Photoshop is a curse to UFOLOGY.

Originally posted by Palasheea
And technology marches on.....


silverlight.net...

Watch Microsoft Silverlight in action! It's awesome!

Bah, Silverlight has nothing on Flash, Flex, and Apollo. You want to make RIAs? That's the route you go

Flex and Apollo? Haven't checked them out yet but thanks for the tip!
Check out this info about JavaFX
JavaFX
Should be interesting!

Wow, impressive, we got our own "let´s bash photoshop" thread, that´s a new one!

I think it´s safe to say that the time when we could trust visual media as standalone proof is gone long time ago, please, let´s move on regarding this issue.

I would also like to point out that not all people who create sci-fi artwork do so with the intention of fooling people. There´s a HUGE cgi comunity out there featuring brilliant artists making the world a much more enjoyable place to live. Probably 99% of them has at least at one time created UFO_ish artwork which may or may not have been clipped out of context and abused.

Let´s just leave the artists alone...as well as the software vendors who create their tools...

It is for the UFO believing community to prove beyond doubt that these things exist.

People have been faking pix for years, you can't blame Photoshop blame the hoaxers. From fake ectoplasm to fairies even the Victorian / Edwardian pioneers were doing it, in the days when photography was expensive and difficult.

The camera does lie. I don't trust it. You can set a scene up for most scenarios if you want. You want the Mrs to look like she is having an affair, piece of cake. Want a picture of Nessie at Loch Ness, sorry already done.

It is not always just the pix that are the problem. Some of the stories are even dodgier. Sometimes its the crazy, bull-shine background story that the alleged witness gives that starts people wondering....like the original pix that started this thread...UFO pics on C2C .

All those wonderful pix like Adamskis were pre-Photoshop. A photo alone will never be enough for me. I am pretty primitive with photoediting but know enough to be aware that not all is real. Humans are scumbags, practical jokers are everywhere.

Several photos from several angles, from several witnesses along with other physical proof might do it for me.

I want to believe in this Alien UFO stuff but that doesn't make me a fool. It is not Photoshops fault it is just a program. Kinda using it against the hoaxers that use it is merely just IMHO.

I would say that those who are willing to believe too much are more at fault than Photoshop. They are the fodder that the hoaxers feed off of.
Hey maybe the whole UFO gig is a marketing ploy by Adobe...they must have sold thousands of copies to the UFO community on both sides of the hoaxing phenomenon.

Just imagine the feeling of satisfaction when the truth eventually comes out and Photoshop proves it!!

Blame the hoaxers not the software!!

[edit on 9-5-2007 by bash the bishop]

Yeah,okay, to all.

It's laughable how people will rush to the defense of a tool that can be used to verify their preconceived notions, in this case their preconceived notion being "All photos of UFOs are fake." Laughable indeed.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

To these people, to these Members jumping into the site with swelled heads and deliberate disrespect to Members looking for answers in the UFO/EBE fields.

You were greeted at the door with sincerity and kindness. When you, some of you jumped in, you mayhaps didn't know what to believe in certain subjects and to lesser degree, some never wanted to do their research on this subject anyway.

But this is not an average site. This is Above Top Secret, with a bunch of professionals and learners (me) that are in search of the truth not hard headed, undisciplined people who think and believe EBE/UFOs is not taken serious anywhere.

Keep us in mind, there are so many here who have spent years trying to figure it all out. Respect that.

Respectfully
Dallas

Yes but would you say the same if the preconceived idea was that the pix were real and Photoshop proved it?

Could be that my burden of proof is higher than most. I think it will take a lot more to prove "proof positive" than a few dodgy pix. For some that's all they need. Hey there are a lot of beliefs and religions based on a few scripts and hearsay, I don't accept that either. But many do, good for them. I have not seen a burning bush talk to me and if someone showed me a picture and told me it spoke to them I wouldn't believe it either. I would need to see the talking bush. Even then I would probably try to rationalise it...or get myself committed

Photoshop is just a tool, its not good or bad. Like a gun its up to those that use it for its outcomes.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Photoshop isn't a curse to UFOLOGY, people are..

Photoshop and the other image manipulation programs aren't going anywhere anytime soon. I agree that image manipulation is a huge problem, but don't let it distract you from searching for the truth. Sometimes when the truth is so earthshattering, people will do everything in their power to hide it. UFOs are the same way because like it or not, true exposure would shattered belief systems and shattered belief systems lead to an unstable society. People are comfortable in their beliefs and to destroy that construct leaves people defenseless to life's unanswered questions..

So, be weary of what you see, but don't lose sight of the real mission, full disclosure.. Sometimes the most pronounced UFO folks are the worst enemies of the cause.. Their disinformation is intended to be dismantled, debunked, and then used as a springboard for more debunking.. Be careful, but stay true to yourselves.

The only way that we as a human race are ever going to know the truth is:
An extraterrestrial vehicle lands and the occupant/s identify themselves to the people they they meet.
An extraterrestrial vehicle lands and is captured without being secreted away by the "authorities" in what ever country, preferably not somewhere in the USA, USSR or China.
An extraterrestrial people openly present themselves to people here on this planet and communicate with people without there being a fear of retribution from a nation that has other interests with keeping the existance of extraterrestrials a secret for whatever reason.
The existance of extraterrestrials are formally admitted by "authorities" and the people and nations that are working hard keeping the existance of extraterrestrials a secret.
Having a load of photos on hand has become too much of an issue over the "faked or photoshopped" stigma that they have become irrelevant to a solid identification of the existance, presence or sighting of a vehicle or peoples from planets in and around the solar system we live in.

I don't really think that the problem is worse per se than it was in the past, but rather that more people discuss these issues openly on forums than was the case in the past. That also goes to say that more people can easily post "fakes" and have others discuss them than was the case in the past as well.

IMO these are just normal consequences of having larger "wired" communities than was the case in the past. As has been pointed out "faking" photo's is as old as 'photography' itself.

The BOTTOM LINE IMO is that "Faked Photography" in any form has no real bearing on the legitimacy of the UFO Phenomena. Period. There are lots of other evidence like RADAR that can't be "photochopped" that we can say legitimize the UFO Phenomena.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Photoshop is the worst thing that could have ever happened to UFOLOGY. All it does is give skeptics an excuse to disregard all photos of UFOS.

Well, is convincing skeptics really that important?

There are quite a few 'tells' to a photoshopped picture. You have to be skilled to do it well. What percentage of casual hoaxers are skilled photoshop users.

Right now, it's somewhat difficult for a casual user to alter videos, though that's becoming more available.

So it's not photoshop, it's 'Movie Maker Plus', eh? But I get your point .

There's an upside to it. We now have the capability in the hands of the user to take old videos like the Z-film and do some debugging on our own, and lots of people have. The conspirators had no idea we'd be able to do all that and expose that it's possibly been re-composited, which makes the establishment clearly guilty of complicity in the assassination.

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
But Photoshop is also a very good tool to have when analyzing alledged ufo pictures.

Very True!

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
Photoshop is not a curse to ufology, hoaxers are!

Just because the tools are there, does not mean that they have to be used for deceptive purposes.

Well said.
Another example would be hackers. Some hackers use their skills for malevolent purposes, others work to prevent the latter.
But, the knowledge is fundamental to them both.

It reminds me of that rumor of how the Galactic Factions are Polarized...
STS == Service to Self
STO == Service to Others

So, back to the O.P. ~
It seems you are frustrated with the knowledge, instead of the manipulator.
Cheers!

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
There is nothing that I could show you nor any other skeptic to convince you. You'd still find some reason to say it was a "figment" of your mind or a hoax. Anything that shakes a skeptics' world view is lashed out at in defiance.

First of all, you are completelly wrong with your theory.

Also, it is actually people like you, who are the real "skeptics", because you don't even want to consider a different explanation, than what you want to believe.


Most of the people who you call skeptics, in fact only want to KNOW, instead of believing simply because it feels good.


Besides, it's the people, who fake photos, that are the real curse to UFOlogy. Because they make the entire field appear fake and drive away many people, who might otherwise be interested.

Really?

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

The thought was:

Photoshop is the worst thing that could have ever happened to UFOLOGY. All it does is give skeptics an excuse to disregard all photos of UFOS. Skeptics invariably cry the word "photoshop" anytime any photo of a UFO is presented. Nine times out of ten, the person who took the picture of the UFO doesn't even know what photoshop is. Yet, according to skeptics, it was "photo shopped."

Well, Billy Meier hoaxed tons of UFO pictures without Photoshop. And it's not PS's fault. It's modern TECHNOLOGY that gives us tools to create stuff.

[edit on 25-12-2007 by Breadfan]

Photoshop itself is nothing evil, and may actually result in a good thing. That good thing is getting people to understand that photos or videos of any kind, all by themselves, are not and have never been good evidence.

People get very wrapped up in the power of an image. We want to see to believe. But we know from magicians and misperceptions that seeing something isn't a very reliable way of determining the truth.

I've said before, if I wanted to, I could go out and build a full-sized inflatable UFO and loft it into the air and take a dozen perfect, clear pictures of it. No Photoshop or trick photography of any kind needed. No way to prove via the photo that it was fake. So that must make it true, right?

Some people will just never get it into their heads. A photograph is nice. Multiple photos of the same thing taken by different people (none of them anonymous) are even better. Photos backed up by other evidence is the best. Artifacts, dead aliens, official documentation, etc. All good.

But a photograph all by itself is just nice, and doesn't prove anything. It comes right after an unverifiable witness anecdote, which is second-cousin to a fish story.

I'm going to shy away from the good or bad of this issue. Instead, I wonder about the source of photshop and other enhancement methods.

Can someone put me on the path to get a bit of history on how photos from the pre-computer era might have later been "altered" to REMOVE items? How hard would it be to remove anomalies from a WWII or Vietnam era photo, and is there a way to find traces of such removal?

And I'm one of those people who knows nothing of using any of these programs myself to alter a damn thing. I learned to type, (slowly) on a manual Underwood, and I don't think I'm the only one. Sometimes younger folks get the idea that everyone is under the age of 40 on the internet. Surprise, we older folks aren't gone, it's not your world yet.

Originally posted by DarkSide
All UFO videos are either :
- photoshop
- cgi
- models (boomerangs,balloons, saucers etc)
- dots of light in a dark sky !
Prove me otherwise !

I don't know whether this statement was made as a joke or not. If you believe yourself, then you're totally wrong. Photoshop is for still images. The best and most numerous UFO videos come from the early 90's, before their was sophisticated CGI software for PCs that could sync an image to camera movement, render motion blur, or a camera going in and out of focus. Even those faked by CGI today look way too clean and rendered. Metalic craft in the day aren't dots at night. And by the movement, flight patterns, and distance, they aren't models either.

The two short video clips here were taken in the early 90's. They show that none of your claims are correct.

s127.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by Dulcimer
And I should add that photo evidence now pretty much needs multiple picture takers from multiple angles.

If "UFO's" are to be proven, it will be through photos / video taken by multiple witnesses.

I'm a bit amazed out how in the dark some are. There's plenty of this. The massive Mexican UFO flap that started in 91 gave us thousands of UFO videos from people all over down there, along with thousands/millions of witnesses. UFOs have already been proven using your criteria.


Here's the thing. Photos are easy to fake, videos are not easy to fake (and look convincing). I have given up on photos ever since videos started coming out. A video also gives you more info than a photo because you can much better tell whether something is close or far away, and you have the movement of the object itself to examine. In a photo, you don't know whether it's a small hubcap thrown into the air 30 feet in front of the camera, or a large UFO 1000 feet away. With video, you can't just throw a hubcap in the air anymore or dangle a model from a string. That's why all UFO proof now should be in the form of video.

Originally posted by NGC2736Can someone put me on the path to get a bit of history on how photos from the pre-computer era might have later been "altered" to REMOVE items? How hard would it be to remove anomalies from a WWII or Vietnam era photo, and is there a way to find traces of such removal?

Around the turn of the last century, before we all got educated about aliens, fairy and ghost photos were all the rage. Most of these were done with double-exposures, which can be easily done on the simplest pin-hole box camera. It's also relatively easy for a skilled artist to hand-retouch a photo, particularly if it's on a big print. Doing it on a negative is harder. You just paint over what you want, then do a contact print of th resulting photo. There's a slight loss in resolution, but no much more than you'd get if the photo was maybe a little out of focus to begin with. Other than that, you can re-photograph a photo, adding and subtracting things with literal "cut and paste" moves with glue.

Again, it just goes to show that photos by themselves are interesting -- whether they're 150 years old or done yesterday -- but not much for proof.

There was no shortage of UFO pictures before the advent of digital photography and Photoshop.

All kinds of trick photography have been used since the invention of the camera.

I also believe that image processing can be detected pretty easily.

[edit on 2007/12/25 by GradyPhilpott]