Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by free_spirit

 

A proper explanation is offered to know why the use of Photoshop appears in the EXIF.

Because Photoshop was used to save the file. It does not indicate that any manipulation of the file was done (other than jpg compression).

edit on 10/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

There´s no need to use Photoshop, actually is highly recommended no to use it.
I gave my explanation how to proceed with a digital photograph to be analyzed.
Any photo expert will agree not to use Photoshop for anythng since the raw file
is in the camera / memory card ready to be uploaded directly to any computer.

I don't think the experts here in ATS used Photoshop with this photograph, or
did they?

Originally posted by jamdan
We are clutching at straws, or plastic bags here.

A plastic bag full of straws...just saying

reply to post by free_spirit


It's not the original photo, you can email Springer if you'd like a copy.


reply to post by sealing


You actually still believe this is real?



Yikes! Not even Eligael thinks it looks real, that's why he pulled it from his channel.

reply to post by GagaD


That's just the roof lining..

Free_spirit.
The original images are numbered, so the one's we're seeing have been re-saved via PS.
Which version seems ambiguous unless the photo analyst has a different version to springer (or whoever re-saved for the site)

I've seen this same object before...in another location.
otherworldly ...not of this earth

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist


I hear you and understand.
But I bet you understand what I'm saying too?

and my lord no, I never said anything about that vid
you posted as being real. See you're doing it again

reply to post by free_spirit

I don't think the experts here in ATS used Photoshop with this photograph, or did they?

Ritzmann applied "filters" to parts of the image in his analysis.

Originally posted by CigaretteMan

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by CigaretteMan
Let me ask everyone a question. Springer, Johnny etc

Why is this photo paid attention to so much and analyzed but the Turkey UFO footage is not?

The Turkey footage also has witnesses, many of them.

Could it be possible for Jeff Ritzmann and others to do expert analysis on that video which is about 24 days worth of raw footage.

Thanks.

I think the Turkey UFO/boat hoax has been discussed at length. I think the last I saw was a reference to a bogus website ascribing false statements to the Turkish Science Patrol. I pointed that out but there was no reply.

There is a reason why the Turkey UFO case has not been moved to the Hoax section and it is because there has yet to be a conclusive debunk or plausible explantaion. The Yacht theory has failed miserably and the majority of people agree that yacht windows just isnt plausible.

I think there are a number of threads on this already. Do you think there is some relation to this thread? If you want to discuss how the Turkey UFO is a hoax in the Turkey UFO thread, then by all means, lets discuss. Seems like not much interest here.

Originally posted by Zeta Reticulan

I've seen this same object before...in another location.
otherworldly ...not of this earth

Is that why the goats are looking at it?

This thread reminds me of the other one currently on the front page, the one about the Mars Shadow...in that particular thread there is mounting evidence that the shadow is just being cast from the Mars Rover itself (whether its on earth in some south american location or Mars)...the fact is so many people are still choosing to ignore the obvious and come out with a theory.

This very revealing in itself in that, were we to be presented with strong evidence leaning one way or another, we would (out of habit mostly) choose to ignore it and come up with some other theory or latch onto the nearest one that has the most stars.

looks like a twin prop plane flying in front of a half moon. Plane is at the bottom moving let to right.
The reflection is the aviation light on the top of the plane.

Originally posted by free_spirit
An original digital photograph must be uploaded directly from the original camera or it's
memory card in order to perform a valid analysis. This procedure does not involve Photoshop
or any other similar software. In this forum it is requested always to submit the original
photograph that is a direct copy by that procedure, then the EXIF DATA will not be altered.
You can view any digital photograph with Photoshop or any other software as long as you
don't save again the file because that would wirte the use of Photoshop or similar. Just for
purposes of viewing but keeping the original unedited file is always recommended.

The photograph from Crete posted here shows Photoshop CS5 in the EXIF I provided.
The question is why and by whom. Also who has the original unedited untouched photograph
also known as raw file? The photograph posted in Facebook by member jeffkrause is not the
raw file despite the claim because the EXIF shows it's a very low resolution copy 107 kb at
960 X 539 pixels? For this type of Canon S100 camera no way. I would like to check the original
photo because this is a good case to investigate, a challenge.
Let´s wait to see if we can get the original photograph from the source to confirm the absence
or not of Photoshop.

I should add that it is possible to edit the EXIF data if you have the right software and know what you are doing. Remember, the data is just bytes in a file, and files can be edited at the byte level.

I'm not an expert on this, but isn't the "grid" layout an indication of the artifacts from JPEG compression? Most cameras do save their images in a raw, uncompressed form that can be compressed into jpeg or other files formats. (Not sure what is the case for this camera).

But I certainly agree its pretty much essential to always use the original raw file (if available) for photo analysis.

reply to post by Springer


What are these..?

IMG3134 - grey trail (contrail..?) on right hand side extending upwards..
also... Little blurry "dot" apparently in the "distance" not too far above the biggest tuft of vegetation on the right side of pic...

Originally posted by free_spirit
The photograph from Crete posted here shows Photoshop CS5 in the EXIF I provided.
The question is why and by whom. Also who has the original unedited untouched photograph
also known as raw file? The photograph posted in Facebook by member jeffkrause is not the
raw file despite the claim because the EXIF shows it's a very low resolution copy 107 kb at
960 X 539 pixels? For this type of Canon S100 camera no way. I would like to check the original
photo because this is a good case to investigate, a challenge.
Let´s wait to see if we can get the original photograph from the source to confirm the absence
or not of Photoshop.

I have been emailed (as have others) the original RAW file which I can confirm HAS NOT been edited to the best of my knowledge.

What you see on this site or uploaded to the internet are 'copies'. Files here have been resized etc to fit the post so WILL have editing software data included in the exif data.

I believe the only way to identify this object/anomaly is to find something in the actual image itself to verify it.

I have been using photoshop on the RAW image to manipulate and examine it until my eyes hurt in the hope that something recognisable will appear. 'Sharpening' brings out some interesting results (and contradictory to some conclusions). I'll post my results when all avenues have been exhausted.

I have also forwarded the RAW file to a friend who is more familiar with understanding EXIF data in the hope he may do better than me. Unfortunately, I think he will be as frustrated as we are getting.

I need sleep now and will dream real wierd tonight. More goats.

***** Edit to add: Can someone who originally spoke to 'SHOOTER' confirm that the time on the camera was set correctly please? Eg, date/time etc. Often people don't worry too much if batteries are changed or the camera is new.

Cheers, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz goat jumping fence zzzzzzzzzzzzz goat jumping fence zzzzzzzz....

reply to post by bluestreak53

The Canon PowerShot S100 can use JPEG or RAW format...user's choice.

i know we are not alone, so do you...you just may not remember yet


i have seen craft up close, i have communicated with them/us...lol


really


we all can do this...


love for the win

It’s a twin prop airplane flying in front of a half moon. Plane is at the bottom moving let to right.

You can actually see the moon in pick "IMG3134” just above the grassy bush if you zoom in and look closely through the clouds.

Reflection is the aviation light on the top of the plane.

Pretty obvious to me.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bluestreak53

 

The Canon PowerShot S100 can use JPEG or RAW format...user's choice.

edit on 10/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Thanks. That is quite typical. The advantage of using raw is that all information is preserved. With jpeg, you can save more files on the internal card.

reply to post by nerbot


The images as the photo analyst used were .jpg

IF they were canon RAW image files they would be .cr2

SO not RAW just the original images..

Just so people don't get confused.

Originally posted by cornucopia
i have seen craft up close, i have communicated with them/us...lol

really

OK. Good. can we get a year, make and model on this one?