Steve Greer (CSETI) Photograph ET Being

reply to post by game over man


That's exactly what i said!

The image is faked..without a doubt...stars don't shine through furniture or the ground!

Why are we filling over 8 pages with this thread? The image is dodgy..even if it were not for the 'double exposure', the image is still worthless for ID purposes.

Nobody seems to want to hear what we are saying game over man.

The image is faked..without a doubt...stars don't shine through furniture or the ground!

I posted a few pages back about the 'stars' visible on the ground. The 'stars' are a product of image noise and hot/burnt pixels on the camera's sensor. Clearly it was dark when the picture was taken, and I assume the camera automatically upped its ISO, which only makes the noise worse.

Noise, albeit very bad noise, is no reason to believe the image is fake. It's completely normal

Wikipedia's article on image noise
Many hot pixels on a USB microscope
Another example of hot pixels
Some bad image noise on a camera phone
An example of my own - and this was a good camera

If we look at the photo's EXIF data, which contains no traces of Adobe Photoshop, we can see what kind of camera was being used and its settings.

"Make","FUJIFILM"
"Model","FinePix S7000"

"Software","QuickTime 7.6.4"
"DateTime","2009:11:18 03:55:04"
"HostComputer","Mac OS X 10.5.8"

"ExposureTime","3.00Sec"
"FNumber","F2.8"
"ExposureProgram","Program Normal"
"ISOSpeedRatings","400"

"DateTimeOriginal","2003:01:01 00:01:08"
"DateTimeDigitized","2003:01:01 00:01:08"

"ShutterSpeedValue","2.83Sec"
"Flash","Not fired(Compulsory)"
"FocalLength","7.80(mm)"
"MakerNote","FUJIFILM Format : 286Bytes (Offset:816)"

Fuji S7000 looks like an OK camera. 400 ISO is not a high rating, but it's not exactly desirable and would explain the image noise. You can also see that the flash wasn't fired. If it was, this 'alien' would have been fully illuminated - which would probably give the game away!

Another edit: I just found another image taken with the Fuji S7000 taken in low light conditions. Unsurprisingly, the hot pixels are visible here too. It looks as if the 'stars' are in the sky and the water - which essentially proves my point:
img24.imageshack.us...

Camera review here, which mentions "several hot pixels":
www.dcresource.com...




[edit on 21/2/10 by JH80]

I'm sorry, but that's an easy fake. All he's done is edited some of the bush bit by bit to form an alien. You can see that some of the bits in the alien is identical to bits in the bush.

Okie day, then.

ALL I did to this photo was enhance the brightness/ color using Photoshop Elements quickie adjust buttons:



First off, the huge amount of noise and speckling looks like a trick I do occasionally when I want cheap and fast stars for a pic: make a layer, turn it black, ramp up the noise til it looks like a tv screen, adjust bright/ contrast, fade it much as possibe, adjust to taste- voila! STARS.

Next up is what I highlighted in the pic. It's outside, presumably away from everything.... WHY IS THERE A SHADOW BEHIND THE STUFF. Answer? black paper or fabric behind the stuff, I think. Also, it's so amazing how the desert at night can gather lighting to a dramatic scene, and light stuff the way it has. *facepalm*

I can do better in my own frigging back yard! Using a camera, photoshop, and some trickery!

So concludes my lecture. Too bad I was a tad late to the flaming *picks thru the ashes*.

reply to post by internos


You do know that the phrase "...the crap in ufology..." sounds ambiguous and could be taken to mean 'ufology is crap'. For someone who may not be familiar with you views etc. its not necessarily clear at all. Which is obvious now you didnt mean it that way. I still don t like the '2 types of people' cliche - its gets old. But that is a pet peeve of mine. I m pretty sure I fall into the 'gives people the benefit of the doubt' type (but not the other 2 characterizations lumped in with that 2nd type); but I hardly feel like a Greer disciiple. I will give anyone the benefit of the doubt AT FIRST. It doesnt mean i m walking around with my brains hanging out. I have seen a lot ridicule and derision around the threads - and generally speaking I have never been a big fan of ridicule an derision, and maybe it does serve a purpose but it can also cloud issues and make them go away when they shouldnt go away. You mention channeling as one of the things that you think has gone away - I m not sure what you meant by that. I have gained excellent information by way of channelling but I always checked all the data I got. If you mean charlatans masquerading as channells then by all means but I assure you there are plenty of honest people channeling and worrying about the veracity of what they do.

I also feel rage about exploiters in the field, but its largely hoaxers and pranksters that get me going as it muddies waters that are already muddy. I havent decided on Greer as yet - he may be just escaping into his own romantic sci fi show i dont know. But I will still look at anything that is presented to me and not dismiss it out of hand. This thread has focused largely on the photos and that is as it should be - but it brings up other questions - why would he post something so obviously bad? I dont think hes stupid. There are always questions that can be asked.

reply to post by liquidself

This thread has focused largely on the photos and that is as it should be - but it brings up other questions - why would he post something so obviously bad?

Is he a fraud or an agent of disinformation? I believe he's either or both and therefore not to be considered as a reliable source of credible information. FWIW, he isn't considered credible by ufologists that ARE considered credible

reply to post by Kandinsky


The problem is, even though he has shown us all in the way of evidence, there's no shortage of CSETI members willing to rave about what they experience on these expeditions.

For example I personally met a lady at a recent exopolitics conference who said she had been to Greer's latest big CSETI conference and saw some far out stuff there.

So, I still suspect that there may be something real going on with CSETI after all, even though that big huge wallet-crushing $1000 entrance fee prevents us at ATS from ever finding out for sure.............

reply to post by MajorDisaster

For example I personally met a lady at a recent exopolitics conference who said she had been to Greer's latest big CSETI conference and saw some far out stuff there.

It's hardly surprising at an exopolitics conference. He likely uses stooges in the audience...tried and tested by mystics, psychics, conmen and frauds since time immemorial

Considering he's all about 'disclosure,' he falls short of his own implied standards. He demands the US Govt tells all...then has his own CSETI attendees sign non-disclosure contracts. This glaring irony is reinforced by his and CSETI's signal failure to release the evidence they claim to have. Yo kettle! The pot's calling!

He'll be using the statistics of recent site-traffic generated by that awful image to mislead potential customers that the public are growing to support CSETI. He's got angles covered and bases loaded

The real strange thing is the S.Greer location.jpg states the picture anomaly is in the background but the anomaly I see is in the foreground next to the green camping chair






Zelong.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
It's hardly surprising at an exopolitics conference. He likely uses stooges in the audience...tried and tested by mystics, psychics, conmen and frauds since time immemorial

....
He's got angles covered and bases loaded

Oh come on. Surely you can't be serious?

That trivial little exopolitics gathering with maybe a few dozen people was SO important that Greer just had to send a marketing mole in to pitch CSETI to me?

Come ON man!!

REACHING

I must confess, when I first saw a video of Mr Greer (the disclosure project) he seemed like a sincere guy, wanting to get the truth out there, but wow, he really has gone down hill since

Seems his desperation has got the better of him.

I find it too hard to believe any "evidence" that is presented as pictures. Why the hell would they go night watching with nothing but a normal camera? Douchebags, it's the 21st century, get a video camera with zero lux illumination. They're cheaper than digital SLR's.

Well, the thread was fun to read - even if the so called evidence within is a massive pile of poo.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by markymint]

Originally posted by JH80
I posted a few pages back about the 'stars' visible on the ground. The 'stars' are a product of image noise and hot/burnt pixels on the camera's sensor. Clearly it was dark when the picture was taken, and I assume the camera automatically upped its ISO, which only makes the noise worse.

Noise, albeit very bad noise, is no reason to believe the image is fake. It's completely normal

Hey JH80

I'm not so sure those are dead pixels, the "stars" in Stevens photo are all different sizes and colors, some bigger than a pixel. That camera must be in rough shape if they are.

When you were looking at the EXIF data didn't you notice there's 2 dates? The original creation date is from 2003, but the photo wasn't taken until 2009. I don't think that is normal.

looks like a deformed koala bear to me

The first thing I notised was NOTHING, and the second was that the daytimephoto and the nighttimephoto are from two different lacations, it's not eaven the same cheres, you can see it on their back



What made him publice this:

could this be an alien? yes ... but this is not proof to be presented in any place ...

its really irresponsible thing to present this as evidence since u just see blurry things

This reminds me of the pictures from inside a UFO thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
When you were looking at the EXIF data didn't you notice there's 2 dates? The original creation date is from 2003, but the photo wasn't taken until 2009. I don't think that is normal.

It has to be normal if the camera owner has removed the batteries for some time: now I don't know how long it takes to the model of camera in question Fuji FinePix S7000Z, but most (if not all) the digital cameras I've seen, once are left for some time without batteries reset some data, including date/time to something like YYYY/01/01 -00:00:00 (or 12:00:00AM): (january first + year + time [midnight]) where year could be for example the year of production:
in this case, EXIF data read:
January 1, 2003 12:01:08AM (timezone not specified)
so I'd say this is the most likely explanation. It's also interesting that the photo was taken approx one minuter after batteries were replaced

reply to post by internos


Hi internos

I understand what you're saying about the date being reset while there's no batteries in the camera, but how does that account for 2 dates on one photo?

If the camera hadn't been used for some time, and then owner put some batteries in, turned it on and snapped a photo of some lawnchairs in the desert, then wouldn't the camera just stamp it with the reset default date? 2003-01-01 for example. How would the 2nd date have gotten in there?

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist

Ah, now I got it:
I can read the following tags:

Date: January 1, 2003 12:01:08AM (timezone not specified)
Create Date: 2003:01:01 00:01:08
Date/Time Original: 2003:01:01 00:01:08
Modify Date: 2009:11:18 03:55:04

Also
Scene: Type Directly photographed

But
Software QuickTime 7.6.4

The file name is ET.JPG instead of, for example, DSC00003.JPG, or something like that:
so, we know that most likely the photo was renamed, and that it went throught QuickTime at least once: i guess that they've saved the image as ..., named it "ET" and this command was recorded in EXIF data.
That would be the first possible explanation that comes to mind, but honestly, I don't use quicktime so i don't know if it's possible that it leaves unaltered all EXIF tags but the last modify date/time (where "modify" would stand even just for a simple save as... command).
Of course, i'm not sure: it's a good remark, EXIF data are always the first thing to check