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

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Dec 12th, 2017, 04:04am


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 ... 81 82 83 84 85  ...  99 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Truth  (Read 25504 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 #1230 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 5:41pm »

on Jan 13th, 2009, 4:58pm, Katterfelto wrote:
Hi Albatross.
I might not have been clear what the curiosity was for me. If we believe the story of course! I believe Isaac would have used a photo copier not a scanner back in 1987. Best as I can determine the output from that copier would be 300-600DPI. Now what was the quality of what he copied from? 300-600DPI original or another copy or copy of copy?? Now he keeps the photocopies 20 years and scans them to post on the web. It appears the high res web use scans are 300DPI. Are the end scans of a quality to be expected from a scan of a copy of a copy? I really don't know at this point.
I look at the halftone dots in the images because if originals are very high resolution and line frequency, the later copies or scans at lower resolutions may not retain them and the results would seem to be more posterization/banding and not halftones that are evident on the final scans. That's why I suspect lower resolution originals but then the final line art quality don't seem right to me. I need to do some scan of copies of copies tests.
I also see on some images areas that suggest the backside of the page had the black markouts. Would these be retained on subsequent copies - again I don't know.
I hope this makes sense and I'm not blowing more smoke or crazy as DoubleNaught thinks we may be! shocked

Another nagging thing is why Issac used GIF's instead of JPEG's for the drone images on his page. Another one of those inconsistent things that just chew at you. rolleyes




Katterfelto,

I look forward to seeing any work you do. smiley

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 #1231 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 5:48pm »

on Jan 13th, 2009, 5:28pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
I think what the good doctor is saying is that if the pole is not in an area that is served by the Santa Cruz Sentinal, then we have another hole in the story! wink

Yep, but just guessing of course as I suspect that it isn’t too far outside of Capitola’s ‘city limits’ as from what I understand guess it was located from an armchair (although I could be wrong!!)

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 #1232 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 5:50pm »

It certainly is Marv!!

That’s the one I captured before using the *save as* & *save for web* settings on it (my page119 shows the same as yours). It’s exactly the same as the image I posted at the top of the comment and was really just intended as a sort of segue into my next comment (which due to my incompetence at copying & pasting image URL’s I’ll put on the back-burner for now).

So if you just ignore that last image then the questions still stands:


========================
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

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?
========================


Or perhaps an easier way of phrasing it is how does the exif data that I have posted before and after saving the image in Photoshop differ from what you are seeing?

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).

Isn’t that exactly what the *save as* & *save for web* jpegsnoop results that I’ve just posted show does happen?

I’m not disagreeing with you I’m just trying to understand and see what you’re seeing.

Cheers.
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
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 #1233 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 5:54pm »


on Jan 13th, 2009, 5:17pm, DrDil wrote:
Hi again Albatross,

Yes, all of the recent posters including myself have both feet planted firmly on the ‘HOAX’ side of the fence.

Don't worry as it still fascinates me and I’ve always been convinced it’s a hoax, yet I’m STILL trying to find irrefutable & undeniable concrete real-world proof (i.e. not centred on digital images) that it’s a hoax. Not for myself because as I say I already believe it is, but personally speaking I would be happy if some kind of evidence was turned up that simply couldn’t be denied by even the most devout believer of the Drones.

I wouldn’t be sated, contented or finished with the Drones, I’d just be at least momentarily happy. (I guess I won’t be satisfied until the witnesses/Isaac/hoaxers are identified).

However I don’t hold my breath as the DRT have very recently turned up more real-world verifiable information and surprise, surprise it shows that yet another witness has apparently purposefully mislead and lied about the simplest of facts regarding his ‘encounter’ with the Drone, that’s Rajman1977 who claimed to be in Capitola.

With Rajman though this is massively more telling/revealing than the fact that both Chad & Stephen had lied about their locations, the reason I personally believe this is because with Raj it was all about the details. I’ll admit that his was perhaps the most superficially believable account (but due mainly to this detail) an account which he later expounded on when he visited Open Minds Forum.

Every time a pro-hoax theory advocate would say that there are no verifiable witnesses then someone with the opposing viewpoint would always bring up the two posts that Raj made at OMF. So I think it’s fair to say that those who believe the original witnesses aren’t hoaxers also believe that it was the same Raj who claimed to have taken the images that was posting at OMF.

This presents a bit of a dilemma (again) for those who think that Raj was genuine as he also claimed to have contacted a local newspaper which when the private investigators researched this aspect it played out like a cloak & dagger style event adding further mystery to the Drones.

Latitude (UFOCasebook & DRT member) wrote at the time:


BUT if the Santa Cruz Sentinel’s demographic doesn’t include the area where the pole is located, well…..

Cheers.

(I see Tomi is online, I'd be interested in you take on this).




That story never made any sense to me to begin with. Even if it all happened just the way Numbers said it did, it was little more than one assumption piled on another. What did it prove exactly? That the PIs were capable of tracking down a former employee of the newspaper? They never spoke with her in person, so I'm not sure it even proves that. Who said this reporter was contacted in any way by "Raj" or anyone else connected with the "event?" This doesn't even qualify as tenuous, even if no one was lying.
« Last Edit: Jan 13th, 2009, 5:57pm by Double Nought Spy » User IP Logged


All sane people detest noise. --Mark Twain

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 #1234 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 6:19pm »

on Jan 13th, 2009, 07:05am, Marvin wrote:
DrDil,

User Image

User Image



on Jan 13th, 2009, 5:50pm, DrDil wrote:
Hi again Marv,

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

So when you say:


Do you mean the ‘quality’ section is stripped/unexplained?
========================
[/size]

Or perhaps an easier way of phrasing it is how does the exif data that I have posted before and after saving the image in Photoshop differ from what you are seeing?


Isn’t that exactly what the *save as* & *save for web* jpegsnoop results that I’ve just posted show does happen?

I’m not disagreeing with you I’m just trying to understand and see what you’re seeing.

Cheers.




You will notice that your “Save as” in Photoshop left info in the quality section:

“Save For Web 060”

There is no such data in the p119 Jpegs… that data or info is not there.


I have been playing with this stuff too… I even tried to zip the photo to see if this info maybe removed when zipped (no, it is left intact).

I do not know how many times the Jpeg would have to be opened (edited), “Save For Web,” opened again (edited) and saved to leave the data in the condition it is in. A specific order (of opening, editing, saving) would have to have been established and followed. But if this indeed was the process, no one can say that it was not intentionally performed (like I said, this required human intervention). Or… a separate software EXIF strip was performed (outside of Photoshop) and then edited in Photoshop.

Either way, it looks less and less like an “innocent” posting of pictures as evidence on the Web.


Edit to add... the camera info [RAW]... I think you will find Photoshop can import "raw" photo data (although there are no standards for this). Consider this, these two are the same image… one is just smaller than the other. There should not be a difference (as in missing camera data) between the two since the Jpeg keep an active record of the modifications it goes through. The record is altered on the full sized version to no longer have the camera data. That was what I was referring to.
« Last Edit: Jan 13th, 2009, 6:26pm by Marvin » User IP Logged

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

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
Albatross
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 158
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1235 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 6:24pm »

on Jan 13th, 2009, 1:16pm, TeachersPet wrote:
ahhh now we are in same page
Albatross, you didnt jack anything bro..what were the other words you got from your tinkering..was that womn phrase part of that? or you just put that down. I would like to know so I can finish seeing what else I can get..Iisaaic was the first..what was the others. PM them if you would like.
Thanx!



TeachersPet: The line of text you're referring to was my attempt to illustrate random pecking at the keyboard. In retrospect I should have just said "random pecking at the keyboard".

As for "Iisaaic" - It was just a speculation on the "word" with the two sets of double letters. I haven't solved, or come close to solving, anything. And I doubt I will, because of the "random pecking at the keyboard" that I think was used to produced the LAP. If there are no key words to identify - "a", "if", "the", "and", etc. - then it's unsolvable.


User IP Logged

TeachersPet
Guest
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1236 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 6:34pm »

Marvin remember you asked Mars if he had found the Stephen location and he said no..
well I remember it was 11A that wrote this at OM

We have the exact place where Stephen took his three photographs on 5th June 2007

Here's the email we received from the guy, we will call him "Tom", who find the place:

1- "The attached photos are related to your Drone Investigation. I took one of them, the other I saved off of the Coast To Coast website when they 1st
became public. I highly suspect this is a layered photo
.

OK..so he denies asking for a retraction, and he denies the stephen find..WT Heck..why is he as evasive, being polite, as DRT?

Frank Dixon, the PI, months ago said he could not find the pole in capitola. DRT has already said it was not in Capitola or even vicinity. If it was close, believe me they would have said so along with excuse it was just trying to protect area for safety. Therefore..not even close to Capitola.

Santa cruZ, San Jose? maybe. we certainly see a lot of old lamps and telephone poles like that.
Especially where Numbers, the PIS, and even Mars lives and used to live , and all of them seemed to be deaf and mute as to how they could miss something like that even after we told them. which is when they came to a grinding halt.Jeddyhi is correct. It would open a Torrent of worms, the size you saw in the movie Dune.
Unrelated note..Lev would be happy to know one of the adresses I ran across had 666 in it. ICU
but I digress.


@albatross..thanx..we are left with fox tre...fox tree ..fox Family..smiley
Yes Terminaator puzzles involve word associations as well.
Whats even funny about Raj is he said he told lots of people, and whined no MSN, and told newspaper, while TY said he rode to work with a newspaper guy..who he told, and who had seen them before.. thinking backon it...Can you blame the Newspaper for not buying into that crock? cheesy




« Last Edit: Jan 13th, 2009, 6:50pm by TeachersPet » User IP Logged

Albatross
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 158
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1237 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 6:42pm »

on Jan 13th, 2009, 4:58pm, Katterfelto wrote:
Hi Albatross.
... I look at the halftone dots in the images because if originals are very high resolution and line frequency, the later copies or scans at lower resolutions may not retain them and the results would seem to be more posterization/banding and not halftones that are evident on the final scans.


Katterfelto: I've been meaning to have a closer look at those halftone dots on the "inventory" page, but I got sucked into vectorizing the LAP and forgot about it.

Something to consider about the LAP scans: if Isaac managed to smuggle out an ACTUAL COPY of the LAP, that handbook would have been produced photographically, as I sort of semi-described earlier. It could have been as crisp and clear as a new dollar bill. No, I retract that - it WOULD have been as crisp as they could possibly print it. So, Isaac just puts his originals on a modern scanner, scans them, saves them in Photoshop, and posts them on the web.
What would the Exifs look like if that were the case?




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 #1238 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 6:47pm »

on Jan 13th, 2009, 6:19pm, Marvin wrote:
You will notice that your “Save as” in Photoshop left info in the quality section:

“Save For Web 060”

There is no such data in the p119 Jpegs… that data or info is not there.

Hi Marv!!

I apologise in advance as I must be having a slow day!! grin

*save as* & *save for web* are completely different options, is this the difference you are seeing?

I’ve overlaid my image of the Exif data for the CGI rendering you posted after it was *saved as* in Photoshop and highlighted it in yellow.

User Image

I’ve highlighted in red what I thought was the information you are saying is missing in both images.

What’s the difference? (Note *save as* not *save for web*)

Cheers.
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 #1239 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 6:52pm »

on Jan 13th, 2009, 6:42pm, Albatross wrote:
Katterfelto: I've been meaning to have a closer look at those halftone dots on the "inventory" page, but I got sucked into vectorizing the LAP and forgot about it.

Something to consider about the LAP scans: if Isaac managed to smuggle out an ACTUAL COPY of the LAP, that handbook would have been produced photographically, as I sort of semi-described earlier. It could have been as crisp and clear as a new dollar bill. No, I retract that - it WOULD have been as crisp as they could possibly print it. So, Isaac just puts his originals on a modern scanner, scans them, saves them in Photoshop, and posts them on the web.
What would the Exifs look like if that were the case?


Isaac said that they were photocopies of documents already archived for "Outside use" hence the blacked out sections (yet still no classification stamp).

The exif data isn't really part of the original documents, it has been inherited during processing the scans of the photocopies on a modern PC, unless as Marv says the entire documentation is software generated (rather than a physical manuscript).

Cheers.
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 #1240 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 7:07pm »

Hi Albatross, sorry I hould have read your comment more thoroughly I see now you're referencing the LAP schematic (rather than the PACL report).

Isaac specifically stated:

Quote:
With this initial letter I have attached high resolution scans of the following:

A page from an inventory review with a photo that appears to depict one of the parts found in the Rajman sighting and parts very similar to the Big Basin craft

The first 9 pages of one of our quarterly research reports

Scans of the original photographs used in that report, since the photocopies obscure most of the details

5 pages from a report on our ongoing analysis of the “language” (inappropriately titled “linguistic analysis”), depicting the kind of diagram just barely visible on the underside of the Big Basin craft.


He clearly states that the scans of the images are originals, not the LAP.

I appreciate that this doesn't mean it wasn’t, but because of how specific Isaac was in general I believe he would have stated this if it were the case.

Purely conjecture of course but conjecture based entirely on what I know of Isaac and his exact words, i.e. he called them both reports, stated that one of them was photocopied and stated that the images were originals, surely if the other report (LAP) was scanned straight from the original document then this too would have been mentioned?

Cheers. wink
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
Albatross
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 158
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1241 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 7:10pm »

on Jan 13th, 2009, 6:52pm, DrDil wrote:
Isaac said that they were photocopies of documents already archived for "Outside use" hence the blacked out sections (yet still no classification stamp).

The exif data isn't really part of the original documents, it has been inherited during processing the scans of the photocopies on a modern PC, unless as Marv says the entire documentation is software generated (rather than a physical manuscript).

Cheers.


Ah, okay. I missed the part where he said the pictures of the LAP he posted were scans of photocopies. I need to take a closer look at these things, then. Seems awfully detailed for 20 year old photocopies...

And for the record, I believe it's all computer generated, as well.
Just trying to cover all the bases...

User IP Logged

Albatross
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 158
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #1242 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 7:17pm »

We must have been posting at the same time, DrDil.

So he does claim they're from original photos.
I guess I need to go back and reread Isaac's little autobiography.
I just read it once and delved into dissecting the art.

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 #1243 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 7:31pm »

on Jan 13th, 2009, 7:17pm, Albatross wrote:
We must have been posting at the same time, DrDil.

So he does claim they're from original photos.
I guess I need to go back and reread Isaac's little autobiography.
I just read it once and delved into dissecting the art.


No grin, he claims that the PACL (English text) report was a photocopy.

He claims that as the images contained within this report were poor quality so he included scans from the original images of the alien artefacts ONLY, which he conveniently had lying around….. (See image below, photograph in red outline overlaid on photocopy of same).

User Image

He only referenced the LAP (Alien symbols) as a report but never said whether it was a photocopy or not.

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 #1244 on: Jan 13th, 2009, 7:41pm »

on Jan 13th, 2009, 6:34pm, TeachersPet wrote:
Marvin remember you asked Mars if he had found the Stephen location and he said no..



Actually TP,

I asked MarsAve if he had found the Ty site. I asked this because MarsAve had said:

“The person submitting the story of the Drone is now claiming the photos were taken in Big Basin State Park by a bicyclist group. I found the exact spot, and it is NOT in Big Basin State Park..far from it.”

Source:

http://forum.theparacast.com/the-ufo-for....sac-story-t986/

To this question of Ty’s location, MarsAve said no... he had not found the Ty site... "No....All I found was the Stephen location on Big Basin Hwy near Redwood Gulch Rd in Saratoga,CA."

Source:

http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=cali1&action=display&thread=4004&page=4





Now, I am trying to understand, how MarsAve was confused between the Stephen and Ty sightings. Ty was the only witness with a bicycle group:


“On the 5th of this month, I was on a mountain biking trip with 7 other riders that I often ride with in the Big Basin area near Saratoga. CA. We were about 20 minutes into it when the most specular "craft" appeared in the sky above us, maybe two miles away from where we were.”

Source:

http://droneteam.com/history/ty/



Stephen was not on a bicycle (or at least did not say so)… but was on a class assignment to take pictures:

“Today a member named Stephen posted some pictures he took yesterday (the 5th) for a class assignment in the area around Big Basin. The pictures very clearly depict some kind of large object in the sky, and he was able to get two clear shots and one out-of-focus shot before it apparently disappeared.”

Source:

http://droneteam.com/history/stephen/


So if MarsAve is deep into investigating the BB Drones… why the misunderstanding? Hmmm.


User IP Logged

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

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
Pages: 1 ... 81 82 83 84 85  ...  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