Board Logo
« #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Truth »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Oct 22nd, 2017, 04:55am


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 78 79 80 81 82  ...  99 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Truth  (Read 16368 times)
Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting....


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1185 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 07:27am »

on Jan 11th, 2009, 3:44pm, TeachersPet wrote:
Alienware seemed to have done okay transposing English..And some from a distance even looked like words like steal, and AW, and AH ..a highly inefficient way of doing that..but they did it anyway. I had put this up earlier and then took it down, but since you are talking about repeated patterns, i figure what the hecck..perhaps they are read left to right, but if they are using english equivalence, then it would not be like the chinese.. They are using mathematical constants that would be recognizable to aliens or humans..like golden triangles, pi, and how a circle is divided ..the use of those cute sine waves reminds me of he use of radians and not they look just as copied as those bar codes..It is a puzzle meant to be solved like in a game..
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc191/sys_config/ScreenHunter_01Jan111201.jpg
you might say it is astronomy related..as theose penciled numbers did correspond to orion and sirius and I believe lyra also..
User Image
and why that obvious , To me, armillory was used.
to point us into that direction.
you can read vertically and from left to right in these astronomy logs.. some letters even look similar.
what do you think Albatross..










Since we are getting closer to the "end" of this....

Has it been discussed about the "Pacl" Docs not being photos or scans… but appear to be 100% software generated?


For your posted example TP:

http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/pacl-lang-analysis-p119-fullsize.jpg

Snoop says:

*** Searching Compression Signatures ***

Signature: 014219E79BBC5C20BABF374762AAA745
Signature (Rotated): 014219E79BBC5C20BABF374762AAA745
File Offset: 0 bytes
Chroma subsampling: 1x1
EXIF Make/Model: NONE
EXIF Makernotes: NONE
EXIF Software: NONE

Searching Compression Signatures: (3314 built-in, 3 user(*) )

EXIF.Make / Software........EXIF.Model.....Quality...............Subsamp Match?
------------------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------
SW :[Adobe Photoshop ]........................[Save As 07]



The image is made to appear like a photo or scan of a doc… but is it?
User IP Logged

Oh Goody! My Illudiom Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1186 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 09:45am »

on Jan 11th, 2009, 3:01pm, Albatross wrote:
Jeddyhi: I suppose I can see where you get 5 shapes, but to me a rectangle's a rectangle. Sure, it's shorter here, or longer there, but it's still a rectangle. I personally might go so far as to say the font's comprised of only 2 shapes - A scythe and a rectangle. But I'm a simple guy...


Sorry for the confusion. I should have stated that there are 5 distinct shapes of different sizes that comprise the alien font. These shapes are sometimes combined to make a new shape of a different length. For example, shape 3 and 4 are combined to make a longer rectangle. So you are correct in that the scythe and rectangle are the basic shapes, but the rectangle comes in different sizes that are formed by combining two existing rectangles to create a third.

I found shape 5 to be interesting. It took me a minute to find its origin in the font, but it is there, coming from the crossed scythes. wink

User Image
« Last Edit: Jan 12th, 2009, 09:51am by Jeddyhi » User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
TeachersPet
Guest
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1187 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 10:53am »

@Jeddyhi aside like looking like the chinese script from the wiiki piece, isnt that arch or swords one the one AW was attempting to trademark?
on Jan 12th, 2009, 07:27am, Marvin wrote:
Since we are getting closer to the "end" of this....

Has it been discussed about the "Pacl" Docs not being photos or scans… but appear to be 100% software generated?


For your posted example TP:

http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/pacl-lang-analysis-p119-fullsize.jpg

Snoop says:

*** Searching Compression Signatures ***


EXIF Make/Model: NONE
EXIF Makernotes: NONE
EXIF Software: NONE

Searching Compression Signatures: (3314 built-in, 3 user(*) )


------------------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------
SW :[Adobe Photoshop ]........................[Save As 07]



The image is made to appear like a photo or scan of a doc… but is it?



no exif data..a clean shot! hahaha, seriously..that is funny
and fascinating Marv, and I have a special request as soon as I get the two together..I will pm you as I don't know how to read Exif data except to look at what camera and software used..I should be able to foward both pix.. shortly..its 1150 now..est so about 100pm est..
whoever it is has a toxic addiction to adobe, who needs a camera anymore..smiley
YOU HAVE MAIL


I have another small problem, and its really nagging me. I asked Mars if given the evidence of fake/ bogus sites as he had predicted based on his 40 years of knowldge is he still demanding a retraction from LMH..
he responded..just before I closed my account at omf the following..:
FromE-seeker-

Are you still calling for a retraction..
No, I didn't ask for that... .
..

Well, thats odd..as one of his first posts on the matter was this..:
[ex]Should Linda Moulton Howe retract the whole story if she cannot prove the photos from the bicyclist were taken in Big Basin? I did send them the photos a week ago - but are probably too busy to respond- I haven't heard yet---I disclosed to her website, my true ID so she can verify everything I told her off-line, that I am not faking these - and offered the RAW photos from my digital for independant investigation. What do the readers of this forum think she should do? ( and yes, I know most people think the Drone is phony as I do - but what about Issac and CARET and LMH retracting the whole story and making it public..?)[/ex]


Yes what about that Mars? That looks like the word retraction to me..twice in fact..and now..even with help from telling him how,
He can't find his password at paracast, won't post a change to his webvideos.....like a signal to let us know he is who he says he is..Despite affirming fotos fake in his prof opinion, he seems to have really toned down music a little, with a softer , gentler, and kinder ..approach to the PIs and the story.
and of course Linda..what gives here..eh? I feel terrible saying all this but its quite confusing..the contradictions.
http://forum.theparacast.com/the-ufo-forum-f8/i-need-help-on-drone-issac-story-t986/

« Last Edit: Jan 12th, 2009, 1:22pm by TeachersPet » User IP Logged

newtothis
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 112
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1188 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 1:22pm »

on Jan 12th, 2009, 07:27am, Marvin wrote:
Since we are getting closer to the "end" of this....

Has it been discussed about the "Pacl" Docs not being photos or scans… but appear to be 100% software generated?


Isn't exif data only connected to digital photos? Would a real photo taken in the 80's have exif data, or would it be assigned something when it gets scanned to a computer?

Tuna
User IP Logged

Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting....


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1189 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 1:36pm »

on Jan 12th, 2009, 10:53am, TeachersPet wrote:
no exif data..a clean shot! hahaha, seriously..that is funny
whoever it is has a toxic addiction to adobe, who needs a camera anymore..smiley
YOU HAVE MAIL





TP,

You have mail.
« Last Edit: Jan 12th, 2009, 1:37pm by Marvin » User IP Logged

Oh Goody! My Illudiom Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1190 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 1:37pm »

Hi Tuna it’s been a while!! smiley

on Jan 12th, 2009, 1:22pm, newtothis wrote:
Isn't exif data only connected to digital photos?

I believe that’s the problem.

on Jan 12th, 2009, 1:22pm, newtothis wrote:
Would a real photo taken in the 80's have exif data, or would it be assigned something when it gets scanned to a computer?

It’s not the photograph’s Marvin is referencing but rather the (alleged grin) physical documents and to hopefully pre-empt your next question:

“Only if ‘tweaked’ or resized in Photoshop……” wink

Cheers. smiley
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting....


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1191 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 2:25pm »

on Jan 12th, 2009, 1:22pm, newtothis wrote:
Isn't exif data only connected to digital photos? Would a real photo taken in the 80's have exif data, or would it be assigned something when it gets scanned to a computer?

Tuna




Some form of EXIF type data can be discovered on all Jpeg and Tiff files.

Here is a “photo” (okay, it is just a Jpeg) that was not created with a camera:


User Image


It was created using CGI.

Here is the EXIF:

*** Searching Compression Signatures ***

Signature: 01BBB1709AC9C1F89220D955A31A8F34
Signature (Rotated): 01BBB1709AC9C1F89220D955A31A8F34
File Offset: 0 bytes
Chroma subsampling: 2x2
EXIF Make/Model: NONE
EXIF Makernotes: NONE
EXIF Software: NONE

Searching Compression Signatures: (3314 built-in, 3 user(*) )

EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------- --------------
CAM:[CASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD ] [EX-Z750 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[CASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD. ] [EX-Z1000 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[PENTAX ] [PENTAX Optio S5i ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SIGMA ] [SIGMA SD9 ] [ ] Yes
SW :[ACDSee ] [100 ]
SW :[Apple ImageIO.framework ] [100 (Best) ]
SW :[Digital Photo Professiona] [10 ]
SW :[IJG Library ] [100 ]
SW :[MS Office Pic Mgr ] [ ]
SW :[Nikon Scan ] [Excellent Qualit]
SW :[Picasa ] [100 (Maximum) ]
SW :[ZoomBrowser EX ] [highest ]
SW :[EOS Viewer Utility ] [ ]

The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
SW :[GIMP ] [100 ]
SW :[IrfanView ] [100 ]
SW :[idImager ] [100 ]
SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [100 ]
SW :[NeatImage ] [100 ]
SW :[Paint.NET ] [100 ]
SW :[Photomatix ] [100 ]
SW :[XnView ] [100 ]

ASSESSMENT: Image is processed/edited



So, we get some "EXIF type data" from Jpegs... and sometimes Snoop has issues with the signatures, it thinks it can be a camera source (but it also wanted more information to identify if).


EXIF data can be stripped or removed... here is a method:

http://www.exifremover.com/


The before data for a photo:

*** Searching Compression Signatures ***

Signature: 01081C0D2E757D5A5E24734E147CE6B9
Signature (Rotated): 019C33083B8FA8E4D2CED45F06F0B201
File Offset: 0 bytes
Chroma subsampling: 2x2
EXIF Make/Model: OK [SONY] [DSC-S500]
EXIF Makernotes: OK
EXIF Software: NONE


And the after data:

*** Searching Compression Signatures ***

Signature: 01081C0D2E757D5A5E24734E147CE6B9
Signature (Rotated): 019C33083B8FA8E4D2CED45F06F0B201
File Offset: 0 bytes
Chroma subsampling: 2x2
EXIF Make/Model: NONE
EXIF Makernotes: NONE
EXIF Software: NONE


So we are left with making a decision… was the EXIF data stripped out on purpose? Or was it none existent to begin with?


If the above CGI picture were an unknown (source) photo, can we tell why the EXIF data was missing?


« Last Edit: Jan 12th, 2009, 2:32pm by Marvin » User IP Logged

Oh Goody! My Illudiom Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
Gort
New Member
Image


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 0
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1192 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 2:38pm »

on Jan 12th, 2009, 1:37pm, DrDil wrote:
Hi Tuna it’s been a while!! smiley


I believe that’s the problem.


It’s not the photograph’s Marvin is referencing but rather the (alleged grin) physical documents and to hopefully pre-empt your next question:

“Only if ‘tweaked’ or resized in Photoshop……” wink

Cheers. smiley


I hope that’s not another cryptic message (since we are now into cryptic messages) and you are not referring to that female who goes by the moniker “tweaked” on all of these boards who believes her dna has been altered (tweaked) by aliens and is in constant communication with them (hears voices) and can move objects trough telekinesis and posts on the mufon board as well as others and is a moderator on one of them.

A true nut case, but what else is new, these boards, to these types, are like stink to a skunk, sugar(xxxx) to a fly, fire hydrants to dogs, light to the sun, rings to Saturn, gravity to the universe, etc,.

They have afforded internet access nowadays to prisoners, and patients in mental institutions.

So is that the “tweaked” you are thinking about? Or was that not a cryptic message, hard to tell now.


User IP Logged

Double Nought Spy
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 1429
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1193 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 2:49pm »

on Jan 12th, 2009, 2:38pm, Gort wrote:
I hope that’s not another cryptic message (since we are now into cryptic messages) and you are not referring to that female who goes by the moniker “tweaked” on all of these boards who believes her dna has been altered (tweaked) by aliens and is in constant communication with them (hears voices) and can move objects trough telekinesis and posts on the mufon board as well as others and is a moderator on one of them.

A true nut case, but what else is new, these boards, to these types, are like stink to a skunk, sugar(xxxx) to a fly, fire hydrants to dogs, light to the sun, rings to Saturn, gravity to the universe, etc,.

They have afforded internet access nowadays to prisoners, and patients in mental institutions.

So is that the “tweaked” you are thinking about? Or was that not a cryptic message, hard to tell now.




Please, let's not examine that "tweaked" woman's exif data! We have plenty of our own sketchy characters to deal with. grin

Anyways, there are thousands of "tweakers" in my neck of the woods. As in meth-heads. Yikes!
« Last Edit: Jan 12th, 2009, 3:25pm by Double Nought Spy » User IP Logged


All sane people detest noise. --Mark Twain

DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1194 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 4:04pm »

on Jan 12th, 2009, 2:38pm, Gort wrote:
I hope that’s not another cryptic message (since we are now into cryptic messages)

<snip>

So is that the “tweaked” you are thinking about? Or was that not a cryptic message, hard to tell now.

Hi Gort,

Nothing cryptic.

Marvin’s post regarding the Exif data shows that the PACL document shows signs of being post-processed by Adobe Photoshop.

I think Tuna was mistakenly referring to the scans of the images that accompanied the documents.

I was suggesting that once he realised it was the actual documentation rather than the photographs then Tuna was again going to ask something like, “Would it be assigned something when it gets scanned to a computer”

Which was the question I was trying to pre-empt and my answer was:

“Only if ‘tweaked’ or resized in Photoshop……” wink

(Tweaked: To make a slight adjustment or change to something, especially in order to improve it or fix it.)

Just my usual sarcastic ramblings hence the wink as what I was alluding to was that Marvin’s assertion that the entire document is software-generated rather than word-processed, but rather than state this I termed it a ‘tweak’.

Decrypted? grin

Cheers. wink
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1195 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 4:08pm »

on Jan 12th, 2009, 2:25pm, Marvin wrote:
So, we get some "EXIF type data" from Jpegs... and sometimes Snoop has issues with the signatures, it thinks it can be a camera source (but it also wanted more information to identify if).


EXIF data can be stripped or removed... here is a method:

http://www.exifremover.com/


Hi Marv,

Adobe Photoshop’s *save for web* setting strips the Exif automatically because the Save for Web command is intended to be used for images that are destined for display on the internet, one of the primary goals is in optimizing the file size as much as possible while still retaining acceptable image quality.

Quote:
“To this end, two methods are used to achieve this: a) a live preview of changing JPEG compression quality sliders and b) the removal of all unnecessary metadata (JPEG markers) in the output file.

The main features in Save for Web include:

Optimize to File Size: Ability to automatically select both the file format (JPEG or GIF) and JPEG compression level to achieve the selected file size.

Removal of EXIF metadata. For many this is a useful feature, while others will completely avoid Save for Web because of it. For simple images on a web site or for privacy reasons, you may want to hide the time/date a photo was taken, or other parameters. But, if you plan to share your images on a photo hosting site and would like to indicate the focal length, aperture and other parameters to your viewers, Save for Web will not be the right method.

Removal of Optional Markers. In most output JPEG files, special markers are used to indicate additional information or provide resiliency in the case of errors / corruption. The Save for Web method will remove these and still allow JPEG decoders to work.”


Cheers. smiley
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
Katterfelto
Guest
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1196 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 4:21pm »

on Jan 12th, 2009, 07:27am, Marvin wrote:
Since we are getting closer to the "end" of this....

Has it been discussed about the "Pacl" Docs not being photos or scans… but appear to be 100% software generated?

The image is made to appear like a photo or scan of a doc… but is it?


Good question. Isaac said he scanned documents and sneaked them out. So I don't see how anything got embedded on those. If you believe the next step, he would have scanned these hardcopies. The question then is - does a scanner embed any data? Beats me.

I don't think he would try to make what he posted look like a scanned print using some editing program. Not difficult to do but why take a chance to overlook something especially when scanners are a dime a dozen nowadays. I don't recall if I ever saw any discussions on them not being from a scan. They've dust, some edge distortions, etc. that seem real.

What does bug me about his scanning info and sneaking them out is the lack of a copier identification number on them. The company I worked at in the 70's and 80's had a small phyisical tag under every copier glass that left a code so the exact copier could be identified from any prints. We had some company confidential but nothing like the government. It just boggles my mind how such a secret office would allow any copying at all without strict security, record keeping without dates, etc. being on any copies. Makes no sense at all unless Isaac removed them - but why?

User IP Logged

Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting....


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1197 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 4:34pm »

on Jan 12th, 2009, 4:08pm, DrDil wrote:
Hi Marv,

Adobe Photoshop’s *save for web* setting strips the Exif automatically because the Save for Web command is intended to be used for images that are destined for display on the internet, one of the primary goals is in optimizing the file size as much as possible while still retaining acceptable image quality.



Cheers. smiley




Thank you DrDil,

11A was kind enough to inform me of that sometime ago. But that does not explain the "almost complete" stripping out of info detected by Snoop (except for the Adobe SW).


BTW, even scanners leave EXIF data… here is a scan I did on an HP ScanJet 3970:


*** Searching Compression Signatures ***

Signature: 0193B6220463E5A621ED25A53EC2FE7D
Signature (Rotated): 010D9693F4FC34B402EFA979BED34733
File Offset: 0 bytes
Chroma subsampling: 2x2
EXIF Make/Model: OK [HP] [HP ScanJet 3970]
EXIF Makernotes: NONE
EXIF Software: NONE

Searching Compression Signatures: (3314 built-in, 0 user(*) )

EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------- --------------
SW :[LEAD Technologies Inc ] [002 ]

ASSESSMENT: Image is very likely processed/edited






This still leaves the question on the PACL docs, why are they basically stripped of all data except for Adobe Photoshop?


Tuna,

Photos have EXIF data.

Scans have EXIF data.

All Jpegs have some data that can be detected by Jpeg Snoop.

If the PACL doc were old photographs made from 135mm film... they still have to be transferred to a Jpeg format (made digital) by some method (by digital photography or by scanning).

When that Jpeg data is missing from the picture… there is a reason for it, and it requires human intervention. I sense someone covering their tracks (I sense evil).

User IP Logged

Oh Goody! My Illudiom Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
TeachersPet
Guest
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1198 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 5:16pm »

Thank you Marvin, that was very informative ,clear and most helpful to me and I know others not so blessed with your skill and patience are grateful as well.

Regards.



User IP Logged

DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1199 on: Jan 12th, 2009, 6:15pm »

on Jan 12th, 2009, 4:34pm, Marvin wrote:
Thank you DrDil,

11A was kind enough to inform me of that sometime ago. But that does not explain the "almost complete" stripping out of info detected by Snoop (except for the Adobe SW).

Hi again Marv,

I’m a little confused.

Here’s the data from the image you posted which confirms your findings.

User Image


on Jan 12th, 2009, 2:25pm, Marvin wrote:
User Image

It was created using CGI.

Here is the EXIF:

*** Searching Compression Signatures ***

Signature: 01BBB1709AC9C1F89220D955A31A8F34
Signature (Rotated): 01BBB1709AC9C1F89220D955A31A8F34
File Offset: 0 bytes
Chroma subsampling: 2x2
EXIF Make/Model: NONE
EXIF Makernotes: NONE
EXIF Software: NONE

Searching Compression Signatures: (3314 built-in, 3 user(*) )

EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------- --------------
CAM:[CASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD ] [EX-Z750 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[CASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD. ] [EX-Z1000 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[PENTAX ] [PENTAX Optio S5i ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SIGMA ] [SIGMA SD9 ] [ ] Yes
SW :[ACDSee ] [100 ]
SW :[Apple ImageIO.framework ] [100 (Best) ]
SW :[Digital Photo Professiona] [10 ]
SW :[IJG Library ] [100 ]
SW :[MS Office Pic Mgr ] [ ]
SW :[Nikon Scan ] [Excellent Qualit]
SW :[Picasa ] [100 (Maximum) ]
SW :[ZoomBrowser EX ] [highest ]
SW :[EOS Viewer Utility ] [ ]

The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
SW :[GIMP ] [100 ]
SW :[IrfanView ] [100 ]
SW :[idImager ] [100 ]
SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [100 ]
SW :[NeatImage ] [100 ]
SW :[Paint.NET ] [100 ]
SW :[Photomatix ] [100 ]
SW :[XnView ] [100 ]

ASSESSMENT: Image is processed/edited


And here’s the same image *saved as* in PS:

User Image

And here’s the same image *saved for web* in PS:

User Image

Finally here’s page 19 of Isaacs site untouched:

User Image

So when you say:

on Jan 12th, 2009, 4:34pm, Marvin wrote:
But that does not explain the "almost complete" stripping out of info detected by Snoop (except for the Adobe SW).

Do you mean the ‘quality’ section is stripped/unexplained?

Cheers.
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
Pages: 1 ... 78 79 80 81 82  ...  99 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls