Prepare For an Onslaught of Hoaxes

Well, since Adobe CS5 has started making it's rounds I've noticed an increase in "UFO sightings." I'm putting this in Science and Tech, since Photoshop CS5 is a pretty powerful graphic program, more so than CS3 or CS4. So just how prepared should you be?

First, let's examine the PatchMatch function



PatchMatch is going to allowed hoaxers, disinformants and bored 17 year olds to easily clone areas of a photo, or even delete entire objects from a photo all whilst matching the background almost perfectly. PatchMatch uses a randomized algorithm that the kind money-hungry Adobe developers wrote to make lives for people on ATS hard. For the design industry, and any moron with $800+ to spend on PhotoShop I suppose this is good news. But for us, we're going to start being a lot more careful at what we deem to be "POSSIBLY REAL." Although, I do have some confidence after seeing how nobody just blindly accepted the drone hoax.

Now, how about that Content-Aware function?



Talk about pretty crazy. I could delete a cloud from a file, place a composite of a UFO, then overlay the cloud and make it appear semi-transparent to really throw people off. There are just so many different ways to get creative here, and there are so many young talented graphic artists out there who would love to put together a decent portfolio. Imagine going in for a job interview, and linking to an ATS thread that spanned 300 pages of discussion about a composite you made. That'd be pretty impressive.

Spot-Healing & Easy Fill



Here are a few other tools at the disposal of the general public. These are probably a little easier to spot at a glance, but the sheer fact that now anyone can do this is worrisome. I'm waiting for the first

yeah, scary to imagine what prototype software developed behind closed doors is capable of!

the only way to be sure is to be there or make sure it's real time, which is dicey, isn't it?

Geeze. I'll stick to the old fashioned stuff, myself. They're making the software TOO easy to use- which means not only an onslaught of hoaxes, but another generation of lazy, brainless idiots who just push a button and get magic, basically.

At this rate 'anyone' can be an 'artist', while the people who do the hard work and effort will be laughed out and eventually ostracized. So long Talent. It was nice knowin' ya.

Wow, photoshop is amazing now.

I still have like, photoshop 6 or something, and barely know how to use it.

reply to post by wylekat


As a graphic designer who started with Photoshop 1.0 in High School, I agree. I'll be out of a job soon. So when everything you see looks like someone's poorly designed "e-letter" don't blame me. lol

On another note, most of these effects can be attained with current software, you just have to know what your doing.

Thanks for this, good to know! Although, I never knew anything about photoshop in the first place. Ill continue to leave the debunking to the pro's.

Originally posted by wylekat
Geeze. I'll stick to the old fashioned stuff, myself. They're making the software TOO easy to use- which means not only an onslaught of hoaxes, but another generation of lazy, brainless idiots who just push a button and get magic, basically.

At this rate 'anyone' can be an 'artist', while the people who do the hard work and effort will be laughed out and eventually ostracized. So long Talent. It was nice knowin' ya.

The converse is even more scary.
What about a "gas station" in which you are now the criminal! If it can be done on a photo, it can be done in a video.
TPTB more than likely have the capacity to frame you (no pun intended), set up the silver screen in front of a jury, and send you to the chamber! Or, supposed WMD sites in not just unfriendly countries, but False Flag as well.
The Kennedy video comes to mind.
We now know that we cannot trust photos or video anymore!
Had to give a S&F to the OP ans S 2U

But on the "pro" side, it does make things easier on amateur filmmakers that could do a shoot in a not so isolated wooded area and remove elements of civilization from their film in post-production at an affordable cost.

Anachronisms like the wristwatch on one of the roman soldiers in Ben Hur comes to mind. Or if someone wanted to do wire-work and cleanly remove the wires without having to hire an expensive touch effects artist.

The downside as mentioned, would affect professionals and would show to the trained eye, resulting in the "e-letter" effect. But conversely, how many self-publications of newsletters and brochures actually benefited worthy causes once desktop publishing became reasonable and affordable for small groups and charities?

Spending that kind of money to touch up vacation photos is far-reaching, but helping amateurs look a little more professional isn't too far-fetched.

As for how an automatic background fill for when removing elements will help in aiding hoaxes of UFO's and other pictures when those are added in, I am a little lost. I would think using such a tool to remove cut and paste artifacts would exaggerate them more than hide them.

Would someone like to enlighten me on this?

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Ahabstar]

reply to post by Ahabstar


It's called 'Content aware', and it's basically computer magic. I am sure a much better explanation can be had (or Google the phrase). They can remove and put anything seamlessly. I saw a video about it on here like a month or so ago.... My jaw went to the floor.

At first I wanted it... then... Not so much. I dont like pushing 1 button and getting it all done for me. Why bother, in that case?

Originally posted by wylekat
Geeze. I'll stick to the old fashioned stuff, myself. They're making the software TOO easy to use- which means not only an onslaught of hoaxes, but another generation of lazy, brainless idiots who just push a button and get magic, basically.

At this rate 'anyone' can be an 'artist', while the people who do the hard work and effort will be laughed out and eventually ostracized. So long Talent. It was nice knowin' ya.

I completely agree! I do not like how there are no true artists anymore. Everything is done on a computer and anyone can be taught to do it. Real art takes talent and time and creativity that you just cant do in a computer program. This is how I see it at least. I go to school for Interior Design and I wish it was done old school with sketches, to me it's easier for me to draw it. I don't like the programs, they are too technical and take a lot of time to learn.

OP when I first read about the new Photoshop I was shocked. I couldn't believe what it could do and I instantly thought of all the fake pics that will come out of it. Is there a way to tell if it is manipulated?

reply to post by mblahnikluver


I've gone to computers, because I could go thru a wad of paper a day doodling and sketching- Much easier to wipe a screen than throw out paper, erase, and go thru materials- not to mention cheaper.

That said- I am a fan of the 'pure art' programs- Inkscape, Mypaint (before it got all weird with my tablet), Going to try Dogwaffle. I use Photoshop Elements 2, thanks to the fact the 7 version that came with my new tablet just plain SUCKS. 'Nuff Said there.

I think, that like everything else- art programs could have done amazing things... and instead, they have reduced the form to a lazy thing, that 'anyone' can do to feel 'special'. :-|

I already heard about CS5, people say its amazing ... nice videos ...

when I get some time I will try to play around with it ...

This isn't a big deal, I've been playing around with cs5 for a long time, a beta version has been going around online, its called white rabbit.

All this does is make alot of things easier or quicker to do (alot quicker I will add), it doesn't change the ability to fake a photo any more or less. Maybe more people will be able to now, but the ability to make a good fake have always been there. These are just new tools, thats all, If your panicing over this, the panic should of started years ago.

Theres people good enough to make perfect fakes in microsoft paint, just takes a long time. When it comes down to it, pictures are just a bunch of pixels, doesn't matter if you got a tool that changes them, or someone changing pixels themselves.

On a side note you don't need 800 dollars to get photoshop, its one of the most torrented programs I know of. So that gives you an idea of how many more people own white rabbit or cs5 already.

Originally posted by Faiol
I already heard about CS5, people say its amazing ... nice videos ...

when I get some time I will try to play around with it ...

So did they add the "UFO button" yet that Tyson refers to in this video at 5:55?



It still seems like it'a easier to add a UFO on the iphone than on photoshop, though the latter could look more realistic.


Would The iPhone UFO App Fool Members of ATS?

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Here is a selection of UFO's that can be inserted into users' photo's with this app:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5dee8a3c2f8c.jpg[/atsimg]

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

I wonder if the term "photographic evidence" becomes totally obsolete in the near future...

The larger problem are press photos, and in 10 years even realtime full hd videostreams...

So is that the final step into alice in wonderland reality? Well it's gradually and we are already at the level of deception where you probably should consider everything on televison news entertainment rather than information.

At some point every media including science publications and journals may be so descredited that the only thing you can trust is information you experience first hand or comes from somebody you know well. This point may already be even past you or it may never come depending on your perception threshold...

[edit on 31-5-2010 by kybertech]

Wow, the videos make me almost want to cross the line into downloading a pirate version of this!
Almost...
Wow 800 bucks... Oh well...

It'll be interesting to see what kind of HOAX material ends up here - like you said - we'll probably see a lot more of it. I guess I can only hope the people who have the big bucks to spend on this will not have the time or the desire to use to to HOAX UFP pics...



Thanks for my morning drool! (I so would love this program)!

peace

That's the thing about all this tech. The gap just increases in favor of the hoaxers more and more. It renders what at one time might have been proof positive as evidence. To a possible manufacture.

Soon nothing on film will be admisable as evidence in a court of law.
Between corruption and the fact that anyone will be able to computer generate evidence. We will soon be looking at only a crippled leagle system at best.



[edit on 31-5-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by kybertech
I wonder if the term "photographic evidence" becomes totally obsolete in the near future...

Digital photo evidence already is. Say a UFO landed in your back yard and you got top quality pics of the craft and its occupants and posted them on here.

Who is going to believe you? The better they look, the less most people will believe it.

If you want to take a pic to use as evidence, you're far better off using a film camera.

Also be on the look out for an onslaught of more attractive females on social networking sites...kidding.


Thanks for posting this, it's really crazy how simple/basic/and attainable these kinds of programs have become to the general public.


Sadly we are living in a time where you pretty much can not trust anything unless you your self have seen it up close and in person.

In a way these things are making site's about this subject matter almost pointless because either side will use this to their advantage.
The skeptics will just claim everything is fake even if it isn't or they simply don't know and chalk it up to the capability of programs of this nature,and the trolls will just use these programs to do their work and run more rampant than ever and the people who are telling the truth will just be left in the dark and most likely just not come forth with any photos they may have knowing they'll just be bashed and called liars.

I think maybe any real enthusiasts or people who experience any kind of "UFO's" in their location on a regular basis should really consider going back to using film.