if its some how confirms YOUR view.

Tell me, and please dont keep avoiding my questions! Would you really be more likely to believe that a photo is genuine just because it has some text attached to it, text that can be altered by anyone!
You see, the thing is, I know you wouldnt be more impressed if the photo had been supplied with some text, because only a complete moron is goint to be swayed by it. It can be altered by ANYONE.
However, you constantly keep bringing it up like its some kind of holy evidence, all the while knowing its worthless value.....now why would a person do such a thing? hmmm?

As I said to JadeStar above..
"If I wanted to create a hoax dont you think I'd be more likely to hoax the exif data?"

Its true isn't it! I could have included anything in that exif that would have kept the fools that think its useful more than happy!

And the exif data itself, what was actualy wrong with it?
Well, it had one error, it had a zero where the shutter speed should have been.
Do you know anything about software? Are you aware that in software a zero often means DEFAULT settings?
Are you aware of that?

If you want to label this as a hoax then fine, but do so based on the photo shown in the op. NOT by discrediting me! Thats the actions of a troll/shill.

Can you see anything wrong with the photo??? You've been given the full size image! There are plenty on this forum that have the ability to examine photos in great detail, and they very quickly find anything suspicious if it exists, and yet not one of them has found ANYTHING wrong with this photo, there's just you, picking at everything except the photo, and constantly injecting the hoax word into your posts, and trying every trick in the book to discredit me rather than the PHOTO!!!

Come on Raymondo, look at the photo and tell us if you can see anything wrong with it! But then, the problem you've got is there's nothing wrong with it, and thats why you concentrate on everything other than the photo.

THE PHOTO RAYMONDO!!!

This thread is highly indicative of why nobody cares anymore, or just refuses to share.

OP is right in not releasing private information, or data from a phone they do not own.
EXIF data sourcing has turned into a wichhunt, many of us don't understand the data but we take the *experts* words that what they see is false or altered... almost every single time now.. it's becoming a joke really now that we know data can be falsified anyway.. and above all.. most of us see it as gobeldygook for debunking techheads to discredit at their leisure.

What im playing at here is, the method has been used to an early death, it's become the new "pics or it didn't happen"

And at the end of the day.. it's just one more tool for the debunker, not for the person that seeks.

Pushing for such erroneous information, in such a way as is presented in this here thread, under the conditions expressed by the OP and device used.. is highly suspect. OP stated the facts of the matter, and you used those facts to paint him as a faker.. when in fact the OP was within his right to withhold that information from any other private individual on a public forum.

Especially if what they saw was a legit unknown, or a *known* black op in testing.

Anyone can see this push for EXIF was too much, anyone can see the OP is being dragged through the mud for not disclosing further data that may geo-locate the device used.. Everyone can see the names pushing for this.

Many agree with the OP, & the abhorrent use of EXIF as a debunking tool.. normally by the exact same *experts* hence the silence that resonates throughout the halls of ATS's UFO section.

I actually thought fishing for personal data was against the T&C here... wonders if that rule no longer applied to this section?

a reply to: VoidHawk

Yet again you did not supply the model of the phone. Hoaxer's be hoaxin.

I broke down the history of this thread for you previously. All were requested at the same time.

I also, as did others, pointed out the problems with the image that show it was a longer exposure with a shaky hand.

What would you say the approximate altitude is of this object? Was there or has there ever been sound noticed when viewing this object? How long were you able to view it?

a reply to: VoidHawk

Unless the light source causing the lens flare has been cut out of the pic when editing?

Nevertheless, interesting pic.

originally posted by: Xarian6
This thread is highly indicative of why nobody cares anymore, or just refuses to share.

OP is right in not releasing private information, or data from a phone they do not own.
EXIF data sourcing has turned into a wichhunt, many of us don't understand the data but we take the *experts* words that what they see is false or altered... almost every single time now.. it's becoming a joke really now that we know data can be falsified anyway.. and above all.. most of us see it as gobeldygook for debunking techheads to discredit at their leisure.

What im playing at here is, the method has been used to an early death, it's become the new "pics or it didn't happen"

And at the end of the day.. it's just one more tool for the debunker, not for the person that seeks.

Pushing for such erroneous information, in such a way as is presented in this here thread, under the conditions expressed by the OP and device used.. is highly suspect. OP stated the facts of the matter, and you used those facts to paint him as a faker.. when in fact the OP was within his right to withhold that information from any other private individual on a public forum.

Especially if what they saw was a legit unknown, or a *known* black op in testing.

Anyone can see this push for EXIF was too much, anyone can see the OP is being dragged through the mud for not disclosing further data that may geo-locate the device used.. Everyone can see the names pushing for this.

Many agree with the OP, & the abhorrent use of EXIF as a debunking tool.. normally by the exact same *experts* hence the silence that resonates throughout the halls of ATS's UFO section.

I actually thought fishing for personal data was against the T&C here... wonders if that rule no longer applied to this section?

Thanks for that^ and you're spot on, its precisely why so few are willing to post.

originally posted by: iDope
What would you say the approximate altitude is of this object? Was there or has there ever been sound noticed when viewing this object? How long were you able to view it?

I've seen this object twice. The first time was about a year ago and that was when I got a real good look at it. It was coming from the north directly towards where I was standing. On that occasion it was low enough for me to see some detail.
As for its actual altitude, I have no idea because when looking up there are no reference points to gauge distance. However, either its very very big, or it was very low, because I could see details such as shape and the segmentation of the rear lighted area.
On that first occasion I thought it would go directly over me but it banked to its right and done a very slow 360 and then it continued towards the coast. When it hit the coastline it headed west along the coast.
I got the impression that this object is about the size of two tennis courts side by side, and triangular but rounded on the front end.
There was no noise at all, and that caught my attention at the time, because had it been a normal aircraft it would have been extremely loud at such close proximity. Also, the turn was made so slowly! any normal aircraft would just fall out the sky at that speed.

On that first occasion I was left scratching my head! because its not small, it was very low, and its lit up like it wanted to be seen! Being so well lit confuses me a little because it doesnt seem to make any sense, unless the light is caused by its means of propultion, OR, it really does want to be seen, by why would it want that?

On the second occasion I just happened to spot it through my friends kitchen window, asked if he had a camera, and I managed to get the pic we see in the op. This time I only saw it for a few seconds, it was higher up than the first time, but just as brightly lit. Again as soon as it reached the coastline it headed west.

Thanks for the interest I'm glad that you got this far through the thread without being put off by the trolling.

originally posted by: LightAssassin
a reply to: VoidHawk

Unless the light source causing the lens flare has been cut out of the pic when editing?

Nevertheless, interesting pic.

I realy dont mean to be rude, but I did make it quite clear in the op that I saw this thing with my own eyes. It is not lens flare or swamp gas or even balloons.

Please show evidence of cutting or cropping.

a reply to: VoidHawk

What is the triangle in the upper right corner?

Hello all!

Interesting photo that deserves a quick analysis IMO. For doing it, I use the original image given by the OP page 5.

I'll proceed as usual with the methodology that is fully detailed here.

1- Authenticity

I know that this point is a touchy subject, but there's no intention here to say that the photographer is cheating in any way. What could appear as "anomalies" doesn't mean necessarily that there's a fraud intention. For example, the lack of metadata can be explain in so many ways that it's impossible to know them all. Lots of process can destroy partially or completely these metadata...

Anyway, here's the result of the remote checking:



The file name is orange, meaning that there are no EXIF data. It happens for example when a file was used on the Internet, passed either through a sharing/hosting service site, or when a scanner was used.

The JPEG/JFIF tag is typical of a file that comes from Facebook for example. Facebook replace the whole original metadata by this tag and by one, two or more IPTC tags as well.
Anyway seems like it wasn't the case here as there are JPEG/JFIF and JPEG/Adobe markers. (APP14 Flags), the last being never present on Facebook images.

The presence of both the JFIF and APP14 Flags is not common and likely due to the use of a scanner. It destroy all the EXIF data and create JFIF and sometimes JPEG Adobe markers. The Adobe APP14 segment is not related to the use of Photoshop, but refers to the storage of image encoding informations for DCT filters, along with the DCT Encode version and the Color Transform. Then, the whole JPEG Adobe tags group (DCT Encode Version, APP14 Flags0, APP14 Flags1 and Color Transform) is created at the same time in the metadata.

These tags appears in the metadata depending of the scanner model and configuration (For example some configurations can create XMP tags and remove the thumbnails...). By default, the IJG compression library will write an Adobe APP14 marker if the selected colorspace is RGB, CMYK, or YCCK. The decompression library will recognize JFIF and Adobe markers and will set the JPEG colorspace properly when one of them (or both!) is found.

For example, here's a scan of identity papers created in RGB space with an EPSON scanner:



The metadata (read with EXIFTool) are the same both in this sample and in the OP image:



In conclusion, I would say that this image is certainly not an original, as it missed the whole EXIF data. Only JPEG metadata are present, and there's no way any camera would produce only JPEG metadata.
This doesn't mean that there's a cheating there, but most likely that the original image passed through another process that altered/destroyed the metadata.

To be continued....