Drone UFO pics on C2C

Originally posted by greatlakes
This thread brings into question "What will happen when we are presented an authentic ufo photo, one that is clear and detailed and has numerous non-affiliated witnesses?

In the digital age I believe even image experts won't be able to conclusively call a photo or video fake or real regardless of the evidence.

Youre absolutely right. I've told David on the phone several times, thats it's getting to the point where the ability to fake photos is getting nearly level to the ability that we have to detect them.

Hence, thats why you have to know more then digital imaging and manipulation- Light, shadow, angles, color, perspective, etc etc.

There will always be though, some tell-tale signs that will be inescapable.

But, look at it this way, IF say this set of photos were found to be real (and they arent)...what are you going to do with that? All people like me and David could say is, theyre real photos of a real event. Past that, there's no more to say. Where from there? We dont know much more then we did before we looked at them, except that they depict a real event.

Where'd it come from? Dunno.
Whats it doing? Dunno.
Who's inside? Dunno.
Whats it there for? Dunno.

As David has said, everyone wants some sort of disclosure...but what exactly are you going to do with it? And what if it isnt what you want it to be?

Ponderous man...frikkin ponderous.

Let's stay on the TOPIC here and have a little faith that those who provide this forum for you free of charge might actually have a clue who IS and who is Not a "genuine expert".

If you lack that faith (and I certainly understand that!) at LEAST have the common decency to do a LITTLE work, due diligence, or at a MINIMUM a simple GOOGLE SEARCH to find out "who is who" BEFORE potentially insulting those who are GRACIOUS enough to VOLUNTEER their extremely LIMITED free time to our FREE FORUM ok?

Now, back to the topic of discussion.

Springer...

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by Dallas
Wow, so you all think it's real. The first pic as I drifted into it, my immediate thought was no-way. It's an illustration.
But after reading your comments and the close up stuff, who knows? I've certainly been wrong before. The, I'd guess, main wing looks like three sections and is too bizarre for someone to dream it up as it appears to have no support features to carry the disco-id structure.

Anyway, I'm now mystified at these pics. Great stuff and thanks for bringing'm into ATS for us to have a look see !!

Dallas

the whole thing kinda reminds me of the floating gardens in final fantasy VIII. If any one has ever played that game.

Ok Im new here and would just like to say. I checked out the photos
put them through my washer as I call it. and extracted some information on them from the camera it was taken with.

Ok Photo number 2-2 (above the trees) was taken with a real camera @ Date & Time: 2007:05:06 17:20:08. I dont have the make so it must be phone camera or a still video camera. usually digital cameras will give there name and what f-stop they were using. other information from this photo.
Exif Image Height: 518
Exif Image Width: 792
jpeg IF Byte Count: 3067
Jpeg IF Offset: 302
Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0

photo 3-2 was taken at
Date & Time: 2007:05:06 17:20:38

as for the close up photo with the writings. no info on the camera was available ot time.

IMO: the first two I can say were taken with some cheap camera. Ie camera phone. or a cheap digital camera.

As for the PhotoShop Elements 2.0 No way you can do that with Photoshop elements 2.0 you can import the picture clear it up some, bring out some colors but not make graphics or 3d like what people have been saying. I have the latest photoshop CE and I can'nt even do that with it.

So I assume its only been imported to a photo editor. the time of the photos seem to be ok. and the dates also. it looks like it come down to the
Seconds between photo 2-2, 3-2 its 30 seonds between the both photos.

this is my first post to the group. im not an expert at this but the software I have is and does tell me the time and dates of photos. f-stop if any and the make of the camera. I must say the photos appear to be real . and it not a graphic program either. I only have this for engineering and electrical jobs I take photos of . but comes in handy for other thing like this. the only way to get the time from a photo is from the chip in the camera that embeds it on the digital file. also gives resolution as well.

I can say the first two are not fakes.

Hi SJE98 and WELCONE to AboveTopSecret.com.

I would like to point you to the page of posts prior to this one so that you can read the testimony of one of the "Fathers of Photoshop", Mr. David Biedny (a Google search will answer all your questions about his credentials ).

Just so you know what photshop is capable of in a professional's hands.

Springer...

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Springer]

Pretty sure all of the above dta can be manually changed or entered by some shareware or even freeware proggies, look here:

www.febooti.com...

With febooti fileTweak you can change date and time for files, JPG images, folders (directories) and subfolders as well. Change files and folders creation date / time, last modified date / time and last accessed date / time (timestamp).

The time stamp doesnt tell us anything, a backplate image could be shot easily without any real concern for time within a certain amount of minutes.

As far as APE 2.0, yes it can do layered composites. So can PS-CS, even more so.

The 3d model or model, or found object, can be rendered over the original image within a modeler, or rendered over a green or blue background, and masked/alpha channeled out and into the backplate photo. Some touch up and noise added...Easy.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by jritzmann]

Ok Took another look at my software it I notice . the photo do not have the original time and date stamped again my software picks the date form the top and bottom of any digital photo file. I only notice the top of the file is stamped with date and time. but I have seen phone camera do this also when taking photos with them . well it's a toss up. could be real .
maybe not. I they could tell me the name of the camera I could find out for sure. about the bottom time stamp on the digital file. That way I could check with the manufacture of the phone camera.
As with most phone cameras a lot of info will be missing on the digital file due to the size of the phone and trying to cram all the electronic in their. My Camera phone does not have time stamp on the bottom the digital file either, only the top .

This very well could be real, hmm

Originally posted by SJE98
the only way to get the time from a photo is from the chip in the camera that embeds it on the digital file.

Nope.

Exif data can be added to a file, edited, or removed altogether. As with so much else in digital images, the time stamp, camera type, etc., can't be trusted either.

Exif editors

Exif Pilot - exif software. The program allows you to edit Exif data or to add it to the JPG files that didn't have it before. You can take a lot of images and set timestamps for every one of them ahead or back a certain number of hours.

I wonder how many photos the guy has really taken....

I also wonder if the C2C web guys are not editing them and ruining some of the exif data that may have existed.

To me the color of the "background" not the craft, almost looks like its from a scanned photograph.

Some photos I have taken with a disposable and scanned have almost the same look as these. Digital always seems to be more vibrant.

Has similar washed out looking color as:

www.coasttocoastam.com...

Could be an older digital camera though.


I wish there was more info.


[edit on 8-5-2007 by Dulcimer]

David Biedny, jritzmann.


Can you show me a ufo you have seen in your careers that you could not explain to be a hoax and post it here?

Thank you for your time.


PS: This is off topic, should i start a new thread about it?

ok . I checked it out in CS2 and put on the high res monitor. It looks air brushed, at the top of whatever that thing is on top? by the way Ive have seen that thing what ever it is on a building someplace at the top I just can place where. I travel alot in my business and I know I've seen that thing on some buidling roof \ top, It will hit me today sometime. when it does and if it does I'll post it here. Ive worked at the top of alot of buildings doing electrical work on just about everything. I'll think of it building sooner or later.

In the furure I'll put all the photos on my high res monitor. not on the notebook.

I does look air brushed. I did a B-25 bomber like this to take out the electrical lines in the photo, perrty much looks the same as photo 2-2 air brushed. but i know the b-25 bomber is real.

I think I know where he go the top from . An old rod iron smoke stack there about 100 ft or more high , and all over Europe. I replaced the red lights on top of some of them for aircraft markers so they don t hit them at night.

I have SERIOUS DOUBTS that the C2C webmaster or anyone working for him has edited ANYTHING with these pics, matter of fact I am CERTAIN that's NOT the case FWIW.

The webmaster at C2C.com is a very busy and very GENUINE guy based on my dealings with him.

No, I would have to say that if there is any "monkey business" going on with these images (which there certainly appears to be) it would have to be coming from the original submitter and NOT anyone associated with C2C.

Springer...

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Springer]

I worked on the model of the craft/medical device a little bit this evening. I added the fans that are on the underside of the craft and the boss that the main blade connects to the hub with. I am having a hard time figuring what is happening on the inside of the hub. I think I can see some wire apparatus arrayed in a vertical orientation along the inside diameter of the hub, but there is something else going on in there that I haven't got a handle on yet.

It is almost totally silent but not quite. It makes kind of "crackling" noises. It's hard to describe them but they are only intermittent and not very loud, but you can notice them. Sometimes there is a very slight hum that sounds kind of mechanical, almost like when you are near very large power lines. But it is nothing loud like a jet engine, it is very quiet for the most part.

This is a bit from the man who took the pictures.
Sounds more and more like an electrokinetic craft (if its real)

Those spiney looking things could be like some kind of heatsink or may help direct some kind of energy field

Electrogravitic/kinetic propulsion experiments



[edit on 8-5-2007 by Unplugged]

Originally posted by SJE98
ok . I checked it out in CS2 and put on the high res monitor. It looks air brushed, at the top of whatever that thing is on top? by the way Ive have seen that thing what ever it is on a building someplace at the top I just can place where. I travel alot in my business and I know I've seen that thing on some buidling roof \ top, It will hit me today sometime. when it does and if it does I'll post it here. Ive worked at the top of alot of buildings doing electrical work on just about everything. I'll think of it building sooner or later.

You know I was thinking it could be the hub and arms of some amusement ride on top of a building like the Stratosphere in Las Vegas.

Originally posted by groingrinder

Amazing work groingrinder, very good detail, I would like to have an .obj file of that! The original pictures do have a lot of detail, your very close to it

Being able to create a digital replica of an object in a photograph proves absolutely nothing. Having said that, I still think that this entire saga is a hoax.

Does anyone else think that the first picture looks like it has been framed for the scenery, rather than the object ? The river to the left, and the hill to the right......it just seems like a landscape shot to me. That, and the fact that the "UFO" isn't even in the centre of the picture.....

Jritzmann and/or David Biedny,

Could one of you be so kind if you have the time to look over my post on page 12, right below Mr. Biedny's post and go over it and maybe even apply the layer level settings I posted there if you have the time (CS2 or CS3). The reason I ask is because I am teaching myself Photoshop in my spare time and am trying to get good at tearing down a picture and identifying if it is fake or not.

Long story short I would like to know if the results I found were on the right track or not or just dumb luck as it would appear I figured out they are faked, just don't know if that has ANYTHING to do with the manner in which I detected they were fake.

Thank you in advance for any time you alot me, its greatly appreciated sirs.

~Anathema

P.S. I for one AMMM greatfull that you two take the time out of your days to lend professional views here on ATS and for that matter for each one of us that are thankfull heavily out weighs every 10 that have nothing to offer but rude remarks and cheap gut shots.

I wish more people would attempt to be just a little more selfless in life and on here, would make this forum not only the best one on the block as far as its premise is concerned, but also the most pleasent, which sadly it has been lacking the latter due to an onslaught of rude individuals, full time trolls is a more fitting term i believe.

Non the less this is the best damn forum on the net folks, just go out of your way a little to give respect where it is due and you will find that there are a lot of good people on here with great opinions to offer, theres NEVER a need to be rude.

As Springer once said... Don't come into someone elses home and piss on the carpet, it just aint right.