Big UFO pic! Amazing!

Originally posted by mysraki
And you say you know digital graphics and do web development graphic for insurance companies ? You lack of knowledge of the world's most popular design program as Photoshop just reveal you are an amateur.
Don´t try to insult our intelligence.

Listen boy, if you want to do a good debunk here first learn the art of debunking and don't invent things, you and your photoshop artifacts !!

Now that is not very mature and not very respectable of others.

[self defence]I have been working with graphics for over a decade and do web graphics, animations and flash.[/self defence]

In the wonderful world of computers, there is a LOT to learn in all area's. One can ALWAYS learn more in there own fields, no matter how long they've done it. Any professional can still learn more in their own fields.

When I said photoshopped, I used the term the way it is used today - meaning that it was added to the picture after the actual snap shot. I knew it was an older photo. I came to this conclusion by the simplest of methods - counting/comparing artifacts. THat is why I thought it was added in later. This method works VERY well with digital photos, but it still works with old photo's - it is just harder to tell usually - and sometimes you can't tell at all.

However, I was wrong this time and I admitted it.

For you to pounce on me with an attitude like you're too smart and I was out to fool people and lie shows something about you, but I will not resort to shaming others. I did not lie, I made a mistake. Do you not make mistakes? If not, then you have every right to judge me.

Why is it that when people make mistakes, others want to use it to prop themselves higher? Oh wait, that's off topic.

The picture is still a fake. My approach was wrong, but the outcome is still the same.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by godservant]

Originally posted by mysraki
Listen boy, if you want to do a good debunk here first learn the art of debunking and don't invent things, you and your photoshop artifacts !!

That's not a very polite response, I must say. Everyone gets some things wrong and godservant's method of analysis and other variations are applicable in situations. Criticizing him is just silly, especially when the image is a hoax anyway, even if the method of faking isn't exactly what he said.

Originally posted by godservant
The picture is still a fake. My approach was wrong, but the outcome is still the same.
[edit on 1-2-2006 by godservant]

Youre finding out how volitile the field really is. Get a thick skin, because it only gets worse.

The problem with your statement above is that when doing this kind of thing you have to make your data duplicatable, and done so anyone with similar equipment can do so. Finding answers isnt about what you find, it's about what you find and what it actually means, then having others find the same thing.

I'd say this about your "artifact" method, it was shown in this thread to be non-reliable. So, that being said, can it be used in other examinations? IF the shot is a blatant Photoshopped job using a base photo already compressed, then sure. But then again, who *cant* tell that sort of thing without comparison of compression?

When it's done right, I guarantee your methodolgy isnt going to yield the correct result.

All that said, there's no reason for the nastiness shown to you (not nice at all)...but in the end, it's just this field and it's volitile nature.