UFO Casebook
UFO Sightings in the News & Personal Sightings >> Latest UFO Reports >> Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
http://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=reports&action=display&num=1269030655

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 19th, 2010, 5:36pm

Could be interesting but....

Unfortunately, any study of these photos is compromise, since there are no EXIFs datas to see in the "original untouched photos".
Anyway, we can see some of these in the "Camera data" link attached in the presentation on the main page, but this is hardly enough....

I guess that there's at one point some process that stripped the EXIFs datas.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by purr on Mar 19th, 2010, 6:53pm

on Mar 19th, 2010, 3:30pm, Mely wrote:
http://www.ufocasebook.com/2010/greenvillesc031610.html

What is everyone's opinion of these pictures? They look good quality, but not too good. They aren't shakey or blurry. Would you consider them evidence?


Hi Mely,

I spent some time comparing the two frame sequences at the main site. If for real, interesting craft, with red 'heartlight' showing some exotic means of propulsion?

But, progressing from first to second frame, the photographer moved his vantage point down, and to the right (check hedge + buildings). Simultaneously he panned the camera to left/up to follow the ascending triangular UFO, presumably increasing his body's muscle tension (squatting, stepping, bending & twisting!). As a consequence of panning in sinc with the UFO's movement, it is to be expected the second frame would show parts of the room blurred. If however the camera somehow was kept steady in relation to the room, the swift upward movement of the UFO likely would cause some blur in its outline as well the glowing center. (We are led to believe it was moving fast from references to 'grabbing' camera, two frames shot total, and not making it to backyard in time.) Imo panning quickly, adding physical tension, the moving vantagepoint, should combine to produce a partially blurred picture. An explanation why no blurring can be seen at all, in especially the second frame, would be helpful.

Also, the UFO being shadowed black, makes it hard to see any details of its shape/surface, except for a triangular outline.

The two photos at face value seem to offer only weak evidence of a physical, threedimensional, unknown craft moving in Greenville skies. Alternatively, attaching a microlight inside a triangular piece of black paper, sticking it to a pane of glass could produce similar photographs.

If however this witness filed a (full & personal) report with an UFO organization, along with the photos, ideally corroberated by other eyewitnesses from Greenville SC, I'd begin to put more faith in it.


purr
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by purr on Mar 20th, 2010, 06:04am

on Mar 19th, 2010, 8:24pm, Mely wrote:
I guess you make a pretty hard sceptic, purr smiley
I checked on the objections you mentioned, though I'm not an expert.

After saving both images locally, I magnified each to 10x and then applied a "positive gamma curve" tone map to them, to bring out the contrast of the dark areas while leaving the "flame" uneffected.

What I got from that was lighter spots on the craft, which seemed to bear some relation to their distance from the flame. Unfortunately, not enough well-defined pixels (for me) to get a 3d map of it's underside.

The surface texture of the wooden post was brought out better. Just barely enough to see a slight bit of blurring. The camera data said the exposire time was 1/6 second, but I'm not sure how much blurring should take place in that amount of time.

The flaming exhaust was slightly different in each picture. In the first, it was actually streaming down enough to cover one edge of the triangle, in the second it had receded.

The triangle is rotated in 3d in the second picture. If it was a piece of black paper stuck to a window, then it wasn't the same piece. Though it appeared to be an outside (porch) shot, with no windows in view. If it was stuck to an exterior pane of glass, I couldn't find any pixels showing the wires that would need to suspend it.

Just my inexpert impressions.



Well, you asked, Mely laugh !

But your points are well taken, and show I have nowhere near proved these photos to've been hoaxed.

Would you be prepared to upload your tested images? Or crops only of the triangular UFO itself, if that is more practical because of size.


purr
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 20th, 2010, 09:55am

on Mar 20th, 2010, 08:48am, Mely wrote:
smiley

I would be prepared to upload the enhanced crops of the images. Just one question, how do you upload images to the forum?

Hi Mely, smiley

You would have to upload them to a photo-hosting site such as Photobucket or Flickr.

We have a thread explaining it all which can be viewed here.

Any problems then just ask!! wink

Cheers.

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 20th, 2010, 11:07am

I had a quick look as well and I admit I half-expected to find obvious signs of deliberate tampering..... grin

But first a quick recap from the witness:

Quote:
Greenville, SC - 03-16-10

On March 16, 2010... I saw a bright red light coming from a distance. I thought that maybe an airline plane was on fire, and grabbed my camera.

Instead, it was a large triangle plane with a very bright, red strobe in the center of it, (almost like it was on fire).

It seemed to be climbing in altitude. By the time I went to the backyard, it already entered the clouds and was gone!

This happened in Greenville, South Carolina at 8:03 PM.

Thank you,

Mr. H


(Source: Submitted to UFOCasebook.com)

And here are the two images in question (scaled down in size):

User Image

User Image

And as you can see from the EXIF data there was a time lapse of 13 seconds in between capturing them:

User Image

I left the pole just in shot so you can differentiate between the two images (i.e. one on the right and one on the left side of the pole/support which is centred in the image) and I tried to clean them up a little and here they are at their original size/s:

User Image


Filtered and enlarged:

User Image
User Image

And a couple of quick animations at different speeds, the first one using the pole/support as a fixed point:

User Image

User Image

And another animation but this time using the trees on the far left of the image as the fixed point:

User Image

User Image

And finally after a cursory check with a different EXIF tool it would appear that the image *IF* tampered with has since been edited to remove any trace of this as there doesn't seem to be any (obvious) digital remnants which would suggest the image has been modified:

User Image

User Image


Cheers. smiley



(Edit to update image links!!)
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 20th, 2010, 1:14pm

on Mar 20th, 2010, 1:03pm, Mely wrote:
Well, the photobucket register page doesn't load, or time-out either. I guess I'll have to find another way. Images of two enhanced crops take about 600k as compressed png files. I suppose I could email them, if the forum had an email address.

That happens to me occasionally, just mail them to me if you want and I'll post them.

I've PM'd you my email address.

Cheers.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 20th, 2010, 2:41pm

Hi Mely,

Sorry about the delay but the original files *gcrop-a* & *gcrop-b* had dimensions of 1350x792 & 1500x798 respectively, as these are too big for the forum and too large for the free hosting sites (!! grin) I’ve hosted them myself, they can be viewed in their original (.png) formats by clicking on the following links:

gcrop-a.png

gcrop-b.png

Quote:
Mely wrote:
Files "gcrop-a.png" and "gcrop-b.png" were both gamma-corrected at a level of 266 percent, and then expanded up to 6x size for easier viewing.
I think they show that the triangle was not a uniform black color, and that the flaming exhaust had changed.


And these are the same images cropped by me to fit on the forum (original .png format):

GCrop-A
User Image

GCrop-B
User Image


Quote:
Mely wrote:
File "tri.png" shows outlines of the triangle from each shot, superimposed on each other, in order to show the difference in perspective. Which I think demonstrates that the two triangle images were not simply cut and pasted from a master image.

User Image


Thanks Mely & Cheers!!


(Edit to update image links!!)
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by LoneGunMan on Mar 20th, 2010, 2:46pm

What I find interesting is that the craft seems to be in a slow left, climbing turn and the picture shows that the engine signature on that side is brighter. I can only suggest that this is how it maneuvers instead of using flaps or ailerons or tail control surfaces such as rudder and elevator! Nice pictures Amigo.

Lone
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 20th, 2010, 3:31pm

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:

User Image


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…..

User Image


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:

User Image
Quote:
ASSESSMENT: Class 3 - Image has high probability of being original


Meh!! User Image

I think I'm going to have to seek a second (and probably third!!) opinion before I'm convinced of anything.

Cheers..... User Image



(Edit to update image links!!)

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 20th, 2010, 5:11pm

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:

User Image

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.








Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 21st, 2010, 04:57am

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 ( grin) for the drones...
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 21st, 2010, 05:36am

on Mar 21st, 2010, 04:57am, 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 ( grin) for the drones...

Hi again Eleven, smiley

Oh no, not the dreaded *D* word!! grin

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. cool

(I was actually just re-reading the earlier EXIF/IPTC analysis done on one of the OMF Drone threads!! laugh)

Cheers.

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 21st, 2010, 11:25am

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....

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by skizicks on Mar 21st, 2010, 11:32am

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.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 21st, 2010, 12:00pm

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
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 21st, 2010, 12:17pm

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
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 21st, 2010, 2:27pm

Hi jm and welcome! Nice observation!

They were undoubtely taken from the exact same place:

User Image

shocked




Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 21st, 2010, 2:48pm

Well, shouldn't the tree foliage already be there in April 19th? (for deciduous trees)
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by orbit on Mar 21st, 2010, 3:24pm

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.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 21st, 2010, 3:27pm

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:

User Image
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by Dib on Mar 21st, 2010, 4:41pm

Lets recap here.

First reported sighting from Greenville SC in April 19, 2008. (same buildings as 2010 report) No name given?
http://www.ufosnw.com/sighting_reports/2008/greenvillesc04192008/greenvillesc04192008.htm

Second report on March 16, 2009 by somebody calling himself 'Greg' (same date as 2010 report)
http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009/sc031609.html

Third report on May 26 2009 this time by the name of 'C. Salvo'.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009b/greenvillesc052609.html

Forth and latest report on March 16, 2010 by the name of Mr. H this has the same buildings as the 2008 report.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/2010/greenvillesc031610.html

So what are we to make of all this? Two reports can be linked together with a possible other two. But all being reported by supposedly different people? Do we have all the facts about these cases? Or is somebody yanking our chain? If so to what end? huh
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 21st, 2010, 4:51pm

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?" ;-)
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by Mely on Mar 21st, 2010, 4:56pm

x
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 21st, 2010, 4:56pm

x
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 21st, 2010, 5:08pm

on Mar 21st, 2010, 4:51pm, jm wrote:
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

Sorry, jm, haven't find anywhere the use of the Z20 for the 2008 photo, did I miss something? huh

Ok, that was in the 2009 May sighting.

BTW, good find Dib!
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 21st, 2010, 5:12pm

16th March 2010 and 16th March 2009 comparison was what I was referring to as below:

Camera make/model for 16th March 2010 shows: Konica Minolta DiMage Z5 to be found here http://www.ufocasebook.com/2010/greenvillescmeta.jpg and camera make/model for 16th March 2009 shows: Konica Minolta DiImage Z20 where BJ stated on 20th March 2009:….. “Yesterday I received three clear, daylight photographs of an unknown object of triangular shape. Now, I cannot say exactly what the object in question is. But, I did some research into the photos, and they are not created in a photo program, they are taken directly from a Konica Minolta-DiMage Z20 camera, with all of the meta data intact.”….And the submitter wrote: “Camera make and model: Konica Minolta-DiMage Z20. Three photographs taken on 03-16-2009, at 4:28 PM…the link to this page is here: http://ufos.about.com/b/2009/03/20/clear-photos-of-triangle-ufo-over-s-carolina.htm

Sorry for the confusion.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 21st, 2010, 5:16pm

To elevenaugust: I was very interested originally in the dates being identical for 2009 and 2010 events, and thusly I went and tracked down further events and found that 2008 one that had seemingly been taken at the same location as the one on 16th March 2010.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 21st, 2010, 5:18pm

And to Dib: I'd say either this area of S.C. is amazingly busy with black triangles, some with roaring flame throwers attached, or someone is yanking a chain. Just sayin'
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 21st, 2010, 5:42pm

Nothing is proven. All I was doing was gathering reports from the area to see if this was truly a "hotspot." It seems to be. Then I noticed some similarities in dates and cameras, nothing more. When doing research I tend to dig out the history of the area to see what has gone before. It was Dib who noticed the roof tops were similar in two of the photos on links that I had posted on the main site.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 21st, 2010, 6:31pm

Typical, I’ve been away from my PC for most of the day….. laugh

on Mar 21st, 2010, 5:31pm, Mely wrote:
So you've proved that it's different cameras taking the pictures. Konica *is* a popular brand. Maybe if they'd all been the same brand and model of camera, then it would have been suspicious.

Four reports (two of them the same date/incident) in two years doesn't exactly make it a hotspot. Most areas of the country see a lot more activity.

Whaaat?! grin

M'kay Mely, how about this then......

I’m still in the middle of piecing it together but as suspected and regardless of the EXIF data there are serious issues regarding the background and history of the photographer and consequently the images.

Firstly and as posted by JM there were images shot from the EXACT same location on April 19th, 2008.

User Image

User Image


However it also transpires that this same witness is most definitely a ‘repeater’ as the following image is also attributed to him:

User Image


And this is where it gets interesting as remember the earlier images were allegedly photographed on April 19th, 2008? Well the image above is alleged to have been captured on May 13th, 2008, but that’s not the interesting part, the metadata was apparently intact and as well as betraying signs of manipulation due to the lunar cycle it also showed which camera was used and guess what?

A *Konica Minolta Dimage Z5*.....

Firstly here’s the mention of manipulation due to the lunar cycle as well as the camera model used and the fact that it is the same witness as earlier:

User Image


And here’s further commentary that once again not only confirms that this is the same witness but again raises valid points regarding the authenticity of the images as well as the credibility of the photographer:

User Image


So now we have someone who was standing in the exact same location as the person who captured the recent 2010 images being caught perpetrating a hoax with an image submitted three weeks after their earlier black triangle sighting and the second hoax attempt was yet again -wait for it- a black triangle!! laugh

This was April & May 2008 respectively, I think it’s a fair assumption that due to the short time-lapse between the images being allegedly photographed that the images captured three weeks earlier were also photographed with the same camera, namely a *Konica Minolta Dimage Z5*.

So we have a strongly-suspected hoaxer standing in the exact same location as two years earlier claiming to photograph black triangles at will (or so it would seem), now fast forward to 2010 to check the camera and yep:

User Image


It was the *Konica Minolta Dimage Z5* which was used…..

Same camera, same location, same shaped object and from a repeat witness who is strongly suspected of being a hoaxer?

(Come on Mely, give it up!! kiss grin)

What concerns me a great deal more is why weren’t the digital footprints created by manipulating the image detected by the supposedly forensic image analysis software?! undecided So at least as I see it instead of now just thinking it is a hoax we have verifiable evidence that strongly suggests this is indeed the case, however, how can we make the embedded metadata give up its sordid past?

Or perhaps more importantly what software was used to hide it in the first place? (And of course is it detectable!! laugh)

Cheers.



(Edit to update image links!!)
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 21st, 2010, 7:16pm

on Mar 21st, 2010, 6:45pm, Mely wrote:
I bet none of the people saying swampgas will go there in person to check it out.

I think I'll stick with my 35mm film camera, for as long as I can keep getting film. Actual negatives are harder to reasonably call into question, because alterations are easy to spot unless the hoaxer was a film genius. Of course, that depends on me ever getting a good ufo shot smiley

Swamp gas”?

Whatever…… laugh

I’ve tried my best to show that with the evidence available to ALL of us why I personally believe that there is no reason to take the witness at his word or accept that the images are genuine as was originally claimed.

If you want to believe and/or think otherwise then seriously, more power to you!!

But I personally believe it's a little unfair to then mock others by trotting out an infamous debunker quote and proceed to falsely attribute it to those who don’t see things your way, although actually, hmm.....

What if it was a holographic projection of weather balloons reflecting Venus whilst being refracted through a lighthouse and then projected onto a marshy oil field where amongst the burning oil platforms there was a slow -but definite- release of swamp gas at the exact same time as assorted flares were dropped from a rapidly descending mogul balloon piloted by a chimpanzee and accompanied by a crash test dummy (circa 1950) as co-pilot? grin

Seriously though, is there any aspect of this report that you don’t doubt or that you at least believe to be genuine?

If there is then I guess it must just be me, because honestly, I'm struggling to see any verifiable truth here at all.....

Cheers. smiley

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 21st, 2010, 7:24pm

To DrDil: Thank you for presenting your summation of what happened whilst you were not at the computer smiley

The area does, in fact, have quite a long-standing history of triangular craft ( and other ) sightings going back decades. So yes, imho, it is an active area and "hot." I went through Peter Davenport's site last night to find more reports and they were there.

Dib had noticed the house roof similarities yesterday after I posted some links as "history" on the main Casebook forum. Team work is what it's all about.

Best regards, jm.


Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 21st, 2010, 7:39pm

on Mar 21st, 2010, 7:24pm, jm wrote:
To DrDil: Thank you for presenting your summation of what happened whilst you were not at the computer smiley

The area does, in fact, have quite a long-standing history of triangular craft ( and other ) sightings going back decades. So yes, imho, it is an active area and "hot." I went through Peter Davenport's site last night to find more reports and they were there.

Dib had noticed the house roof similarities yesterday after I posted some links as "history" on the main Casebook forum. Team work is what it's all about.

Best regards, jm.


Hi JM, and a belated welcome to the forum!! grin

I also found several reports of triangular shaped craft in close proximity to these recent ones, which coupled with the apparently unaltered EXIF data is what initially interested me. I read your commentary on the main site a little earlier and without it there would have been no knowledge of the earlier sightings, witness or objects never mind a recognisable correlation between them.

(And of course kudos to Dib who has a very keen eye for architecture!! wink)

I look forward to reading more of your posts…..

Cheers. smiley

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 21st, 2010, 7:57pm

To DrDil: Thanks for the welcome. And yes, Dib has a keen eye!! ;-) This research field is muddied constantly by people who maybe find a thrill in confusing the issue. I've been in the crop formation "field" for many years in England as well as conducting my own "unconventional flying objects" research here in Ontario, Canada. Every day is a challenge, but teamwork is what counts.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 21st, 2010, 8:17pm

on Mar 21st, 2010, 7:39pm, Mely wrote:
Dr Dil,
The argument against the 2008 photos, according to the web site linked to, was that it was actually a physically real toy airplane. The 2'nd and 3'rd reports jm listed give no landmarks at all, and were of the same probable toy with different cameras, a Canon and a Z20. Other than the photos ultimately being futile due to misidentification, there was nothing to suggest that they were cgi.

If as you say, this 2010 report was from the same location as the original 2008 report (which I'm not convinced of yet) and shot with the same Z5, that says nothing about the 2'nd and 3'rd report. It could easily have been other shutterbugs in the neighborhood.

So according to jm's post, what we have here is the 1'st and last photos probably being from the same camera at the same location. But they don't show the same flying object, the two are clearly very different when looked at closely. And no one can find the evidence that they were cgi. They don't look it.

The 2008 photo looks like a fine picture of a toy airplane, without detectable evidence of manipulation, and the photographer said that the EXIFs got mangled by the battery failing partway through the shot, which hasn't been tested or disproven.

The 2010 looks like if it were cgi then the photographer belongs in hollywood, because it's better work than any movie. They even did a low-light noise pattern on it. And you said it's EXIFs are fine. There is nothing that says a photographer can't misidentify a toy airplane and later shoot something real, that they are spoiled for life. So other than a theoretical unknown perfect cgi and EXIFs maker, there's no evidence. But if there is such software, and it's existed since at least 2008,then that means that all UFO photographs can never ever be valid in the eyes of any sceptic who doesn't want any photos to be real.

I don't want to argue. It appears the subject is at an impasse until someone goes there and does an interview. Until then, I have nothing more to say for or against.

Hi again Mely, smiley

on Mar 21st, 2010, 7:39pm, Mely wrote:
Dr Dil,
The argument against the 2008 photos, according to the web site linked to, was that it was actually a physically real toy airplane. The 2'nd and 3'rd reports jm listed give no landmarks at all, and were of the same probable toy with different cameras, a Canon and a Z20.

Huh, a toy airplane?!

No it wasn’t.

Did you read my post at all?

As I stated (and showed a screenshot of) not only were there were two separate submissions by the SAME witness in April & May of 2008 (ONE of which was apparently from the same location as the 2010 ones) but the second image was strongly suspected to be hoaxed due to the obvious discrepancy of what the actual cycle of the moon was compared to what the submitted image showed.

In fact I agree as I have no desire to argue with you either but please don’t claim that I’m referring to a sighting where it is alleged a toy was used with a different model of camera and then tout this as what I claimed.

You’re aware of two separate submissions to the same source in 2008 by the same witness aren’t you?

And of course that they showed two completely different triangular objects?

Out of the three sightings I referred to, two of them were known to be taken with the exact same model of camera and two of the three are also believed to be taken from the exact same location (and I accept that you dispute the locations being the same but that’s not and never was the point).

And the three images that were alleged as being from an unknown camera were submitted BY THE SAME WITNESS only three weeks prior to the one that was later suspected of being hoaxed due to the discrepancy of how the moon looked in the image and how it is known to have looked on the same date in real-life.

Like I said I think I must be missing something.

What toys are you talking about?

You’re not talking about the two line update at the foot of one of the posts are you?

The one that states:

Quote:
Update April 26, 2008: We have received comments that the triangular object is a Mugi Evo, a radio control plane made from Correx. This is a possibility, but not known.

That’s all I can see that you may be referencing and again I stress that this ISN’T the report that was believed to be hoaxed (originally) but it is the first report from the same witness who three weeks later submitted another image of a triangular craft (using the same model of camera as the 2010 images) that WAS reasonably believed to be a deliberate deception.

I hope that's a little clearer.....

Cheers.

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 21st, 2010, 8:28pm

on Mar 21st, 2010, 7:57pm, jm wrote:
To DrDil: Thanks for the welcome. And yes, Dib has a keen eye!! ;-) This research field is muddied constantly by people who maybe find a thrill in confusing the issue. I've been in the crop formation "field" for many years in England as well as conducting my own "unconventional flying objects" research here in Ontario, Canada. Every day is a challenge, but teamwork is what counts.

Hi JM,

I understand and sort of agree with what you’re saying but I don’t think that any resulting confusion is always necessarily intentional per se, but rather an inevitable by-product of not completely understanding the parameters of what is being proposed.

Or at least when I can’t fathom something that’s what I blame!! wink

And again, welcome aboard. grin

Cheers.

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 21st, 2010, 8:31pm

To DrDil: You may have taken my message the wrong way and I apologise. I was referring to the "hoaxers" who are messing around with we who are trying to solve genuine cases. My apologies. I have no issues with the people here who are trying to sort out the chaos.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 22nd, 2010, 01:59am

on Mar 21st, 2010, 6:31pm, DrDil wrote:
What concerns me a great deal more is why weren’t the digital footprints created by manipulating the image detected by the supposedly forensic image analysis software?! undecided So at least as I see it instead of now just thinking it is a hoax we have verifiable evidence that strongly suggests this is indeed the case, however, how can we make the embedded metadata give up its sordid past?

Or perhaps more importantly what software was used to hide it in the first place? (And of course is it detectable!! laugh)

Great find!
Yes it is possible to hide the use of a post-process software, but it's a very difficult task, like Calvin Hass from JPEGSnoop said:
"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."

Modify the EXIF is relatively easy, using an hexadecimal editor, and hiding manipulation could be possible with the rebuilt of the JPEG compression signature, but very hard to do...... and still detectable with a fourier transform analysis. (Need to do it BTW.. grin)
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by 3rdman on Mar 22nd, 2010, 05:59am

Hello Gang:
Great work by all.
I'll chime in with the "Hollywood" opinion a bit later after I circulate this set to our top cg artists...for what it's worth. And I know some of you would prefer I not get involved! But, you know me, just trying to help.
Although previous South Carolina Triangles have appeared (with awful results) these shots are interesting in the same vein as the (excellent) Moscow night triangle of a few months ago. That one was well lit and rendered by a very competent artist.
Someday, and I hope it's soon, we'll have some extraordinary shots to work with.
Anyway, more to follow and best to all. -- 3rdman

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by Seeker on Mar 22nd, 2010, 08:09am

on Mar 21st, 2010, 2:37pm, Mely wrote:
Of course. They just ripped up all their full-sized evergreens and replaced them with full-sized deciduous trees.


Excellent observation, Mely. The flashing pictures move quickly, but you can definitely see that the tree behind the house on the left in one shot is a very tall, mature evergreen and a (also good size!) deciduous tree not yet leafed out in the other. The houses and juxtaposition of same might look very similar, but those trees clearly indicate these are different locations.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by purr on Mar 22nd, 2010, 08:26am

on Mar 21st, 2010, 8:17pm, DrDil wrote:
Hi again Mely, smiley


Huh, a toy airplane?!

No it wasn’t.

Did you read my post at all?

As I stated (and showed a screenshot of) not only were there were two separate submissions by the SAME witness in April & May of 2008 (ONE of which was apparently from the same location as the 2010 ones) but the second image was strongly suspected to be hoaxed due to the obvious discrepancy of what the actual cycle of the moon was compared to what the submitted image showed.

In fact I agree as I have no desire to argue with you either but please don’t claim that I’m referring to a sighting where it is alleged a toy was used with a different model of camera and then tout this as what I claimed.

You’re aware of two separate submissions to the same source in 2008 by the same witness aren’t you?

And of course that they showed two completely different triangular objects?

Out of the three sightings I referred to, two of them were known to be taken with the exact same model of camera and two of the three are also believed to be taken from the exact same location (and I accept that you dispute the locations being the same but that’s not and never was the point).

And the three images that were alleged as being from an unknown camera were submitted BY THE SAME WITNESS only three weeks prior to the one that was later suspected of being hoaxed due to the discrepancy of how the moon looked in the image and how it is known to have looked on the same date in real-life.

Like I said I think I must be missing something.

What toys are you talking about?

You’re not talking about the two line update at the foot of one of the posts are you?

The one that states:


That’s all I can see that you may be referencing and again I stress that this ISN’T the report that was believed to be hoaxed (originally) but it is the first report from the same witness who three weeks later submitted another image of a triangular craft (using the same model of camera as the 2010 images) that WAS reasonably believed to be a deliberate deception.

I hope that's a little clearer.....

Cheers.


DrDil, you've about 95% convinced me these sky triangles are a hoax. It's the history of it, the multiple reporting that did it for me. Yet Mely too put up a well-reasoned and spirited defense, I loved this discussion!

My subjective conclusion so far: the triangle photographer is a talented, long-time hoaxer, who is improving his game, getting better everytime he uploads these pics. But he couldn't defeat the tech available to 'unpack' subtle alterations made, and he seems to have been working out of his own home/neighborhood lol.

Great stuff...


purr
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 22nd, 2010, 12:48pm

User Image

Two parallel lines....

.....and 13s between the two shots... rolleyes
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 22nd, 2010, 2:26pm

on Mar 22nd, 2010, 1:19pm, Mely wrote:
It's already been quite visible that they are not the same image cut and pasted. What you're commenting on can be taken in more than one way.
1) Standard aircraft doing a skidding/slipping turn would also remain on parallel lines.
-or-
2) A special effects genius who made an otherwise undetectable cgi which even included pixel noise in case someone raised the gamma, missed something obvious like angle of flight.

I really would not like to argue with you, anyway, yes you're right, it's possible.... He also forgot to take its shot from a different place than the one he did in 2008. And, of course, he's the only witness in Greenville that saw it each time.

on Mar 22nd, 2010, 1:19pm, Mely wrote:
The importance of 13 seconds depends on speed which depends on the distance which you said was too impractical to calculate.

1) It could be a decent speed if the object is 10km away and very large

Impossible, judging by the clouds, which are strato-cumulus, usually below 2,400 m (8,000 ft)

on Mar 22nd, 2010, 1:19pm, Mely wrote:
2)It could be very slow if the object is 100M away, which isn't impossible from many triangle ufo reports, but is less likely for any craft that needs a vtol/vstol rocket assist.
Yes, in case of giving the impression of a non-conventional craft, or black project, this is the time a faker would let between the two craft positions.

on Mar 22nd, 2010, 1:19pm, Mely wrote:
How's the fourier analysis coming?

It's on its way.smiley
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 22nd, 2010, 3:08pm

Yes, or another possibility could be to find by ourselves the houses that we can see on the photos, using Google Earth/Street view feature...

Anyone? grin
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 22nd, 2010, 3:37pm

No, of course, google will never replace any ground investigation....

Anyhow, since I'm living in France, I won't be there to do the interview... unless you pay for me to do the travel! grin

As for the Google Street view guys, they have nothing better to do, of course, to virtually built houses that weren't there.

Do you have a screen-shoot or the exact address of this 'virtual building'? This way, I could look by myself to this incredible house "that-should-be-there-but-that-is-not-except-in-google-street-view".

Sorry, couldn't resist grin
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 22nd, 2010, 4:40pm

on Mar 21st, 2010, 2:37pm, Mely wrote:
Of course. They just ripped up all their full-sized evergreens and replaced them with full-sized deciduous trees.

on Mar 22nd, 2010, 08:09am, Seeker wrote:
Excellent observation, Mely. The flashing pictures move quickly, but you can definitely see that the tree behind the house on the left in one shot is a very tall, mature evergreen and a (also good size!) deciduous tree not yet leafed out in the other. The houses and juxtaposition of same might look very similar, but those trees clearly indicate these are different locations.

Hi Seeker,

Clearly indicate”?
(Oh and the tree is in front of the house!! grin)

User Image


The original image was too small and of a poor quality, but a “very tall, mature evergreen”?

User Image


What if it’s not an evergreen and all we are seeing is two years growth on a tree that has either started flowering late this season or the image is from a couple of months earlier than is claimed?

User Image


Have a look at the following animation of the two trees superimposed using the roofline as a guide:
(I hope it doesn’t flash too quickly for you!!):

User Image


I also believe that the houses look more than a little similar and again excuse the artefacts but the image I was working with was of very poor quality:
(and no flashing at all this time!! kiss)

User Image


Again, purely my opinion but I certainly don’t think we’re looking at two different houses but merely the same house from a *slightly* different angle…..

Cheers. smiley

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by orbit on Mar 22nd, 2010, 5:08pm

Both vents are the same shape.
Both pictures show the vent is 5 horizontal cladding boards high. It does look like the same property to me, or at least the same style house.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by Dib on Mar 23rd, 2010, 06:25am

I had a look around the Greenville area on Google Street View. The style of the architecture is very varied and no two houses look the same with very individual styles. Finding the location would be a needle in haystack situation, it's possible but I don't know what more evidence that would provide.

But something to note is the style of the street light seen in the 26th of May 2009 report.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009b/greenvillesc052609.html

So far the only place I could find that style of street light is around the Greenville Technical College. Oh and to everybody, great work on the analysis. cheesy
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by Seeker on Mar 23rd, 2010, 09:26am

on Mar 22nd, 2010, 4:40pm, DrDil wrote:
Hi Seeker,

Clearly indicate”?
(Oh and the tree is in front of the house!! grin)

User Image


The original image was too small and of a poor quality, but a “very tall, mature evergreen”?

User Image


What if it’s not an evergreen and all we are seeing is two years growth on a tree that has either started flowering late this season or the image is from a couple of months earlier than is claimed?

User Image


Have a look at the following animation of the two trees superimposed using the roofline as a guide:
(I hope it doesn’t flash too quickly for you!!):

User Image


I also believe that the houses look more than a little similar and again excuse the artefacts but the image I was working with was of very poor quality:
(and no flashing at all this time!! kiss)

User Image


Again, purely my opinion but I certainly don’t think we’re looking at two different houses but merely the same house from a *slightly* different angle…..

Cheers. smiley


The leafless tree looks substantially taller and extends higher than other, though that could, as you suggest, be a couple years growth. As for both trees being deciduous, it's possible. The original images did not appear that way, and I saw what looked like small pine cones in it, which further convinced me I was looking at an evergreen. However, you make good points, and I'm conceding the point that it COULD be deciduous, for all the reasons you state. I can't make a definitive judgment because of the quality of the original pics I was basing my opinion on are not sufficiently clear. I would also point out, though, that the decorative vents on the outer wall appear to be a different shapes... one looks round, the other looks octagona (look at the INSIDE of the frame on both and you will note different perimeter shape and even the slats across appear different)... and in fact they do make both versions... we have them in my neighborhood smiley But again, not enough clarity to truly decipher. I will leave it to those such as yourself with the know-how regarding enhancement of photos for better clarity to come to a final conclusion on this one wink
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 23rd, 2010, 10:57am

Someone suggested in another forum that this could be a "photo of a photo", thus the false impression that the photo is legit....

Any thoughts?
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 23rd, 2010, 1:18pm

on Mar 23rd, 2010, 09:26am, Seeker wrote:
The leafless tree looks substantially taller and extends higher than other, though that could, as you suggest, be a couple years growth. As for both trees being deciduous, it's possible. The original images did not appear that way, and I saw what looked like small pine cones in it, which further convinced me I was looking at an evergreen. However, you make good points, and I'm conceding the point that it COULD be deciduous, for all the reasons you state. I can't make a definitive judgment because of the quality of the original pics I was basing my opinion on are not sufficiently clear. I would also point out, though, that the decorative vents on the outer wall appear to be a different shapes... one looks round, the other looks octagona (look at the INSIDE of the frame on both and you will note different perimeter shape and even the slats across appear different)... and in fact they do make both versions... we have them in my neighborhood smiley But again, not enough clarity to truly decipher. I will leave it to those such as yourself with the know-how regarding enhancement of photos for better clarity to come to a final conclusion on this one wink

Hi Seeker,

The points you raise are valid but the octagon shape of the second vent was purely my doing as I was aware of it when I was running the filters on it, and as for the trees it was merely my ‘best guess’ with the available evidence, I could of course be completely wrong!! laugh

Besides which I’m sure you know I was only playing!! grin

(Hence the kiss).


Cheers. wink

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by Seeker on Mar 23rd, 2010, 1:34pm

on Mar 23rd, 2010, 1:18pm, DrDil wrote:
Hi Seeker,

The points you raise are valid but the octagon shape of the second vent was purely my doing as I was aware of it when I was running the filters on it, and as for the trees it was merely my ‘best guess’ with the available evidence, I could of course be completely wrong!! laugh

Besides which I’m sure you know I was only playing!! grin

(Hence the kiss).


Cheers. wink



Still, veddy interesting...!!! grin
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by Dib on Mar 23rd, 2010, 2:49pm

Hi Mely, yes there is a ton of over head telephone and power cables in the Greenville area, I'm not sure where to go from here really, we have uncoverd more questions than answers.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 23rd, 2010, 11:51pm

on Mar 23rd, 2010, 2:49pm, Dib wrote:
Hi Mely, yes there is a ton of over head telephone and power cables in the Greenville area, I'm not sure where to go from here really, we have uncoverd more questions than answers.


Hi Dib. Does one need to go further? Housewise you might possibly check out Easely. But there's a lot of other cases out there. Have you seen the latest in Ohio? smiley
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by alana on Mar 24th, 2010, 12:03pm

Hi all wink

I'm Lna

User Image

User Image

This is a really pretty fake in technical data.
______________________________________
made by me 5 minutes : class 4 : *Mod Edit* fake

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4779/23032010011.jpg

User Image

Kissssss Lna C




*Mod Edit*: Post edited due to the use of profanity which is against the forum rules as posted here.

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by masker33 on Mar 24th, 2010, 5:50pm

The Devil is in the details and it is so bad it surely must be mine.
Be seeing you in time.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 24th, 2010, 6:17pm

on Mar 24th, 2010, 5:50pm, Icarus99 wrote:
The Devil is in the details and it is so bad it surely must be mine.
Be seeing you in time.

Same spiel, different moniker…..


Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by masker33 on Mar 24th, 2010, 6:32pm

You should know, but I must admit you keep a close watch on your flock and they are your flock. The speed of response as you rise to defend truth within a completely unknowable subject is admirable and predictable.
Enjoy, time moves on.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 24th, 2010, 7:10pm

OK guys, I just finished a deeper analysis, using:
- JPEGSnoop
- Exiftool
- Image Analyzer, of Meesoft.

Here's the process I've done:
I upload some original Dimage Z5 from here and from Flickr.
Then I compared:
- The EXIFS datas
- The JPEGSnoop assessment (class '3' each time)
- The APP markers and Quantization/compression table
- The Fourier transform of each one.
the original with the same tampered using GIMP with spec. saving the exifs intact, and then compared these again to the Greenville photos.

Usually, if JPEGSnoop detect a photo as class '3' or '4', the tags/markers are very different, such as the "APP0" tag for example, that appears almost each time, or the "APP1" tags that have not the same value....

But, in the Greenville photo, there are NO discrepancies in the markers/tags in the quantization/compression/huffman table and the chromatic/brightness tables, comparatively to an original Dimage Z5 photo!

Neither the EXIFs examination nor the Fourier transform analysis showed any traces of tampering.... thus my surprise, especially at the light of the 2008 and 2010 photos that were taken from the same place....

Now, like I said, there maybe another possibility that need to be improved, i-e taking a "photo of a photo" that was beforehand faked.
Anyhow, if it's faked, it was a well done made, that's for sure... tongue
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by masker33 on Mar 24th, 2010, 7:31pm

Well people do learn from past mistakes especially when they have such smart teachers. Sure its not from Georgia!
Time grows short.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 24th, 2010, 7:45pm

on Mar 24th, 2010, 6:32pm, Icarus99 wrote:
You should know, but I must admit you keep a close watch on your flock and they are your flock. The speed of response as you rise to defend truth within a completely unknowable subject is admirable and predictable.
Enjoy, time moves on.

My, “flock”?

I don’t know what (the!!) flock you’re talking about. laugh

And as for, “Predictable”? Nahh, consistent perhaps but not so much predictable, still, I suppose you are the resident expert in monotony. kiss

However you’ve inadvertently hit the nail on the head it with your comment regarding “the truth” as it relates to a, “completely unknowable subject” because the truth is that these particular images are shot from the exact same location as one set of two other sets of images of black triangles submitted to a different source in 2008, a source who has confirmed that both sets were from the same witness and who has also supplied evidence that reasonably suggests the second set of which are a deliberate hoax.

Therefore the truth which apparently eludes you is far from ‘unknowable’ but is evident to those who care to look. If you (or others) *have* looked and don’t agree then that’s no problem as far as I’m concerned, but to then equate this to genuinely unexplainable UFO reports is intellectually dishonest and not only does a disservice to the witnesses of these reports but ultimately has a detrimental effect on the community and subject as a whole.

But you’d know all about that wouldn’t you?

Perhaps this is why you empathise with what certainly seems to be a deliberate falsehood perpetrated on the UFO community?

Birds of a feather?

on Mar 24th, 2010, 7:31pm, Icarus99 wrote:
Well people do learn from past mistakes especially when they have such smart teachers. Sure its not from Georgia!
Time grows short.

Not really as no doubt you would have sacraficed your morals to save your ego and hurled yourself on top of this hand grenade much the same as you did with the (doomed from the outset) Alabama/Georgia hoax.

Anyway please try and stay on topic, if you want to further discuss my less than honourable intent then do it via PM or state your displeasure on the Drone threads as usual wink, any further off-topic comments on this thread will be deleted.

Oh, and it’s always a pleasure!! grin

Cheers. smiley

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 24th, 2010, 7:59pm

on Mar 24th, 2010, 7:10pm, elevenaugust wrote:
OK guys, I just finished a deeper analysis, using:
- JPEGSnoop
- Exiftool
- Image Analyzer, of Meesoft.

Here's the process I've done:
I upload some original Dimage Z5 from here and from Flickr.
Then I compared:
- The EXIFS datas
- The JPEGSnoop assessment (class '3' each time)
- The APP markers and Quantization/compression table
- The Fourier transform of each one.
the original with the same tampered using GIMP with spec. saving the exifs intact, and then compared these again to the Greenville photos.

Usually, if JPEGSnoop detect a photo as class '3' or '4', the tags/markers are very different, such as the "APP0" tag for example, that appears almost each time, or the "APP1" tags that have not the same value....

But, in the Greenville photo, there are NO discrepancies in the markers/tags in the quantization/compression/huffman table and the chromatic/brightness tables, comparatively to an original Dimage Z5 photo!

Neither the EXIFs examination nor the Fourier transform analysis showed any traces of tampering.... thus my surprise, especially at the light of the 2008 and 2010 photos that were taken from the same place....

Now, like I said, there maybe another possibility that need to be improved, i-e taking a "photo of a photo" that was beforehand faked.
Anyhow, if it's faked, it was a well done made, that's for sure... tongue

Hi Eleven, nice work. smiley

This is what really got me interested in the first place, i.e. that there seems to be an inconsistency between what the evidence shows and what the embedded data in the image tells us. As I’ve already said I genuinely expected to find obvious signs of some form of manipulation or editing…..

To be honest the actual photographs while decent are not really exceptional and don’t have *that* much realism about them, a prime example of which being the synthetic-looking flame effect, but also just how the object/s appear against the sky (or at least that’s my opinion). This is why I was so surprised not to be able to readily locate a digital footprint that confirmed this suspicion, or indeed any kind of remnant (in the actual data) that would even suggest this.

I appreciate that it is possible (although a lot more difficult than most realise) to manually edit the EXIF and then remove all traces, but if that were the case and we were dealing with someone who was able to do this back in 2008 (as EXIF was also verified with the earlier image) then I feel the images would be of a far higher quality than what was presented then or now.

Or at least more realistic looking…..

Another aspect that seems to be a clue I can’t fathom is that the same camera was used which leads me to believe that this is significant for some reason, as surely if it was just a case of editing the data to remove a signature from image software then it would be more beneficial to copy/paste a complete different set of data from a different camera altogether, unless of course this wasn’t the camera used but it is just easier to edit this data than that of other camera models?

The photograph of a photograph is a bit of a stretch in my opinion, the clarity seems a little too sharp to be the case but I could be wrong. When I get a minute I think I’m going to try editing some EXIF data and see if and what that shows up…..

Cheers.

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by masker33 on Mar 24th, 2010, 9:00pm

We understand each other, so back on topic they are FAKE period. Most visuals of UFOs are fake. I, to my knowledge have never PMed you. So it is my opinion this is another FAKE with some heritage from the Drones. I have, I must admit, never read the complete content of any of your posts. No insult just a fact.
Already becoming someone new.

Oh, copying a photo is no big deal nor is using an areal image.
Now back to you.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 24th, 2010, 9:08pm

on Mar 24th, 2010, 10:51am, Mely wrote:
Just my opinion, jm, but I think that this is a case where even die-hard sceptics should want to find the answers to these unanswered questions.

Why? Because suppose this was a hoax- so far the sceptics have had nothing other than than their gut instincts and a number of previous Greenville photos to use as a reason for why it is a hoax. On their own, the 2010 photos could not be disputed. Without further investigation to find out how they were made and how to detect them, this may be the end of sceptical ufo investigation. Or the end of digital photography as any form of evidence.

If that was a hoax, then even less disputable ufo photos could be sent in from any supposed siting location. Undermining the entire subject of ufology.


Hi Mely.

Sorry not to have responded before, but some days are incredibly busy and computers are not on the horizon. We have to wear our other "hats" sometimes.

Last year an associate and I put together a website that was designed to uncover ufo hoaxes. We both felt it essential that these deep analyses are done. Yes, this work needs to be done.

And, of course, the perpetrators are watching, most likely... amused....

Onwards.......>>>>


Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by alana on Mar 25th, 2010, 01:57am

on Mar 24th, 2010, 7:10pm, elevenaugust wrote:
OK guys, I just finished a deeper analysis, using:
- JPEGSnoop
- Exiftool
- Image Analyzer, of Meesoft.

Here's the process I've done:
I upload some original Dimage Z5 from here and from Flickr.
Then I compared:
- The EXIFS datas
- The JPEGSnoop assessment (class '3' each time)
- The APP markers and Quantization/compression table
- The Fourier transform of each one.
the original with the same tampered using GIMP with spec. saving the exifs intact, and then compared these again to the Greenville photos.

Usually, if JPEGSnoop detect a photo as class '3' or '4', the tags/markers are very different, such as the "APP0" tag for example, that appears almost each time, or the "APP1" tags that have not the same value....

But, in the Greenville photo, there are NO discrepancies in the markers/tags in the quantization/compression/huffman table and the chromatic/brightness tables, comparatively to an original Dimage Z5 photo!

Neither the EXIFs examination nor the Fourier transform analysis showed any traces of tampering.... thus my surprise, especially at the light of the 2008 and 2010 photos that were taken from the same place....

Now, like I said, there maybe another possibility that need to be improved, i-e taking a "photo of a photo" that was beforehand faked.
Anyhow, if it's faked, it was a well done made, that's for sure... tongue


all your technical analysis (software JPEGSnoop,Exiftool
,Image Analyzer, of Meesoft.) is based on a photo that may be faked and that you regard as authentic. Now your Analayse should be based on a photo taken with the same camera. And then compare the technical data of this picture with that of greenville, and not the reverse wink
That is why all your analysis is wrong.

User Image
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 25th, 2010, 08:05am

on Mar 24th, 2010, 7:59pm, DrDil wrote:
Hi Eleven, nice work. smiley

This is what really got me interested in the first place, i.e. that there seems to be an inconsistency between what the evidence shows and what the embedded data in the image tells us. As I’ve already said I genuinely expected to find obvious signs of some form of manipulation or editing…..

Hi DrDil!smiley

Yes, I agree; that's why we need to do some further analysis and tests.

on Mar 24th, 2010, 7:59pm, DrDil wrote:
To be honest the actual photographs while decent are not really exceptional and don’t have *that* much realism about them, a prime example of which being the synthetic-looking flame effect, but also just how the object/s appear against the sky (or at least that’s my opinion). This is why I was so surprised not to be able to readily locate a digital footprint that confirmed this suspicion, or indeed any kind of remnant (in the actual data) that would even suggest this.

Yes, the contrast/luminosity is not set as one should except that it should be in this case, anyway, is someone already looked at the weather conditions at the time the photos were shot?

on Mar 24th, 2010, 7:59pm, DrDil wrote:
I appreciate that it is possible (although a lot more difficult than most realise) to manually edit the EXIF and then remove all traces, but if that were the case and we were dealing with someone who was able to do this back in 2008 (as EXIF was also verified with the earlier image) then I feel the images would be of a far higher quality than what was presented then or now.

Yes, but although editing the EXIFs shouldn't be a difficult thing to do, it have to let some faked APP markers intacts anyway, as some of these are here for the JPEG compression (and that's true for the chrominance/brightness tables as well for the Huffman tables).
More tests need to be done, anyway.

on Mar 24th, 2010, 7:59pm, DrDil wrote:
Another aspect that seems to be a clue I can’t fathom is that the same camera was used which leads me to believe that this is significant for some reason, as surely if it was just a case of editing the data to remove a signature from image software then it would be more beneficial to copy/paste a complete different set of data from a different camera altogether, unless of course this wasn’t the camera used but it is just easier to edit this data than that of other camera models?

Well, the Dimage Z5 is a 'middle-class' camera, and there are some other points to consider:
1- If there was some tampering at one point, it should be easier for the faker to do the shots at the lower resolution (i-e 640 x 480) which was not the case, as the photos were taken with a 1600*1200 resolution
2- There are lots of technical and visual datas to check to see if they are conform to the original camera (Pincushion/barrel distortion ratio, for example...) that a faker could have been missed.
Anyway, I agree that it should be easier to used the same camera each time.

on Mar 24th, 2010, 7:59pm, DrDil wrote:
The photograph of a photograph is a bit of a stretch in my opinion, the clarity seems a little too sharp to be the case but I could be wrong. When I get a minute I think I’m going to try editing some EXIF data and see if and what that shows up…..

I'm actually working on the 'photo of a photo' hypothesis.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by alana on Mar 25th, 2010, 2:05pm

User Image
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by TESTERX on Mar 25th, 2010, 2:44pm

on Mar 20th, 2010, 11:07am, DrDil wrote:
I had a quick look as well and I admit I half-expected to find obvious signs of deliberate tampering..... grin


Wouldn't it be a good idea to ask Ken Pfeifer from MUFON NJ about the
auhtenticity of these photos, he is the one who released them (not UFO
Casebook) and since he is a well known MUFON member he should have made
some analysis to the originals before releasing them in the MUFON website don't
you think Dr. Dill?

Image can be viewed here

*Mod edit*: Image changed to link due to being full size and also due to being on Mufon’s own servers.




Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 25th, 2010, 2:57pm

on Mar 25th, 2010, 01:57am, alana wrote:
all your technical analysis (software JPEGSnoop,Exiftool
,Image Analyzer, of Meesoft.) is based on a photo that may be faked and that you regard as authentic. Now your Analayse should be based on a photo taken with the same camera. And then compare the technical data of this picture with that of greenville, and not the reverse wink
That is why all your analysis is wrong.
<image snipped>

Hi Alana, and a belated welcome to the forum!! grin

on Mar 25th, 2010, 01:57am, alana wrote:
all your technical analysis (software JPEGSnoop,Exiftool
,Image Analyzer, of Meesoft.) is based on a photo that may be faked and that you regard as authentic.

Whilst I appreciate your concern, I personally -and the majority of other members (I think)- have NEVER regarded this set of images as authentic or even of capturing a real-world object. And to be honest I’m not sure where you even got this idea from as on the first page and in the first line of my first post (after I looked at the images was):

on Mar 20th, 2010, 11:07am, DrDil wrote:
I had a quick look as well and I admit I half-expected to find obvious signs of deliberate tampering..... grin

And in my next post I started with:

on Mar 20th, 2010, 3:31pm, DrDil wrote:
I’ll be honest, when I look at the images they scream fake to me.

And in my post just before your one quoted above I wrote:

on Mar 24th, 2010, 7:59pm, DrDil wrote:
To be honest the actual photographs while decent are not really exceptional and don’t have *that* much realism about them, a prime example of which being the synthetic-looking flame effect, but also just how the object/s appear against the sky.

on Mar 25th, 2010, 01:57am, alana wrote:
now your Analayse should be based on a photo taken with the same camera. And then compare the technical data of this picture with that of greenville, and not the reverse

I’m not sure what you mean as that was the first thing that was done after realising there were no traces (post-processing), ElevenAugust even posted a gif on the first page of this thread showing a comparison of the Greenville image and a ‘normal’ image from an entirely different source (but obviously from the same model of camera).

on Mar 20th, 2010, 5:11pm, elevenaugust wrote:
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:

User Image

If we except the image size and camera specs (such as ISO, aperture, fnumber, etc..) it's a 100% match.

on Mar 25th, 2010, 01:57am, alana wrote:
That is why all your analysis is wrong.

I readily accept I (or we) may be wrong but not according to the parameters just defined by you when stating so, as like I said everything it appears you are asking for and has already been performed and was done so on the first page of this thread.

Forgive me if I misunderstood but it appears one of us must be mistaken, or more simply (and as you said), "wrong"…..

Cheers. smiley

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by masker33 on Mar 25th, 2010, 3:45pm

It is a fake and one of many that have preceded it. The idea of overcoming a record encoded in the digital data of the image so that a real image may be believable based on digital info is not new. Some really old effects may be used to accomplish this. Since I am not writing a book on this, but showing how improbable a UFO will ever be accepted by just a photo, I consider enough said for the moment. The fake to my eyes does however show something that is useful to the student of this type of thing.

That would be telling
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by alana on Mar 25th, 2010, 4:34pm

I'm very sorry for the futur fakes undecided
User Image

100% real data analysis software, if the work is done in post production with photoshop or another it will be very difficult to prove the fake.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 25th, 2010, 5:37pm

To ElevenAugust: On the evening in question, 16th March 2010, at 7.53pm (10 minutes before the images were supposedly recorded) conditions were as follows, according to wunderground.com:

Temperature: 60.1F / 15.6C
Dewpoint: 36F / 2.2C
Humidity: 41%
Barometer: 29.9 inches / 1015.5 hPa
Visibility: 10.0 miles / 16.1 kms
Winds: ESE 5.8 mph / 9.3 kph ( no gusting )
Overcast
No precipitation

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 25th, 2010, 5:42pm

Thanks jm! smiley

Seems like it's conform to what we can see in the photos.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by masker33 on Mar 25th, 2010, 6:00pm

The weather and the conditions of the weather of the background plate have little bearing on what is imposed on that background.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 25th, 2010, 7:45pm

on Mar 25th, 2010, 2:44pm, TESTERX wrote:
Wouldn't it be a good idea to ask Ken Pfeifer from MUFON NJ about the
auhtenticity of these photos, he is the one who released them (not UFO
Casebook) and since he is a well known MUFON member he should have made
some analysis to the originals before releasing them in the MUFON website don't
you think Dr. Dill?

Firstly, I think it would be a good idea not to post full size images to Casebook so I’ve edited your post and also please host the image yourself (Photobucket etc.) otherwise you are effectively stealing another’s bandwidth.

Secondly, perhaps you should get your facts straight before implying that UFOCasebook has lied about the source of the images?

(Thirdly, there’s only one *l* in *Dil* kiss).

And as for Ken Pfeifer from MUFON NJ, what proof do you have that he (as you say) released them?

The page from which you posted the image shows the following:

User Image


Then after following the two links at the foot of this post (http://www.worldufophotos.org & http://www.ufoweek.com) there was no mention of the Greenville image/UFO/witness and both of the last updates were BEFORE this sighting was alleged to have occurred.

Plus the Greenville report doesn’t contain any mention of the witness’s name and they end with:

Quote:
“The triangle seemed to be climbing in altutude but by the time I got to my backyard, it had already entered the clouds and was gone.


User Image


Now have a look at UFOCasebook’s page on this or more importantly what the report ends with:

Quote:
It seemed to be climbing in altitude. By the time I went to the backyard, it already entered the clouds and was gone!

This happened in Greenville, South Carolina at 8:03 PM.

Thank you,

Mr. H


User Image


Extra details and a name for the witness?

Hmm, how do you suppose that happened? wink

Perhaps (and of course I’m just guessing here!! laugh) the alleged witness (possible hoaxer) sent the images to more than one UFO-related website?

How else could you explain that Casebook has the full email which wasn’t released by what you state 100% is the original source?

As well of course as the *OTHER* untouched & alleged original image that accompanied the one shown at the Mufon site (and which was never posted there)?

So again I ask what proof do YOU have that as you suggest the following (submitted to UFOCasebook) was indeed a fabrication as implied?

User Image


I hope it’s substantial as that’s quite a serious allegation you have there…..

on Mar 25th, 2010, 2:44pm, TESTERX wrote:
<snip>

and since he is a well known MUFON member he should have made
some analysis to the originals before releasing them in the MUFON website don't
you think Dr. Dill?

Yeah, right!! grin cheesy


Have a look at the image which is currently at the top of the Mufon page you linked to and this time is even credited to/signed by the exact same, 'well known Mufon member' Ken Pfeifer you think performs this analysis before publishing them:

User Image


Some analysis” as you state should have instantly revealed that it was no more than lens flare:

User Image

User Image


As literally just posted about a short while ago here.

Again I'm only guessing here but perhaps analysis ISN’T performed at all (as you suggested) and every decent-looking image is posted regardless?

Of course there's absolutely nothing wrong with that but then for you to claim just because someone is a member of Mufon some analysis must have been carried out, and then proceed to use this as an example of why I should have “checked” with this same someone before commenting is not only false, but, well, in my humble opinion it's more than a little naive.....

Anyhoo, it seems as if the ball is in your court as every aspect of your post seems to have been shown to be demonstrably false, don’t you think TESTERX? grin


Cheers. smiley


Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by masker33 on Mar 25th, 2010, 8:20pm

Once again a photo is very open to interpretation and fakers. this is what gives me pause to "a light in the sky". Nothing (IMO) will prove the UFO at all. It is a type of game with pretty colored lights bound to be disproved by design and the design does intrigue.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by TESTERX on Mar 25th, 2010, 8:53pm

Dr. Dll, first of all I don't understand why you are so offensive and sarcastic sir,
there's no need to be that pissed off. I just gave you and the members the
source of the photographs Ken Pfeifer from MUFON / Mr. H information that you
or any other didn't mention in this discussion and I considered relevant. I made
my contribution and there's no need to be that upset sir.

Also I never said and I repeat never said that UFO Casebook / BJ Booth were
part of a hoax or fabricated this story, you are wrong Dr. Dll and because you
erased my post and my statements I don't have my original message wich is
unfair sir. If there is an issue for posting large photos just tell me and I will not
do it again but at the same time it would have been more simple to remove the
photo and to keep my message to you but you erased the whole content. The
purpose of posting this photo was to show the original metadata as published by
Ken Pfeifer and MUFON. But if there are rules just tell me in a reasonable way
but not with that sarcasm and offensive way, we are gentlemen here sir.

Ken Pfeifer is the researcher contacted allegedly by the source in this case the
anonymous Mr. H this is a fact and if you have some doubts contact MUFON
and get your confirmation. But please don't change or distort my words, I'm not
endorsing Ken Pfeifer, Mr. H or MUFON here Dr. Dll don't get the wrong idea
and I'm not signaling Mr. Pfeifer as a hoaxer either, I don't have elements to
accuse him but what I said is very simple, just go to the source and make the
relevant questions about the authenticity of these images he published in his
website as well as MUFON's. This is a procedure the researchers use all the time
in any investigation you should know that so again I gave you the name, the
links etc. as my colaboration in this discussion, there's no need to react that
upset Dr. Dll, after all you are the moderator.

For what is worth I think these two photos are fakes, almost convinced and I
will contact Ken Pfeifer and MUFON NJ to know their opinion, I invite any
interested to do the same thing. Have a nice day everyone.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 26th, 2010, 01:04am

I have ploughed through myriads of sightings' reports for the South Carolina area. What I believe needs to be looked at more than images is the witness report/testimony. Therein lies the truth. Look out for words/phrases.. repeaters....
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 26th, 2010, 02:12am

I am finding something very strange on this list. I had made some postings and Mely had responded, but these replies seem to have disappeared. The pages are shrinking.. Is there a bandwidth limit going on?
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 26th, 2010, 03:19am

on Mar 26th, 2010, 02:12am, jm wrote:
I am finding something very strange on this list. I had made some postings and Mely had responded, but these replies seem to have disappeared. The pages are shrinking.. Is there a bandwidth limit going on?

Hi jm,

No there's no limit and I noticed the same shrinkage and thought it was to do with the images not showing as it seemed to drop from six pages to five (plus full size images tend to occasionally corrupt the forum software).

But if it‘s only Mely’s replies only that have disappeared then the chances are they removed by Mely as this has happened before quite recently (but it’s only a guess).

Cheers. smiley

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 26th, 2010, 03:43am

on Mar 26th, 2010, 03:19am, DrDil wrote:
But if it‘s only Mely’s replies only that have disappeared then the chances are they removed by Mely as this has happened before quite recently (but it’s only a guess).

Hi jm,

I’ve just double-checked and Mely’s posts have dropped from over *100* to *12* so I guess Mely deleted them. Unfortunately it’s their posts and their choice to delete them.

I hope that explains the shrinkage.

Cheers. smiley

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by ava on Mar 26th, 2010, 07:07am

DrDil,

On some of the sites I visit if someone removes a post it leaves a marker along the line of 'X removed post on ...'

so people can at least know what has happened.

I personaly am against anyone removing their post without very good reason as it makes a nonsense of the postings that follow. Also it is rewriting history; never a good thing.

Could we have some similar thing on here ?

ava
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 26th, 2010, 09:22am

To DrDil:

Thank you for your response. Yes, I realise that we can always remove or add information but, as Ava pointed out, it does sometimes create discontinuity.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by alana on Mar 26th, 2010, 10:26am

Are there new elements on the photo ? I just wanted to say I love this picture. grin
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 26th, 2010, 1:16pm

on Mar 26th, 2010, 07:07am, ava wrote:
DrDil,

On some of the sites I visit if someone removes a post it leaves a marker along the line of 'X removed post on ...'

so people can at least know what has happened.

I personaly am against anyone removing their post without very good reason as it makes a nonsense of the postings that follow. Also it is rewriting history; never a good thing.

Could we have some similar thing on here ?

ava


Hi ava,

I’ll mention it to the site administrator and see if anything can be done about it, although it is a very rare occurrence I agree with you are saying…..

For what it’s worth Mely done exactly the same thing here which is part of the reason why I generally quote any text in full when replying (as can be seen on the linked thread above).

Cheers. smiley
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 26th, 2010, 1:19pm

on Mar 26th, 2010, 09:22am, jm wrote:
To DrDil:

Thank you for your response. Yes, I realise that we can always remove or add information but, as Ava pointed out, it does sometimes create discontinuity.

Hi jm, smiley

Oh I wasn’t justifying or even trying to explain it away, merely answering your earlier question regarding the apparent shrinkage of the thread and your other query about whether there is a bandwidth limit enforced here at UFOCasebook.

Cheers.

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 26th, 2010, 2:32pm

on Mar 26th, 2010, 1:19pm, DrDil wrote:

Hi jm, smiley

Oh I wasn’t justifying or even trying to explain it away, merely answering your earlier question regarding the apparent shrinkage of the thread and your other query about whether there is a bandwidth limit enforced here at UFOCasebook.

Cheers.


No problem. smiley

Quoting definitely assists in the continuity, no question.

Will do from now on. Thanks, jm.

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by Shado1 on Mar 26th, 2010, 8:00pm

I've examined the photos and they are real. Also I may
add, if triangle is some sort of model it would be out of
focus and background in focus. (or vise-a-versa) This
craft or what ever it is reminds me of a sighting that
occurred in 86 or 87 at Davis Monthan AFB, AZ. Some
airmen on the flightline saw a black triangle shape
aircraft with intense red light in the center of it. (It
was around midnight when it happened) The light turned off as it started to enter over the flightline where
the EC-130 planes were parked. One airman said they
could see the stars disappearing and reappearing when
it flew over. So, they assumed it was a new military
aircraft...

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 26th, 2010, 8:23pm

on Mar 26th, 2010, 8:00pm, Shado1 wrote:
I've examined the photos and they are real. Also I may
add, if triangle is some sort of model it would be out of
focus and background in focus. (or vise-a-versa) This
craft or what ever it is reminds me of a sighting that
occurred in 86 or 87 at Davis Monthan AFB, AZ. Some
airmen on the flightline saw a black triangle shape
aircraft with intense red light in the center of it. (It
was around midnight when it happened) The light turned off as it started to enter over the flightline where
the EC-130 planes were parked. One airman said they
could see the stars disappearing and reappearing when
it flew over. So, they assumed it was a new military
aircraft...


To Shado1: are you referring just to the 16th March 2010 images or those AND the 19th April 2008 ones that were apparently taken from same location?

Thanks, jm.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by Shado1 on Mar 27th, 2010, 09:24am

I'm sorry, I meant the March 16th, 2010 photos only. Thank you for pointing that out...

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 27th, 2010, 10:19am

on Mar 27th, 2010, 09:24am, Shado1 wrote:
I'm sorry, I meant the March 16th, 2010 photos only. Thank you for pointing that out...


Hi again Shado1,

The issue with the images of the 16th March 2010 is that they do appear to have been taken at the same location as those of 19th April 2008, wherever that location may be.

Recall, if you will, that it has come to light that the the photographer of the 19th April 2008 images who said: “This triangle object flew over my subdivison" (sic,) (which is purported to be in Greenville,) also photographed the image taken on 13th May 2008 (near the moon) and appears to live “about 15 miles from Greensville.” (sic)

The 13th May 2008 witness is quoted as saying: “Last night I was relaxing in my chair in my back yard. There was a full moon in the sky, and at around 11:15 PM I witnessed a black triangle object making a turn as it was about to pass in front of the moon.”

The 13th May 2008 sighting report is here:

http://www.ufosnw.com/sighting_reports/2008/greenvillesc05132008/greenvillesc05132008.htm

This page then provides a link to a sighting apparently attributed to the same witness:

http://www.ufosnw.com/sighting_reports/2008/greenvillesc04192008/greenvillesc04192008.htm

If we follow the above link we end up at the 19th April 2008 Greenville event which shows a black triangular craft above some roofs that look quite similar to those in the 16th March 2010 Greenville event.

However, on this 19th April 2008 event page there is no cross-reference to the 13th May 2008 "full moon" sighting that was apparently recorded by the same witness according to UFOs Northwest.

If indeed he/she is one and the same person, then he/she has two homes or moved house between 19th April 2008 and 13th May 2008 and either is possible.

It's also interesting to note that in his/her 13th May 2008 sighting he/she makes no mention of the 19th April 2008 event. Had he/she forgotten about it? I would think that a witness having two similar sightings would surely compare the events!

If the authenticity of the 13th May 2008 image has come into dispute, then, by the theory of “guilt by association,” are the other images questionable? Just asking.

I am putting my ongoing "thoughts" together here:

http://fierycelt.tripod.com/SouthCarolina/sc01.html

Best wishes,

jm

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by alana on Mar 28th, 2010, 04:40am

on Mar 25th, 2010, 08:05am, elevenaugust wrote:
Hi DrDil!smiley

Yes, I agree; that's why we need to do some further analysis and tests.


Yes, the contrast/luminosity is not set as one should except that it should be in this case, anyway, is someone already looked at the weather conditions at the time the photos were shot?


Yes, but although editing the EXIFs shouldn't be a difficult thing to do, it have to let some faked APP markers intacts anyway, as some of these are here for the JPEG compression (and that's true for the chrominance/brightness tables as well for the Huffman tables).
More tests need to be done, anyway.


Well, the Dimage Z5 is a 'middle-class' camera, and there are some other points to consider:
1- If there was some tampering at one point, it should be easier for the faker to do the shots at the lower resolution (i-e 640 x 480) which was not the case, as the photos were taken with a 1600*1200 resolution
2- There are lots of technical and visual datas to check to see if they are conform to the original camera (Pincushion/barrel distortion ratio, for example...) that a faker could have been missed.
Anyway, I agree that it should be easier to used the same camera each time.


I'm actually working on the 'photo of a photo' hypothesis.


So sorry i was wrong this pic it's real, your analysis of fourier was pretty good. I was wrong because of the exposure light. I renew my excuses.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 28th, 2010, 8:24pm

on Mar 28th, 2010, 04:40am, alana wrote:
So sorry i was wrong this pic it's real, your analysis of fourier was pretty good. I was wrong because of the exposure light. I renew my excuses.


Hi Alana,

Which pic is real? Just want to get things straight here as the waters are so muddied these days.

Thanks.

jm
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by alana on Mar 29th, 2010, 12:34am

Hi Jm

The pics of Greenville wink French TV yesterday spoke in a similar case in France, it's a military aircraft. grin
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 29th, 2010, 03:55am

on Mar 28th, 2010, 04:40am, alana wrote:
So sorry i was wrong this pic it's real, your analysis of fourier was pretty good. I was wrong because of the exposure light. I renew my excuses.

Don't worry, everything is ok. smiley

Anyway, I'll come back next week with the results of my Google StreetView search that I'm working on for two weeks.

Sure that will pick the interest of some. grin
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 29th, 2010, 08:08am

Another strange thing that I discovered while working on the first set of photos that was taken the 04/19/2008, Greenville, SC - 11:24 is that the object in the first two shots have EXACTLY the same perspective view, except that the first one is 9% bigger than the second one:

The first:
User Image

The second:
User Image

....but that's not all, we also have:
- a 3 pixels differences probably due to the fact that I have not the originals pics (BTW, I asked for them to Mr Puckett), that makes 0.3% of the whole craft pixels surface....
- a relative position which is also EXACTLY the same (with 0 pixels margin error! shocked), i-e 197,130 and 177,110 which makes 20 pixels differences vertically and horizontally; meaning that there's 0% orientation/angle differences between the position of the two crafts.

What are the chances of that, especially at the light that the two pics were taken at least 1 minut apart?

Seems like that simply was a copy/paste job... rolleyes

Need to be confirmed with the original pics, though...
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 29th, 2010, 08:22am

User Image

A composite of the two pics.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 29th, 2010, 09:15am

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
« Reply #93 on: Today at 01:34am »
Hi Jm

The pics of Greenville French TV yesterday spoke in a similar case in France, it's a military aircraft.

*******

Hi again Alana.

I realise that you are referring to Greenville, SC, but which photos? All the images that are being discussed are supposed to be from that locale. Are you referring to the 16th March 2010 images specifically?

Thanks, jm.

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 29th, 2010, 12:44pm

on Mar 29th, 2010, 08:08am, elevenaugust wrote:
Another strange thing that I discovered while working on the first set of photos that was taken the 04/19/2008, Greenville, SC - 11:24 is that the object in the first two shots have EXACTLY the same perspective view, except that the first one is 9% bigger than the second one:

The first:
User Image

The second:
User Image

....but that's not all, we also have:
- a 3 pixels differences probably due to the fact that I have not the originals pics (BTW, I asked for them to Mr Puckett), that makes 0.3% of the whole craft pixels surface....
- a relative position which is also EXACTLY the same (with 0 pixels margin error! shocked), i-e 197,130 and 177,110 which makes 20 pixels differences vertically and horizontally; meaning that there's 0% orientation/angle differences between the position of the two crafts.

What are the chances of that, especially at the light that the two pics were taken at least 1 minut apart?

Seems like that simply was a copy/paste job... rolleyes

Need to be confirmed with the original pics, though...

Hi Eleven & good work!! grin

Did Pucket reply or acknowledge receipt of your email?

I contacted him three or four days ago to ask if he can recall how he was certain that the same witness submitted the images of the different triangles (in 2008) and haven’t heard anything back….. (at all undecided)

Cheers. smiley

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 29th, 2010, 1:23pm

on Mar 29th, 2010, 12:44pm, DrDil wrote:
Did Pucket reply or acknowledge receipt of your email?

No, not yet. undecided
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 29th, 2010, 1:31pm

DrDil said:

Hi Eleven & good work!!

Did Pucket reply or acknowledge receipt of your email?

I contacted him three or four days ago to ask if he can recall how he was certain that the same witness submitted the images of the different triangles (in 2008) and haven’t heard anything back….. (at all )

Cheers.

************

Hello DrDil,

This point is of the utmost importance. At this time it seems that we only have Mr. Puckett's word for it that the witness to the 19th April 2008 and 13th May 2008 sightings were one and the same. I have found no other corroboration so far.

In the reports for those dates, the "moon" event of 13th May 2008 was supposed to have occurred 15 miles from Greenville, but the 19th April 2008 event was supposedly in Greenville itself. In both instances the witnesses suggest that the events were viewed from their homes.

Interestingly enough, I contacted Mr. Puckett myself a couple of years back regarding an entry on their website and never heard a sound back.

jm

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 29th, 2010, 1:41pm

Did anybody already noticed that these two pics can be composited, using the top of the left bottom tree as a reference point?

User Image
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 29th, 2010, 1:46pm

eleven said: Did anybody already noticed that these two pics can be composited, using the top of the left bottom tree as a reference point?

To eleven: I see that you are located in France smiley Did you hear anything about what Alana reported earlier regarding military aircraft?

Thanks, jm
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 29th, 2010, 1:54pm

on Mar 29th, 2010, 1:46pm, jm wrote:
eleven said: Did anybody already noticed that these two pics can be composited, using the top of the left bottom tree as a reference point?

To eleven: I see that you are located in France smiley Did you hear anything about what Alana reported earlier regarding military aircraft?

Thanks, jm

Hi jm,

No, not personally, but I believe that she's saying the truth.
I can do my own research, though. smiley
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 29th, 2010, 2:02pm

on Mar 29th, 2010, 1:54pm, elevenaugust wrote:
Hi jm,

No, not personally, but I believe that she's saying the truth.
I can do my own research, though. smiley


I was wondering if the French military had made some statements about the South Carolina events and were then also comparing with some French events.
I was not exactly sure there.

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 29th, 2010, 2:05pm

Not that I'm aware of.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 29th, 2010, 5:59pm

on Mar 29th, 2010, 1:31pm, jm wrote:
This point is of the utmost importance. At this time it seems that we only have Mr. Puckett's word for it that the witness to the 19th April 2008 and 13th May 2008 sightings were one and the same. I have found no other corroboration so far.

In the reports for those dates, the "moon" event of 13th May 2008 was supposed to have occurred 15 miles from Greenville, but the 19th April 2008 event was supposedly in Greenville itself. In both instances the witnesses suggest that the events were viewed from their homes.

Hi again jm,

I agree with you 100% here but while it is of course nice to be nice (even a polite ‘no’ I can’t help) Pucket or anyone else for that matter is under no obligation whatsoever to help us with any research, whether that be because they don’t want to, they can’t or they don’t want to divulge details shared with them in confidence (hoaxed or not) makes no difference.

We may have to accept that what we have at the minute is all we are getting evidence-wise.

And if that is the case then we can ascribe the importance that the moon image warrants, and which the way I see it is that the allegedly hoaxed moon/triangle connection was stated as such by someone who had previous contact with the witness on several occasions and as recently as three weeks previously, someone who is known to update and/or correct articles he has posted to the site yet never hinted that there was an error in stating it was the same witness, someone who has no reason to lie and someone who we have no cause to doubt at his word.

So, in other words, circumstantial evidence at best!! laugh

However as we are at something of an impasse here allow me to share something which was obvious the first time I read the first 2008 witness account and which when considered with the images Eleven has just posted more than justifies dismissing the 2008 triangles completely and so for reasons I will explain I believe the crux of the matter at present is were the 2008 images and the 2010 images taken from the same place with the same houses visible in the respective images?

Of course whilst accounting for the fact that I (still) believe it is undeniably the same houses in the images captured two years apart, or more precisely a witness with whom a connection can be made with recent the 2010 images, but even if that wasn’t the case and we were working solely with the earlier 2008 images (set of three) they were MASSIVELY inconsistent with the witness account/s. In fact I’m of the opinion that the discrepancies between the report which was presented along with the images is alone more than enough evidence to call the entire report into question. As remember in the first 2008 report there were three separate accounts from the same witness (i.e. which accompanied the three images) and they were titled, “Description,” “Second Report by Witness,” & “Information About Third Photo Submitted by Witness” respectively. It seems as if the second account was a reply to questions asked after Pucket received the first email (with two images).

Anyway, in the first account the witness states:

Quote:
I went inside and grabbed my camera and took 2 pictures of the unknown object. I would of taken more but my battery pack died. (I wonder??)

And then in the third account which accompanied the third image the witness said that:

Quote:
Dear Mr. Puckett: For the past couple of days I've been trying to extract a third photo from my camera. As you remember my battery pack died as I was taking as many pictures of the black triangle craft as I could. When I downloaded my camera to my computer it would only access 2 pictures, but there was a third picture that the computer would not load. (So I sent you the 2 pictures I had.)

The witness said this before going on to explain a fairly complex sequence of events, all of which conveniently provided a scenario whereupon the witness could have realised the existence of, and ultimately retrieved the third image whilst still having no prior knowledge of its existence.

My point being is that’s a massive turnaround in what the witness claimed actually happened, and this turnaround occurred within a matter of days.

Now have another look at the other (tree-top) composition image Eleven posted:

on Mar 29th, 2010, 1:41pm, elevenaugust wrote:
Did anybody already noticed that these two pics can be composited, using the top of the left bottom tree as a reference point?

User Image

So it seems that the witness account correlates with the original two images, i.e. proximity, direction & distance travelled in duration that the object was visible for (approximately two minutes) etc. etc.

In the first account the witness says they took two images and then the battery failed.

In the third account (with the new ‘detailed’ image) the witness now says they were taking as many images as possible before the camera battery died, an amount which has since transpired numbered three in total (according to witness testimony).

So it’s only logical that the three images were taken in a matter of seconds before -as the witness stated- the battery died. In fact there is no other logical explanation that could dictate anything else happened without directly accusing the witness of a blatant falsehood.

However when you look at the third photograph which is at the bottom of this (chronological) image it doesn’t fit with neither the other images in the set or with what the witness claimed:

User Image


Not only the radical change in cloud formation/overcast hue but the object has suddenly lost a great deal of altitude and has evidently banked and subsequently turned over 180 degrees in position?!

In the time-frame of three images captured in rapid succession?

An object the witness said:

Quote:
seem to drift a little as it few[sic] over my home.

In my humble opinion and working with only what we know of the first 2008 report then there are many irregularities that would have to be reasonably explained before I could consider the witness and consequently the images as anything other than a purposeful deception.

But, when this is considered along with the fact that that the 2008 images are hoaxed (which I believe has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the composites which Eleven recently posted) and that it is asserted by a reliable source that the same witness tried to hoax another triangular UFO three weeks later claiming to now be located 15 miles down the road form the earlier one, and then once the identical houses in the 2008 & 2010 images are realised and accepted.....

Well, I guess as suspected from the outset, everything discovered to date points to (if not absolutely confirms)the fact that all of this is merely the work of yet another wannabee internet hoaxer, one lacking in both imagination and originality and also one with entirely too much time on their hands.

Well, *IF* you accept that it’s the same location/houses in both the 2008 & 2010 images (which I do).

If the hoaxer never steps forward then the only other way it could be conceivably any more damning than it is at present is if Pucket ever replies and confirms that the witness claimed to be someone-else and that Pucket independently verified it was the same person!!

But like I say that’s the only way I feel it could be any more damning and that’s only because it would mean the witness had been caught perpetrating a deliberate falsehood solely constructed to pass off a similar image as genuine (whist both disassociating themselves from the earlier sighting yet also bolstering it with a similar report from the surrounding area).

However, and as it stands at present, there’s plenty evidence for me personally to reasonably conclude that at least the first set of 2008 images and by direct association the 2010 images were/are deliberate hoaxes.


Oh, and of course that’s purely *my* opinion….. wink


Cheers. grin

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 29th, 2010, 6:42pm

To DrDil: (Won't quote as it will be a bit bulky!!) - I totally understand that Mr. Puckett has no obligation.

However, 2 years ago I wrote him about something (nothing related to this type of issue) and he simply didn't answer. To me it was quite important as on his site he has, what appears to be, a link to my website. When I clicked on the link it led to something nothing to do with my 12 years of research. Someone else had decided to take my "name" and put their "material" up using my "name" which had become quite well-known. I mentioned this to Mr. Puckett and, as I said, never heard back.

Re the images in Greenville and area, I put some thoughts together myself on witness testimony. The link is in a previous posting I made to Shado1.

What a topic!

Best wishes,

jm smiley
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Mar 29th, 2010, 6:48pm

I edited my post while you were writing yours and as it was directly to do with Pucket: wink

on Mar 29th, 2010, 5:59pm, DrDil wrote:
If the hoaxer never steps forward then the only other way it could be conceivably any more damning than it is at present is if Pucket ever replies and confirms that the witness claimed to be someone-else and that Pucket independently verified it was the same person!!

But like I say that’s the only way I feel it could be any more damning and that’s only because it would mean the witness had been caught perpetrating a deliberate falsehood solely constructed to pass off a similar image as genuine (whist both disassociating themselves from the earlier sighting yet also bolstering it with a similar report from the surrounding area).

However, and as it stands at present, there’s plenty evidence for me personally to reasonably conclude that at least the first set of 2008 images and by direct association the 2010 images were/are deliberate hoaxes.


*Edit to add*: Or even more concisely the relationship (if any exists) between the two sets of 2008 photographs is entirely moot as the first set of 2008 photographs have been shown to be hoaxed and as the same houses/tree appears in the 2010 photographs ……

Cheers. smiley
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 29th, 2010, 6:58pm

DrDil said: Or even more concisely the relationship (if any exists) between the two sets of 2008 photographs is entirely moot as the first set of 2008 photographs have been shown to be hoaxed and as the same houses/tree appears in the 2010 photographs ……

Cheers.

This reminds me of one of those school days logic tests smiley These things are sent to keep our neurons honed.
Best, jm.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by masker33 on Mar 29th, 2010, 7:19pm

Will the faker never learn! Maybe the fakers are learning! Only time will tell.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 30th, 2010, 08:17am

To DrDil:

Regarding the “full moon” event of the 13th May 2008, 15 miles from Greenville, it’s interesting to note that this was logged by the witness at 11.15 pm. (The report was filed with UFOs Northwest on the 14th May 2008.)

At approximately 11.30 pm on 13th May 2008 (15 minutes later) it seems that a genuine sighting occurred in Spartanburg, 27 miles NE of Greenville. The report was filed with Peter Davenport (NUFORC) at 11:06:42 am on the 14th May 2008:

http://nuforc.org/webreports/063/S63143.html

This was not posted until 12th June 2008.

The witness also filed a report with MUFON:

http://mufoncms.com/cgi-bin/manage_sighting_reports.pl?mode=view_long_desc&id=10740&rnd=742551269710507

This report seemed sincere and the gentleman drew a picture of what he witnessed:

http://www.mufoncms.com/files/10740_submitter_file1__IMGkhkjk.jpg

This would likely have been posted quicker than the NUFORC report.

So, did the “15 miles from Greenville” person read the Spartanburg report and then concoct the “full moon” event?

I don't personally think that this was possible. How and why would anyone be sitting waiting for a triangular craft sighting report to appear somewhere, fabricate a sighting that takes place 15 minutes before that event, not too far away (maximum of 42 miles,) and get the sighting report filed less than 12 hours later?

Did a “real” event take place that night over Spartanburg? Or is this just another part of the saga?

I think that the Spartanburg report is possibly genuine. He refers exactly to where he was at the time, and there is no pretty photograph. Just a sketch of what he saw. All the other reports have photographic “evidence."

Strange coincidence, and just more questions.

Regards, jm

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Mar 31st, 2010, 01:54am

I just received a reply from Mr Puckett (of ufosnw.com site) about my enquiries regarding the original photos of the 2008 sighting in the same area.

Here's the full original untouched photos

And guess what camera was used?

A Minolta DimageZ5.... rolleyes
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 31st, 2010, 06:30am

on Mar 31st, 2010, 01:54am, elevenaugust wrote:
I just received a reply from Mr Puckett (of ufosnw.com site) about my enquiries regarding the original photos of the 2008 sighting in the same area.

Here's the full original untouched photos

And guess what camera was used?

A Minolta DimageZ5.... rolleyes


Hi elevenaugust! Congratulations on obtaining that new information smiley

I will now adjust my "thoughts" page to reflect the new info.

Excellent. smiley

jm


Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by Seeker on Mar 31st, 2010, 08:59am

on Mar 29th, 2010, 7:19pm, Icarus99 wrote:
Will the faker never learn! Maybe the fakers are learning! Only time will tell.


Icarus,

They certainly muddy the waters for the rest of us interested in genuine and authentic sightings/research of this phenomenon or who have been experiencers. Then again, maybe that's their purpose. In many cases I don't see them profiting monetarily, and even their "fifteen minutes of fame" is tarnished by the accusations of hoaxer and/or ridicule for having lost their marbles! If there's any logic in their faking these things, perhaps it is exactly for the purpose of "muddying the waters", i.e., to keep the public confused and in the dark about these things. I don't insist that is the case, I can only surmise.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Mar 31st, 2010, 2:07pm

on Mar 31st, 2010, 08:59am, Seeker wrote:
Icarus,

They certainly muddy the waters for the rest of us interested in genuine and authentic sightings/research of this phenomenon or who have been experiencers. Then again, maybe that's their purpose. In many cases I don't see them profiting monetarily, and even their "fifteen minutes of fame" is tarnished by the accusations of hoaxer and/or ridicule for having lost their marbles! If there's any logic in their faking these things, perhaps it is exactly for the purpose of "muddying the waters", i.e., to keep the public confused and in the dark about these things. I don't insist that is the case, I can only surmise.


Hello Seeker,

So, are the fakers just like puppets, strings aloft, performing tasks for the ones who control them??

jm

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by masker33 on Mar 31st, 2010, 3:19pm

The images are fakes and the foreground is used in a similar way to foreground images in the Drone images. It is simple composition.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by Seeker on Mar 31st, 2010, 6:11pm

on Mar 31st, 2010, 2:07pm, jm wrote:
Hello Seeker,

So, are the fakers just like puppets, strings aloft, performing tasks for the ones who control them??

jm


Good question, jm. I don't know the answer, but there are two possibilities to my way of thinking... one, that your suggestion is accurate, and if so, they may not even be aware that their actions are being influenced!... or two that they are quite aware and do so because they think such actions are "patriotic". Who could know??
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by masker33 on Mar 31st, 2010, 7:00pm

Seeker, you are 100% correct, but no one fully accepts this. The faker or hoaxer helps hide the knowledge (power) in full sight. It is the most effective and ancient way of doing business and keeping the lid on and no one will believe or trust this comment of mine. Very simple method.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by nix on Mar 31st, 2010, 7:29pm

Strange that you guys came so close to crack the identifier, but never did it. Remember that hoaxers don't have the slightest idea why a UFO would appear there or there and what is the purpose. So they wouldn't be able to co-ordinate the basic data of the sighting that the aliens bundle to create a comprehensive unity so there would be no way to make fakes.

Here is an entry-level model. The UFO will chose between three terrestrial objects that it relates to.


User Image


When the aliens make their choice, they let the earthlings know about that:


User Image


Now, you need to coordinate the time and the location of the sighting. You just continue the geometry; you start with triangle U, S, A ...

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Apr 1st, 2010, 12:10pm

on Mar 31st, 2010, 7:29pm, nix wrote:
Strange that you guys came so close to crack the identifier, but never did it. Remember that hoaxers don't have the slightest idea why a UFO would appear there or there and what is the purpose. So they wouldn't be able to co-ordinate the basic data of the sighting that the aliens bundle to create a comprehensive unity so there would be no way to make fakes.

<snip>

Now, you need to coordinate the time and the location of the sighting. You just continue the geometry; you start with triangle U, S, A ...

Hi Nix and a belated welcome to the forum, smiley

I appreciate what you’re saying as it’s much the same as you wrote in your earlier posts:

on Mar 29th, 2010, 3:07pm, nix wrote:
UFO decomposes on certain dates according to consonants and vowels. In this case, the UFO breaks into UO and F, that means on 2 and 1 parts. It cannot go the other way, coz the day of the sighting was 21-3 and not 12-3. The separation frees the only consonant in the acronym, letter F, which is the initial of the first name of the woman who took the pic -- Fiona. Her whole name is where you read what the aliens got to say this time.

<snip>

on Mar 29th, 2010, 11:26pm, nix wrote:
The aliens are not concerned about the meaning of the acronym UFO -- it just the three letters that they use in some cases. They can be redefined: If someone tells you to pick one letter from "UFO," you pick "O" coz that the shape of a classic flying saucer. The reason why the aliens sometimes show a light that breaks apart is that the name of the place where the sighting took place needs to be broken apart and reorganized to read the basic message.

The time plays an important part, so for example, "UFO" is a collection of 3 letters and if it is broken down on 2 and 1 letter, then the date should be chosen accordingly. In this particular case, the date of the sighting was 3/21 (March 21). That's why you see 3 lights in the photo: 2 headlights and 1 streetlamp.

The basic division of "UFO" is based on opposites: a letter is either a consonant or a vowel, so in this case the UFO broke down on two small spheres U and O, and on one larger sphere F. That's the initial of Fiona, the woman who took the pic. The aliens know every detail of every person on this planet.

<snip>

Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc...... wink

And of course you are wholly entitled to your opinion, however I’m of the opinion that you’re waaaay off the mark applying this flawed logic to any UFO report, much less this one which has been researched and demonstrably shown to be a hoax, or at the very least submitted by someone who is known to have hoaxed earlier triangular UFO sightings from the exact same location.

This is why I resisted the temptation of replying to you in the Sydney thread…..

on Mar 29th, 2010, 11:26pm, nix wrote:
The aliens are not concerned about the meaning of the acronym UFO

<snip>

Yeah, I know how they feel!! laugh

Cheers. grin

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by nix on Apr 1st, 2010, 3:27pm

on Apr 1st, 2010, 12:10pm, DrDil wrote:

And of course you are wholly entitled to your opinion, however I’m of the opinion that you’re waaaay off the mark applying this flawed logic to any UFO report, much less this one which has been researched and demonstrably shown to be a hoax, or at the very least submitted by someone who is known to have hoaxed earlier triangular UFO sightings from the exact same location.

This is why I resisted the temptation of replying to you in the Sydney thread…..


Yes, it's a 75 % hoax, because some things don't work well after, namely, April 19 doesn't work at all with Greenville -- at least not for me. But otherwise it's pretty good. Some folks have surely asked the cardinal question what the heck is this triangle geometry for, leaving some "propulsion nonsense" behind, and figured that UFO can actually "talk." That's why you see in the pic the apparent identifier: the shape and the behavior of the UFO image connects with terrestrial objects. That's what you saw in Sydney, that's what you should have seen in Greenville. But as I said, it's not that easy to coordinate the particular data, and it didn't work in Greenville, even though it was pretty good, especially how the guys connected triangle U, S, A with the state.

The biggest problem with image analysis is that these UFOs are not solid objects -- it's something like a hologram. So the aliens did such tricks as changing the composition of the image to a state where the analysis proves beyond a doubt that the pic is a hoax. These cases don't pop up anymore. But this Greenville UFO has about 25% chance of being hoaxed by the aliens themselves.

Can you please point me to the pics and show me where my logic is flawed?

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by masker33 on Apr 1st, 2010, 4:26pm

Well, someone finally has it right.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Apr 1st, 2010, 4:52pm

on Apr 1st, 2010, 3:27pm, nix wrote:
<snip>

The biggest problem with image analysis is that these UFOs are not solid objects -- it's something like a hologram. So the aliens did such tricks as changing the composition of the image to a state where the analysis proves beyond a doubt that the pic is a hoax. These cases don't pop up anymore. But this Greenville UFO has about 25% chance of being hoaxed by the aliens themselves.

Can you please point me to the pics and show me where my logic is flawed?

Hi again Nix, smiley

Oh there was no “Image analysis” to speak of, merely solid research on the similarities contained within the specifics of the related reports.

And honestly, if you don’t think that your logic is flawed then that’s great as it’s purely my opinion and I have no intention of outlining what I perceive as the more critical flaws (although if you're genuinely interested then I suspect the sentence you wrote immediately prior to you asking this question may hold a couple of clues).

And speaking of which I also have no intention of debating (even the validity of!! laugh) your argument that there’s a 25% chance that “aliens hoaxed it” because even if this is true then as far as I’m concerned it’s still a hoax, but thanks for further confirming my suspicions.

(Although I could have used that information a couple of weeks ago!! grin)


Cheers. smiley

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by nix on Apr 1st, 2010, 7:06pm

on Apr 1st, 2010, 4:52pm, DrDil wrote:
And speaking of which I also have no intention of debating (even the validity of!! laugh) your argument that there’s a 25% chance that “aliens hoaxed it” because even if this is true then as far as I’m concerned it’s still a hoax, but thanks for further confirming my suspicions.

I would hesitate to debate the suggestion that the aliens in the past actually set some of their UFO images the way it would look like a hoax as well. First, there has to be a reason that would at least 90% impartial people found to have some sense, and I didn't include the reason. Why? It's sort of complicated and the arguments involve realities that we can hardly accept. As a rough comparison, imagine that when the builders of Stonehenge were done with the final phase of their sacred place, they were surely proud of their accomplishment. Now when you suddenly materialize to that place and time through some funky vortex a tell the folks that the stones have been really neatly put together, but you know about a building about a half-mile tall (Dubai), then the bronze age folks wouldn't believe you. If they did, then they couldn't be right in their heads -- the technological link just wasn't there to give them a sense of such a possibility. By analogy, the aliens have stuff to their disposal that we don't have the slightest idea about and anyone who would form an argument on it would never make a point.

The thing is that the aliens can hint some of the things they are capable of: The year of 1997 was approaching and some folks in the US government who kept ocassionally an eye on the works got little bit concerned. See, the year 1997 marked the 50th anniversary of the Roswell crash. That was a special anniversary, because Roswell, New Mexico is in the USA, and USA has 50 stars on its flag. So the anniversary was like tailored for the aliens to put things straight: We don't crash; you do -- and that involves cases when we decide that you aircraft goes down.

Of course, the particular government "UFO hobbyist" couldn't officially voice their concern, because the Congress regards the UFO spectacle as not worth a dime to look at. So they waited and waited for that bad month of September...

User Image

The USAF didn't have the slightest clue what was repeatedly hitting them in the year that marked the 50th anniversary of the Roswell "crash." Maybe it was just an unfortunate coincidence. Yes, that's right! We don't want bad an smart guys like that around, do we?

There was a huge sighting in 1997 over Phoenix, Arizona. I wonder what was that all about. "Be careful flying?"

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Apr 3rd, 2010, 7:58pm

To elevenaugust:

Hi eleven!!!

You mentioned that you had been journeying around South Carolina using a taxi cab called "Street View." I was taking a similar cab and found quite a few houses with the same architecture but as yet I did not find the two houses in those 16 March 2010 and 19 April 2008 photos.

I do have a life, but sometimes these little things can "niggle" us.

Great job with all your analyses!!!

Best, jm (Ontario, Canada.)

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by elevenaugust on Apr 4th, 2010, 03:17am

Hi jm!

Yes, I have done a systematical search using Google Street, I'll present my results next week.
However, I can say that I haven't find the houses too, but I do find the exact same architecture AND the exact same street lamp seen in another photo set.

I have some good candidate, but can't be 100% sure, because the Google street view feature is not available everywhere.

Another important thing is that I'm now 100% sure that three of the photo set were taken using the EXACT same camera.
To reach this conclusion, I asked the help from a Digital Camera Forensic Professional which is a friend of mine.
His name is Miroslav Goljan and use techniques that can say if photographies were taken using the exact same camera or not.

Some of its publications:

Detecting Digital Image Forgeries Using Sensor Pattern Noise

Determining Digital Image Origin Using Sensor Imperfections

I asked him to do a paper that explain the whole process in a popular way, then everyone should be able to understand how it has been done and could be useful for futures fakes.
It will be ready in two or three weeks.

Here are the photographies that were taken using the exact same camera:

User Image


User Image


User Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Happy Easter to all. smiley
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Apr 4th, 2010, 05:49am

Hi Eleven & Happy Easter, smiley


Good work and I look forward to seeeing the results.


Also could you either resize the images or provide a link to them? (As they're stretching the screen).


Cheers.

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Apr 4th, 2010, 07:33am

To elevenaugust:

Correction here: I had said:

"Thank you for the original images smiley"

I now note that they are not the originals. Also, I was unable to extract the .rar file images that you had uploaded a few days back.

The house design is, as you say, quite common to the area, but finding the exact spot is the challenge. The trees will have quite a bearing on the location. The houses that I found were in newer built subdivisions and trees were not even present in some places. Of course, Street View isn't 100% correct as I think I recall Mely mentioning.

I wonder why the fabricator would want to use the same location each time for the photographs.

smiley Keep up the great work smiley

jm
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Apr 4th, 2010, 4:04pm

To DrDil - an observation regarding the 16th March 2010 event:

If one reads the words written here:

http://ufos.about.com/b/2010/03/24/ufo-photos-greenville-south-carolina.htm

B.J. states:

"The man who took the photos told me that he saw a bright, red light coming in the distance. He grabbed his camera because he thought he was going to get some pics of a plane on fire. As the object flew over, he managed to get off two quick shots. He rushed to his backyard after the second photo, but the object was gone into the clouds."

Note the word "told." Is it possible that B.J. actually spoke with the male witness?

Just wondering,

jm



Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by DrDil on Apr 4th, 2010, 6:12pm

on Apr 4th, 2010, 4:04pm, jm wrote:
To DrDil - an observation regarding the 16th March 2010 event:

If one reads the words written here:

http://ufos.about.com/b/2010/03/24/ufo-photos-greenville-south-carolina.htm

B.J. states:

"The man who took the photos told me that he saw a bright, red light coming in the distance. He grabbed his camera because he thought he was going to get some pics of a plane on fire. As the object flew over, he managed to get off two quick shots. He rushed to his backyard after the second photo, but the object was gone into the clouds."

Note the word "told." Is it possible that B.J. actually spoke with the male witness?

Just wondering,

jm

Hi again jm, smiley

Not that I’m aware of and I have asked for specifics prior to this regarding both the original email and images, apparently contact was made via email and that is the only communication BJ had with the witness.

This is what I was told after he first supplied me with the images (exactly as he received them). Naturally I asked if this was the only communication and was there anything else in the email that wasn’t posted to the main UFOCasebook page but unfortunately what you see is what you get…..

When BJ wrote that he was ‘told’ by the witness it’s exactly the same as in my paragraph above when I say I was ‘told’ the information by BJ (did you notice?! grin) and the information I was ‘told’ was via email. Plus as the witness contacted BJ in his capacity as owner of UFOCasebook and not through his about.com page then this is why I believe he used that specific terminology, mainly as he was relaying his experience as owner of UFOCasebook and not as the writer of the about.com page (if you see what I mean).

And exactly as stated on the UfoCasebook page:

User Image


Also, do you recall the following what I ‘told’ you earlier? wink

on Mar 29th, 2010, 5:59pm, DrDil wrote:
If the hoaxer never steps forward then the only other way it could be conceivably any more damning than it is at present is if Pucket ever replies and confirms that the witness claimed to be someone-else and that Pucket independently verified it was the same person!!

But like I say that’s the only way I feel it could be any more damning and that’s only because it would mean the witness had been caught perpetrating a deliberate falsehood solely constructed to pass off a similar image as genuine (whist both disassociating themselves from the earlier sighting yet also bolstering it with a similar report from the surrounding area).

Well, regarding the above quote (and while I remember!! cheesy) Pucket contacted me the same time as he sent the images to ElevenAugust, we exchanged a few emails and he did in fact confirm that the witness made no mention of the earlier report, but believe it or not the reason he instantly knew this was the same 'witness' was because it was from the exact same email address and using the exact same ‘anonymous’ pseudonym!! laugh

Finally, I believe they may have been the original images that Eleven posted (or original size anyway) when you first thanked him, but I asked in the post afterwards if he could resize them due to stretching the forum page (thanks Eleven!! grin).

Cheers. smiley

Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Apr 4th, 2010, 7:14pm

To DrDil: Thanks for that clarification!

One still wonders though, why do people do this "stuff."

Best, jm
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by nix on Apr 7th, 2010, 03:36am

Quote:
One still wonders though, why do people do this "stuff."

Some tried to copy the folks who make the crop circles. Once you make something that make sense, you get a surprising response. Once you publish a fake photo of a UFO, the aliens, who can see it, regard it as a real stuff, as it must be, coz it's designed by humans. Once you get an intelligent configuration going, you may get a response in the sky, which uses similar arguments found on the "fake." There is a slowly growing number of folks out there who really assume that there is more to the UFO than MUFON tells them -- that there is a mind responsible for the UFO manifestation. So they try to contact the aliens not by the fictitious means of "alien contactees." But there are still guys who get a kick out fooling the orthodox believers, coz the presence of a miracle is important in some religions.
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by beeleaver66 on Apr 12th, 2010, 07:34am

Nix
Why are we using English? what about the O.V.N.I. or all the other non english terms for UFOs? Can they too be extrapolated to mean something? If so, how?
beeleaver
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by bratton on Apr 12th, 2010, 3:06pm

on Apr 12th, 2010, 07:34am, beeleaver66 wrote:
Nix
Why are we using English? what about the O.V.N.I. or all the other non english terms for UFOs? Can they too be extrapolated to mean something? If so, how?
beeleaver


To beeleaver: Recall if you will, in the movie "Contact" questions were being asked as to why the "Vegans" were communicating in prime numbers. It would make sense to communicate mathematically as that is, after all, the universal language. I cannot really see from where Nix derives his theory.

Regards, jm
Re: Greenville SC (from main site)
Post by nix on May 1st, 2010, 4:38pm

on Apr 12th, 2010, 07:34am, beeleaver66 wrote:
Nix
Why are we using English? what about the O.V.N.I. or all the other non english terms for UFOs? Can they too be extrapolated to mean something? If so, how?
beeleaver

You can use any language, but English is the preferable choice, coz it is an unofficial language of science and the aliens occasionally respond to certain questions that regard technological capabilities of the future that we may be able to grasp. Look, this communication is in such an advanced state, that it is very difficult to "spy" on it. People do make attempt to make the UFO behave intelligently and get a great kick out of some response. That's not really informative though, but it encourages other attempts.

The aliens have their own recipients that they communicate with, but these people would never step forward and with wide-open eyes reveal the shock of their lives -- they pretty much understand that the realities are beyond the grasp of others. The mean of communication is a something similar to a computer language and it is English-based. For example the visual composition of the UFO effect can determine a name of a scientific magazine, an article and the paragraph to read. Also the recipients "know" that the aliens go by the rule not to disturb the natural habitat of Homo sapiens, so they go along. As you know, UFO is a matter of belief -- there is no theoretical framework, coz the science doesn't recognize the UFO effects as a legitimate manifestation of ET intelligent life. In other words, the UFO doesn't display the type of behavior that the science expect it to be. The aliens can fool Stephen Hawking, for exemple, the same way we can fool chimps.

But UFO is is only the first stage of the communication and other version may follow. Don't even go there - you don't want any of it.

Some folks like the UFO the way it is and the aliens like it that way. Remember: don't disturb the natural habitat of Homo sapiens. That's why no UFO would sit over New York for a length of time sufficient enough to make clear to that it is not a funny cloud.