Dan Smith - May 5th - Part One Dan Smith-May5-07-...
Dan Smith - May 5th - Part Two
Dan Smith-May5-07-...



UFO, ALIEN, DISCLOSURE, SERPO, SEINU, PROJECT-CAMELOT - Open Minds Forum - http://www.openmindsforum.com/
« UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jun 6, 2007, 3:52am





UFO, ALIEN, DISCLOSURE, SERPO, SEINU, PROJECT-CAMELOT - Open Minds Forum - WWW.OpenMindsForum.com :: General :: UFO/ Alien / Exobiology :: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« »    [Search This Thread] [Send Topic To Friend] [Print]
 Author Topic: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed (Read 6,944 times)
sqt
Junior Member
**
member is online





Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 10
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1965 on Today at 2:31am »


Today at 2:24am, spf33 wrote:

Today at 1:44am, ipfreely wrote:

Thay is how I take photos off my camera I always import directly into photoshop. Its the only way I know how.



ps does add metadata this way, but it depends on how you go about it.

if you strictly use ps to copy images from the memory stick to your hard drive, then no xmp info is added.

but if you import the image and just view it in photoshop and then file>save as a jpg the metadata is added, similiar to what's in rajman1977's.

also, if you do any editing to the imported image and then save it, the xmp info changes.

and i'm not seeing those subtle changes in rajmans.

soooo...what i thought might be a smoking gun, may in fact bolster the opinion that rajmans photos are legit.

i need to do some more tests with importing data off my cam and seeing what changes can be made to the xmp data...

i'm freakin' tired, i feel like i've been running a mental marathon for 3 weeks...





Good points. I think the other thing to keep in mind (though as nothing more than circumstantial evidence so far) is that the software that apparently left the footprint in the pics is Photoshop CS (as opposed to Photoshop Elements, for example), a program intended for professional photographers which retails for over $600.

Just something to mull on... :) ;)
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
regence
Full Member
***
member is offline

[avatar]



Joined: May 2007
Posts: 32
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1966 on Today at 2:31am »

The Photoshop metadata is very interesting. Do people really use Photoshop to manage photo collections? I thought everyone used apps like iPhoto or Picasa? It seems pretty unlikely to me in this scenario in any event, because the digicam didn't belong to the person who posted these photo's as far as we know.

'Raj' stated he took the photo's on his fiance's parents digicam, and he didn't have the memory card. Therefore I don't see how he would have loaded the photo's from the camera into Photoshop as this would require posession of the card. Is it likely that his fiance's parents have Photoshop CS2?

I'm not sure how to interpret the police statement. Like Shads said, it is quite likely that the police are referring to the 'Tahoe' shots by 'Chad' as we are, as they are widely reported on the Internet and are listed if you google for 'Capitola UFO'.

There is still one piece of data we can check in the photo. Has anyone managed to identify the numbers on the yellow pole tags in two of the shots? They are just about readable. The vertical tag looks like a four digit number, and the horizontal tag looks like five digits perhaps. With some enhancement, PGE could tell us exactly where the photo was taken.

There is also another visual artifact that someone mentioned a while back in this thread. Hoaxers often make compositional errors that give away their intentions. In the famous alien autopsy reel, the critical blooper was the way the camera paused at one part in the incision just before a blood effect kicked in, obviously because the cameraman knew the effect was there. The 'Raj' photo's show the opposite behavior. Many of the photo's are not centred on the UFO, as if someone took a bunch of photo's of empty sky, and then later figured out where a CG UFO would look good in them and would work well with a nice Photoshop edit. I'd argue that most people would attempt to center the UFO, but this isn't the case with the Raj photo's. Yes, motion may account for some of it but there is only motion blur in a couple of shots.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
colorsymphony
Senior Member
****
member is online

[avatar]



Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 101
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1967 on Today at 2:42am »

whoops. double post. my connection failed :P
« Last Edit: Today at 2:51am by colorsymphony » Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
epo3
Forum Peer-Group Member
*****
member is offline

[avatar]



Joined: Mar 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 372
Location: Up-state NY
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1968 on Today at 2:45am »


Today at 2:31am, regence wrote:
The Photoshop metadata is very interesting. Do people really use Photoshop to manage photo collections? I thought everyone used apps like iPhoto or Picasa? It seems pretty unlikely to me in this scenario in any event, because the digicam didn't belong to the person who posted these photo's as far as we know.

'Raj' stated he took the photo's on his fiance's parents digicam, and he didn't have the memory card. Therefore I don't see how he would have loaded the photo's from the camera into Photoshop as this would require posession of the card. Is it likely that his fiance's parents have Photoshop CS2?

I'm not sure how to interpret the police statement. Like Shads said, it is quite likely that the police are referring to the 'Tahoe' shots by 'Chad' as we are, as they are widely reported on the Internet and are listed if you google for 'Capitola UFO'.

There is still one piece of data we can check in the photo. Has anyone managed to identify the numbers on the yellow pole tags in two of the shots? They are just about readable. The vertical tag looks like a four digit number, and the horizontal tag looks like five digits perhaps. With some enhancement, PGE could tell us exactly where the photo was taken.

There is also another visual artifact that someone mentioned a while back in this thread. Hoaxers often make compositional errors that give away their intentions. In the famous alien autopsy reel, the critical blooper was the way the camera paused at one part in the incision just before a blood effect kicked in, obviously because the cameraman knew the effect was there. The 'Raj' photo's show the opposite behavior. Many of the photo's are not centred on the UFO, as if someone took a bunch of photo's of empty sky, and then later figured out where a CG UFO would look good in them and would work well with a nice Photoshop edit. I'd argue that most people would attempt to center the UFO, but this isn't the case with the Raj photo's. Yes, motion may account for some of it but there is only motion blur in a couple of shots.



I've notice with my kodak digital camera, there is a slight delay from the time I press the button for the shutter and the actual snapshot!

But your on to something with the idea of the object of the photo, is most always in the center of the picture...more to think about!

epo3
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.
Douglas MacArthur
colorsymphony
Senior Member
****
member is online

[avatar]



Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 101
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1969 on Today at 2:46am »


Today at 2:24am, spf33 wrote:
i'm freakin' tired, i feel like i've been running a mental marathon for 3 weeks...


you have done an amazing job. thank you for all you have done - you've gone above and beyond... paying for those pics and your meta tag knowledge was and is extremely helpful.

i know i feel exhausted over this aswell. it's all i've been thinking about since before may16th. my girlfriend wasn't too happy with me a week ago. i've definately put some things on hold because of this. but hey, this is a learning experience for all of us, no matter what we believe.

:)
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
spf33
Medal of Initiative Award
*****
member is online





Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 136
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1970 on Today at 2:48am »


Today at 1:57am, onthefence wrote:
Here's a little distraction from the "smoking gun"

I thought you'd enjoy the example :)


wow! onthefence, you're analysis's are the best thing going in this thread.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
JakeReason
Co-Administrator
*****
Admin Team
member is offline

[avatar]

You must dive in to see it all.



Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,492
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1971 on Today at 2:57am »


Today at 2:31am, regence wrote:
The Photoshop metadata is very interesting. Do people really use Photoshop to manage photo collections?

Adobe is fairly aggressive right now in their marketing and their 'upgrades' are often simply accepted by people, and Adobe makes it their default Photo program. As long as it works well (which it does!) many people would simply accept it. ie: Ipfreely who has said he only uses it. The latest upgrade is Photoshop Album Starter 3.01.

Thanks spf33 for your efforts in this.


Quote:
There is still one piece of data we can check in the photo. Has anyone managed to identify the numbers on the yellow pole tags in two of the shots? They are just about readable. The vertical tag looks like a four digit number, and the horizontal tag looks like five digits perhaps. With some enhancement, PGE could tell us exactly where the photo was taken.

I've enlarged the yellow tags to the size of this screen. Not enough detail to enhance and clarify.


Quote:
There is also another visual artifact that someone mentioned a while back in this thread. . . . . . . . I'd argue that most people would attempt to center the UFO, but this isn't the case with the Raj photo's. Yes, motion may account for some of it but there is only motion blur in a couple of shots.

I agree. This is what makes me think that the Raj pics are in a different category than Chad's. Chad's have depth-of-field anomalies, indicating manipulation. Raj's are either legit pictures or employ more advanced CGI over Chads.


Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

God does not play dice with the Universe. We are being recreated by the moment. We've only just begun.
calikid
Forum Peer-Group Member
*****
member is offline

[avatar]

OOPArts



Joined: Sept 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 229
Location: Sunny California
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1972 on Today at 3:04am »


Today at 2:31am, regence wrote:
The Photoshop metadata is very interesting. <snip>

<snip>

I'm not sure how to interpret the police statement. <snip>.

There is still one piece of data we can check in the photo. Has anyone managed to identify the numbers on the yellow pole tags in two of the shots? They are just about readable. The vertical tag looks like a four digit number, and the horizontal tag looks like five digits perhaps. With some enhancement, PGE could tell us exactly where the photo was taken.

<snip>

.


I have a similar power pole outside my bedroom window. The big horizonatal yellow signs on my pole says "HIGH VOLTAGE". No id numbers. I can post a pic if you like?

CaliKid

Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

Question authority and authorities will question you
colorsymphony
Senior Member
****
member is online

[avatar]



Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 101
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1973 on Today at 3:05am »


Today at 2:31am, regence wrote:
I'm not sure how to interpret the police statement. Like Shads said, it is quite likely that the police are referring to the 'Tahoe' shots by 'Chad' as we are, as they are widely reported on the Internet and are listed if you google for 'Capitola UFO'.


if thats the case he is still lying - the detective said this was the first time he has heard about this case.
the police chief said there was a report in tahoe about the same craft. that doesn't mean, "i'm a cop and i refer to something posted on the internet as a 'report'. "

and sorry to correct you but chad didn't take the tahoe pics nor did he take the capitola pics. we still dont know where chad is located.
« Last Edit: Today at 3:22am by colorsymphony » Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
sqt
Junior Member
**
member is online





Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 10
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1974 on Today at 3:08am »


Today at 2:57am, JakeReason wrote:

Today at 2:31am, regence wrote:
The Photoshop metadata is very interesting. Do people really use Photoshop to manage photo collections?

Adobe is fairly aggressive right now in their marketing and their 'upgrades' are often simply accepted by people, and Adobe makes it their default Photo program. As long as it works well (which it does!) many people would simply accept it. ie: Ipfreely who has said he only uses it. The latest upgrade is Photoshop Album Starter 3.01.



I don't think you can upgrade to Photoshop CS from anything other than a previous version of CS or Photoshop 7.0. This is not entry-level or consumer-targeted software, but is rather aimed at professionals and any of the programs normally cost several hundred dollars.
« Last Edit: Today at 3:13am by sqt » Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
magooollo
Full Member
***
member is offline





Joined: May 2007
Posts: 25
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1975 on Today at 3:23am »


Today at 2:57am, JakeReason wrote:
[quote author=regence board=ufosandextraterrestrial thread=1178524844 post=1181093488]The Photoshop metadata is very interesting. Do people really use Photoshop to manage photo collections?

Adobe is fairly aggressive right now in their marketing and their 'upgrades' are often simply accepted by people, and Adobe makes it their default Photo program. As long as it works well (which it does!) many people would simply accept it. ie: Ipfreely who has said he only uses it. The latest upgrade is Photoshop Album Starter 3.01.

Thanks spf33 for your efforts in this.


I've enlarged the yellow tags to the size of this screen. Not enough detail to enhance and clarify.


Quote:
There is also another visual artifact that someone mentioned a while back in this thread. . . . . . . . I'd argue that most people would attempt to center the UFO, but this isn't the case with the Raj photo's. Yes, motion may account for some of it but there is only motion blur in a couple of shots.

I agree. This is what makes me think that the Raj pics are in a different category than Chad's. Chad's have depth-of-field anomalies, indicating manipulation. Raj's are either legit pictures or employ more advanced CGI over Chads

very good point if chads are manipulated as well it would take quite an expensive CGI setup to pull it off
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
sqt
Junior Member
**
member is online





Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 10
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1976 on Today at 3:28am »


Today at 3:23am, magooollo wrote:

very good point if chads are manipulated as well it would take quite an expensive CGI setup to pull it off


Not really. All it would take is a little more careful work. ;)
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
ivo5000
Co-Administrator
*****
member is online

[avatar]

Disclosure is inevitable



Joined: Mar 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,759
Location: Ohio
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1977 on Today at 3:37am »

We are treating the Chad and Raj pics as separate entities, but they really can't be. All of the time lines so far point to the Chad pics coming out first. Those are also the ones our resident group of experts think are the least believable. But the trouble with that is the Chad pics would have to be copies of an existing event/photo. But the ones that are the most believable (relatively speaking) are the Raj pics. Right? So Chad could not have copied them from Raj.

Based on that they are either both real or both fake or the Chad pics are real and the Raj pics are REAL good knock-offs of the Chad pics.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

"True courage is not the brutal force of vulgar heroes, but the firm resolve of virtue and reason." —Alfred North Whitehead
sqt
Junior Member
**
member is online





Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 10
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1978 on Today at 3:43am »


Today at 3:37am, ivo5000 wrote:
We are treating the Chad and Raj pics as separate entities, but they really can't be. All of the time lines so far point to the Chad pics coming out first. Those are also the ones our resident group of experts think are the least believable. But the trouble with that is the Chad pics would have to be copies of an existing event/photo. But the ones that are the most believable (relatively speaking) are the Raj pics. Right? So Chad could not have copied them from Raj.

Based on that they are either both real or both fake or the Chad pics are real and the Raj pics are REAL good knock-offs of the Chad pics.


Makes sense. I guess another way to look at the possibilities is the Chad pics are fake, and the Raj pics are improved fakes, as the faker was honing his craft.

Just a possibility... ;D
« Last Edit: Today at 3:45am by sqt » Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
ipfreely
Forum Peer-Group Member
*****
member is online

[avatar]



Joined: Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 273
Location: gone surfing
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #1979 on Today at 3:44am »


Today at 2:31am, sqt wrote:

Today at 2:24am, spf33 wrote:



ps does add metadata this way, but it depends on how you go about it.

if you strictly use ps to copy images from the memory stick to your hard drive, then no xmp info is added.

but if you import the image and just view it in photoshop and then file>save as a jpg the metadata is added, similiar to what's in rajman1977's.

also, if you do any editing to the imported image and then save it, the xmp info changes.

and i'm not seeing those subtle changes in rajmans.

soooo...what i thought might be a smoking gun, may in fact bolster the opinion that rajmans photos are legit.

i need to do some more tests with importing data off my cam and seeing what changes can be made to the xmp data...

i'm freakin' tired, i feel like i've been running a mental marathon for 3 weeks...





Good points. I think the other thing to keep in mind (though as nothing more than circumstantial evidence so far) is that the software that apparently left the footprint in the pics is Photoshop CS (as opposed to Photoshop Elements, for example), a program intended for professional photographers which retails for over $600.

Just something to mull on... :) ;)


Almost everyone I know who has a computer has photoshop I have cs2 and I,m not a photographer though I am an artist.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

"The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of rational conviction. Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately." - Bertrand Russell
« »    [Search This Thread] [Send Topic To Friend] [Print]

The Alien Seeker News

Click to discover what is: - 'Exempt From Disclosure'


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free



This Board Hosted For FREE By ProBoards
Get Your Own Free Message Board!