Author |
Topic: Re: Greenville SC (from main site) (Read 11938 times) |
|
DrDil
Forum Supervisor
Global Moderator
member is offline
Fighting against truth decay!!
 
Gender: 
Posts: 3333
|
 |
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #8 on: Mar 20th, 2010, 4:31pm » |
|
I’ll be honest, when I look at the images they scream fake to me but I fear I am not technologically competent enough when it comes to CG to say if or why that’s what they are.
This is why I resort to analysing out the data that accompanies the image, a task which I am still pursuing to see if there are any discrepancies between this image and other known images from the same camera/settings, be that in the actual image or the hidden data that accompanies it.
When I look at the following image the circular flame section just looks unreal, artificial, almost superimposed on to the triangle:
Actually it reminds me of the devil /hell scenes in SouthPark where they have a similar kind of purposefully cheap-looking computer generated flame effect…..
I guess what I’m saying is I’m not sold on the authenticity of them but as of yet I can’t find anything that would confirm this doubt, I have come across the data being removed to further a deception prior to this but not completely overwritten as in this case (if of course they’re not real).
I’ve just updated my software and so should have access to a larger sample database and now it is saying:
Quote:| ASSESSMENT: Class 3 - Image has high probability of being original |
|
Meh!! 
I think I'm going to have to seek a second (and probably third!!) opinion before I'm convinced of anything.
Cheers..... 
(Edit to update image links!!)
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 22nd, 2010, 1:03pm by DrDil » |
 Logged
|
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tounge-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
|
|
|
elevenaugust
Full Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 176
|
|
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #9 on: Mar 20th, 2010, 6:11pm » |
|
Hi all!
I have nothing to add to the excellent work that have been done by Mely and DrDil, except that, like Dil said, an EXIF comparison between these two photos and a original photo taken with the same camera could give some more clues.
Now, here's another original untouched Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5, taken from Flickr.
Note that JPEGSnoop's assessment for this one is the best that one can get, i-e 'class 3': "Image has high probability of being original"
On a side note, here's how Calvin Hass (the creator of JPEGSnoop) define the 'class' of an image:
* Class 1 - Image is processed/edited
* Class 2 - Image has high probability of being processed/edited
* Class 3 - Image has high probability of being original
* Class 4 - Uncertain if processed or original.
"JPEGsnoop can be used with reasonable confidence in identifying "processed" images, but what can we draw from the tool's assessment that an "Image has a high probability of being original"? ... only that the JPEG compression "signatures" and certain metadata elements match those expected from the indicated camera model(s). Note that the "Image is Original" assessment has been updated in the latest JPEGsnoop versions to make this distinction clearer.
Is this sufficient information to prove that an image is "original"? In a word, no.
It would take a very specialized set of tools to create a false positive "original" from an altered image. It is possible, and I have proven this in my own development. However, in most circumstances, it is highly unlikely that a set of JPEG analysis tools have been used to produce such a fabrication. Even if the compression signatures and metadata were altered carefully to match, there is an array of advanced image content analysis techniques (eg. statistical noise analysis, etc.) that could then be applied to further identify possible alterations."
Now, let's back to our 'photo test'.
Checking its class show that, like our triangle photos, assessment is 'class 3'.
To be complete, let's compare the whole EXIFs datas of the photos:
If we except the image size and camera specs (such as ISO, aperture, fnumber, etc..) it's a 100% match.
I also wanted to add that between the two shoots there are 13s, which seems to me incredibly a long time, in regard of the 'apparent' size of the craft and how it was moving.
In conclusion and IMO, these photos have high probabilities to be original.
Now, what is left is the part about the witness, in fact, except four lines of testimony, we don't know nothing.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 20th, 2010, 6:13pm by elevenaugust » |
Logged
|
APPONO ASTOS
|
|
|
elevenaugust
Full Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 176
|
|
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #10 on: Mar 21st, 2010, 05:57am » |
|
Just want to add that, to be sure, I can try to do a proper statistical comparative study of the background noise of the photos, using the Fourier transform, like that was done ages ago (  ) for the drones...
|
|
Logged
|
APPONO ASTOS
|
|
|
DrDil
Forum Supervisor
Global Moderator
member is offline
Fighting against truth decay!!
Gender:
Posts: 3333
|
|
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #11 on: Mar 21st, 2010, 06:36am » |
|
on Mar 21st, 2010, 05:57am, elevenaugust wrote:| Just want to add that, to be sure, I can try to do a proper statistical comparative study of the background noise of the photos, using the Fourier transform, like that was done ages ago ( ) for the drones... |
|
Hi again Eleven, 
Oh no, not the dreaded *D* word!!
Great work with the earlier dataset comparison and I was actually going to mention the ‘Fourier transform’ to you. Also, would/does it work on the surrounding area of the new image compared to the section with the object actually in it or is it best suited to comparing the pattern of two different images (allegedly from the same camera)?
Either way, I look forward to seeing it. 
(I was actually just re-reading the earlier EXIF/IPTC analysis done on one of the OMF Drone threads!!  )
Cheers.
|
|
Logged
|
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tounge-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
|
|
|
elevenaugust
Full Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 176
|
|
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #12 on: Mar 21st, 2010, 12:25pm » |
|
Hi Mely.
To answer your question, theorically, yes. It should be possible to do a stereographic study with these two photos.
Unfortunately, so many various setting camera conditions are needed to have good size and distance estimation that it do not worth a try...
Here's the full technical paper that I used two years ago, that explain it all.
Any small error (in the distance between the two cameras, for example) could lead to have huge errors in the final estimations, the far away the object is, the more important the error will be....
|
|
Logged
|
APPONO ASTOS
|
|
|
skizicks
Senior Member
member is offline
" Your choice of words is very important and very powerful, it is the difference between the Lightning Bug and the Lightning. " Mark Twain
Gender:
Posts: 435
|
|
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #13 on: Mar 21st, 2010, 12:32pm » |
|
The level of work, and amount of time, spent by the members of this site in checking their facts and pictures is as good an example of solid detictive work as I have ever seen.
Too bad so many others don't make this effort.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jm
Junior Member
member is offline
Gender: 
Posts: 35
|
|
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #14 on: Mar 21st, 2010, 1:00pm » |
|
I haven't posted here before so please excuse me if I am in the wrong spot. Regarding the houses in the photograph, some of us yesterday were remarking on how similar the Greenville neighbourhood is to this: http://www.ufosnw.com/sighting_reports/2008/greenvillesc04192008/greenvillesc04192008.htm
If someone has already pointed that out then please excuse the duplication. Best regards, jm
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jm
Junior Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 35
|
|
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #15 on: Mar 21st, 2010, 1:17pm » |
|
Hi Mely. We noted the roofs of the houses, and that left hand house with the circular piece. Plus the angle at which the houses were oriented. Obviously there are many houses in Greenville, but it was just a bit odd. Also the tree shapes match pretty closely, despite lack of foliage.
This is the photo of the rooftops to which we were alluding:
http://www.ufosnw.com/sighting_reports/2008/greenvillesc04192008/auroraufo1web.jpg
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 21st, 2010, 2:01pm by jm » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
elevenaugust
Full Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 176
|
|
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #16 on: Mar 21st, 2010, 3:27pm » |
|
Hi jm and welcome! Nice observation!
They were undoubtely taken from the exact same place:
|
|
Logged
|
APPONO ASTOS
|
|
|
elevenaugust
Full Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 176
|
|
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #17 on: Mar 21st, 2010, 3:48pm » |
|
Well, shouldn't the tree foliage already be there in April 19th? (for deciduous trees)
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 21st, 2010, 3:54pm by elevenaugust » |
Logged
|
APPONO ASTOS
|
|
|
orbit
Senior Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 383
|
|
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #18 on: Mar 21st, 2010, 4:24pm » |
|
Hi Mely it looks to as if the earlier picture is taken a little more to the right and slightly forward of the later photo.
You can just notice the top left of the 2nd soil stack above the verge of the house. It seems to look like there is only one due to the perspective, but it is there
It looks to me as if they are taken from the same location just a slighly different perspective, but i may be wrong.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
elevenaugust
Full Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 176
|
|
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #19 on: Mar 21st, 2010, 4:27pm » |
|
In the 2008 picture, the photo was taken slightly to the right, thus the different perspective.
If you look closely, you can even see a tiny part of the second chimney pipe in this photo:
|
|
Logged
|
APPONO ASTOS
|
|
|
jm
Junior Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 35
|
|
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #21 on: Mar 21st, 2010, 5:51pm » |
|
Two very similar cameras were involved. Same make, but one was the Z5 and the other was the Z20. I think another event referred to a Canon in one report I read
....and I have a sneaky suspicion that things are not quite what they seem to be.
Anyone for "drones?" ;-)
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 21st, 2010, 5:53pm by jm » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mely
Guest
|
|
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #22 on: Mar 21st, 2010, 5:56pm » |
|
x
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 26th, 2010, 2:43pm by Mely » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
