Saturday, February 20, 2010

CSETI ET Hoax Revealed - too easily I might add.

Every once in awhile I am given a challenge. These challenges come in the form of digital photographs either purporting to be of new secret black project aircraft or UFOs.

I relish these tests. I just love taking a photo apart (down to the pixel level) and discovering if it is the real deal, or a combination of Photoshop technique and (or) Adobe AfterEffects used to create that (on the surface) looks very much like an incredible capture but in reality is a hoax.

Recently with the availability of inexpensive (but sophisticated) image editing software, good looking fakes are proliferating through the Internet and unfortunately many (including the mainstream media) are falling for them without as much as a taking a second glance or considering the source of the material.

Case in point being the now infamous "Iran you suck at PhotoShop" images where a photo of an Iranian missile test was Photoshopped (quite clumsily) to portray they successfully launched more missile than they really did.

Many top news agencies and media outlets fell for this one, including, The Los Angeles Times, The Financial Times, The Chicago Tribune and several other newspapers as well as many major news Web sites, including, BBC News, MSNBC and Yahoo! News.

Now today - comes in my e-mail, a photo purporting to be of a visitation of an extraterrestrial being at an annual "training event in Joshua Tree National Park to contact extraterrestrial civilizations."

The attached photo showed what looked like two lawn chairs illuminated by moonlight and to the left some kind of amorphous blog supposedly the extraterrestrial being in question.

My first impression was it was just another blurry photograph, possibly a tree or someone standing close to the camera out of focus - and didn't look at all like any of the aliens we've come accustomed to on TV or in movies.

Intrigued - I decided to read the back story - and man what a back story! I won't rehash it here, but even at the risk of sending more traffic to their website I'll post a link HERE.

Note: Before you read the article, make sure you click on each image ( to enlarge) and save them to your hard drive before they are quickly replaced with new ones (that do not include the EXIF data) because that is where the hoaxer went wrong.

Although in the story "The provenance of the photograph is not in doubt. Raven Nabulsi is a long-standing, trusted member of the CSETI team. Moreover, in 2009, she had asked the ETs to allow her to photograph them, even when not seen with the naked eye." the truth is the photo is a fake and it can be proved very easily by just looking at the included EXIF data.

What is EXIF data?

EXIF was created by the Japan Electronic Industries Development Association (JEIDA). Version 2.1 of the specification is dated June 12, 1998, and the latest, version 2.2 dated April 2002, is also known as Exif Print.

This data is embedded in a file by the camera and attached (invisibly) to each image. Digital cameras will record the current date and time and save this in the metadata, along with camera settings and type. This includes static information such as the camera model and make, and information that varies with each image such as orientation (rotation), aperture, shutter speed, focal length, metering mode, and ISO speed information. A thumbnail for previewing the picture on the camera's LCD screen, in file managers, or in photo manipulation software.

This EXIF data is what trips up most hoaxers. They aren't aware the data even exists. All one has to do is download one of the many free EXIF data reading programs (such as EXIF VIEWER) but it is also included in later versions of Photoshop.

However, some hoaxers (the good ones) have learned how to change the EXIF data, but apparently not "Raven Nabulsi"

In any event, before doing a forensic analysis of any photograph, I first look at the EXIF data to see the truth about the exposure, date, type camera, etc and see how it jives with description given by the poster.

Low and behold - the EXIF reveals all.

The primary image was taken at the time and date the article states, but layered on top of that image is the data for another image taken in 2003 - more than enough information to prove the image is fake, fake, fake.

But don't take my word for it - do the work yourself. Read the EXIF data on all the photos, including the reference photos which were taken on a Nikon D-40 in 2010.

Do it soon - though, before photos missing their EXIF data replace the ones that are posted as of this writing.

Let me know if they are, because I have the originals

Sorry Dr. Greer - The truth is out there -but this ain't it!



Anonymous said...

I hate hoaxers. I really, really, really do. Faked proof is not proof at all. I don't understand their motives - unless it is for fame or monetary gain.

Manufacturing photos like this one, which looks like the smoke-monster from Lost, only proves that may UFOites are so desperate and deluded that they will do anything to say "I told you so."

Steve, as you pointed out - this was very easily dis-proved. I guess Dr. Greer was either taken in or was hoping so badly for proof that he swallowed this load of B.S. without giving it the acid test. You'd think a doctor wouldn't be so gullible!

Anonymous said...

Great post - Steve. Just a hunch - but I think Dr. Greer is motivated by greed. He does sell a lot of UFO crap on his site. You may have inadvertently added to his bank with this post.

Anonymous said...

Yup - if it looks like B.S. - smells like B.S. and tastes like B.S. - chances are it's B.S. Unfortunately there are a lot of true-believers who'll buy the DVDs- sign up for the seminars and eat this B.S. up.

Darrell R. said...

Thank you, Steve, for your investigative talents. I've been mesmerized by Dr. Greer for quite some time. I believe that he believes. His contribution to the truth about UFOs has been strong and somewhat convincing. But, this photo takes the cake. I'm sure he's aware of the digital evidence you've uncovered. Let's see if he mans-up as a country doctor and reveals the truth on The Disclosure Project. Thank you, Steve.

Steve Douglass said...

The point of this post was not to belittle Dr. Greer's beliefs but show that some people will do anything to get the proof they need to sway you to their thinking- even go so far as to manufacture it.

Ironically, hoaxes (especially ones that fall apart as easily as this one did ) only serve to tarnish the reputations of those purporting to know the "truth" about extraterrestrial visitations" and quite frankly, they accomplish just the opposite - making those who have been taken in by the hoax or perpetrating the hoax look like snake-oil salesman and charlatans.

I know there are actual bonafide scientists who would like to publicly and seriously research the UFO phenomenon, but are hesitant to lumped in with the weirdos, wackos and the con artists out to make a buck on flying saucer seminars and fake photos.

Unfortunately, stunts like these only leave a bad taste in our mouths and leave the public doubting everything they see on the Internet., which would include serious research.

Richard Lalancette said...

I know Raven and believe she is a good will person.

Just out of curiosity, is it possible the camera had wrong settings to cause this? Like if the date was set back to factory settings?

Steve Douglass said...

The EXIF data shows two dates - one is correct - the second date is from another image layered on top of the newer image.

Cosmic said...

Anything can be Hoaxed now days. Wheather it be EXIF data, audio, video, or even a Security badge for CIA.

I in Greer's defence believe the event to be true. I have studied the photographs, and I do photograhy & editing. Let get some facts straight though, Greer did not take his photo and the event did happen. Wheather you want to discredit on your site and createa bunch of non-believers, tats up to ou..but I do know these people, I know who took the photograph, where, and when,and under what circumstances.
I actually had no idea what I was examining when I first encounered the images. But, after making my own conclusion, I had determined that the bush is the same bush on the left, there were 2 chairs, 2 unknown circular objects...1 giving a shadow. Ten you have the "alledged" ET on the right. I first determined 2 light sources, I was totally unaware of the situation. Turns ou there was only one light source...which is the spot in the middle of the image which does cast a shadow and discolor the backing in other filters. The other being Mars (top-left). From all provided photographs I also determined the position of the camera when taken, the position of the objects, lighting, ET. You simply do not stage accuracy on this sale.
I would like to see your diagnosis on the actual image? Instead of posting a blurred photo & commenting on things you have no idea about. Yuare correct in saying that it is not ofany kind of Alien that we have seen in photos and movies though. It is obviously out of your understandable reach. This is not evidence of a some random being walking around in the desret that just so happened to stumble by the camera, it is evidence of a "Transdimentional Entity", which uses a transdimentiona technology to travel and stay hidden while in uncertain conditions. Which may show hemselve in a safer environment, or a more understanding concious level.
Now, all that may be hard for some of you to take. But, I think it would do all of us to wake up and stop accepting Hoax's and start asking "how, why, what, when" and get some real facts.
Isn't it lovely to discredit some one who is trying to do good for everyone? Sad, people don't do their homework enough to give credit where credit is due. Andlook with their own eyes, listen with their own ears, and believe in something that is unimaginably greater than what you see.
I challenge the poster of this thread to fork up the time to join Greer on a trip. Sadly, he would not do so because his reputation as a DEBUNKER would be ruined.

If anyone would like to see some "real" analysis images, granted the image taken is not great quality, but rest assue it is honest:

Thank you: ~Cosmic

Cosmic said...

Steve Douglass said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve Douglass said...

I never said Greer took the photo.

Re -read the post carefully and you'll see I worked off the original full size images complete with all EXIF data intact - that can still be download off the site (ink in post) for anyone to analyze.

Make sure to look at the EXIF data (not what I posted but from the original photos you can download off Greer's site) and then explain to me why there are two different dates listed?

I'm open minded, but apparently you aren't.

You are jumping to a conclusion that I wouldn't go out with Greer on one of these ET workshops.

I'd love too - but I'll bet I wouldn't be welcome.

- Steve Douglass

Richard Lalancette said...

Hi Steve,

I finally managed to get it sorted with Raven and Debbie.

Raven takes the batteries out of the camera to conserve energy which brings the date and time back to factory default when she re-inserts the battery back in.

Once the photo is upload to the software she uses on the mac I believe, she puts the right date back on.

That is what I originally thought might have happened and I was right on :)

Hope this clarifies.

I would be greatfull if you could add this extra information to your article as well.

It should be noted that Debbie updated the CSETI article to reflect this as well.

Best regards,

Richard Lalancette.

Cosmic said...

My comment is in defense of all the posts, not only one. The EXIF data isin fact the original data. I recieve the file from CSETI staff, not the website. The 2 dates are as follows: 1 te camera activation, and 2 the image taken date.
And anyone with real interest for the truth would in fact be welcome.

Thank you:~Cosmic

Steve Douglass said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve Douglass said...

Look closely at the EXIF data- under the column that says: Other Properties: Resolution Unit 1.

EXIF data is exposure data and does not indicate anything other than information about the image itself.

You can take the batteries out of any camera - let the memory settings die - bring it back to life and take a photo with it - and even if the date has been set incorrectly - both the bottom and top exposure times and dates should match up.

They don't here because the images are from two separate exposures one layered on the other.

Let's say the time was incorrectly set - and the camera thought it was 2003 - then how come it dated (matching the story) the (top) EXIF file in 2009?

You'll also notice that Resolution Unit 1 also shows that the shutter speeds are different with the 2009 image reading "3 secs" and the 2003 image reading 1/0 sec.

Resolution Unit 1 (where the 2003 dates are listed reads: "Image Generated" and "Image Digitized" and it means just that.

It has nothing to do with anything other than the exposure. I can't make that any more clearer.

- Steve

Steve Douglass said...

At the risk of flogging a dead horse - I have posted an EXIF file from a raw unaltered image here:

Note: Under Resolution 1 you'll see the dates and shutter speed match on both top and bottom.

This has nothing to do with the camera activation date!

If it did - it would mean the camera was activated at the very same second the photo was taken - which is not possible.

Later I'll post an altered version (too tired now) and show you how the dates will not jive -just like in the Joshua Tree photo.

-Steve Douglass

Steve Douglass said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve Douglass said...

One more thing - and I'll consider this the nail in the coffin and finally bury this topic.

Cosmic writes that the date in question is the date the camera was activated.

I'll humor him for just a second and look at it from that perspective.

If (as he claims) the camera was activated on January, 1 - 2003 - then the photographer is in the possession of a time machine - because according to Fuji - the FinePix S 7000 was not available for sale until October of that same year.


The End.

Richard Lalancette said...

Keep in mind that, when the chip resets, the date is set back to 2003.

That chip can be used to manufacture recent cameras as well. It's not like the factory default date is changed each time a new model comes out. Especially if that date is backed into the chip.

I am still talking with Her(raven) to see what step she took with the pictures and narrow down on either a software or method that would have caused these issues.

I hope to have a solution soon.

Richard Lalancette said...

You can also notice that the date on the picture is 1 min 8 seconds after the machine was turned on.

Am I correct? What probably happened is that she put the batteries back inside and then took the picture a minute later.

Steve Douglass said...

Like I said - it doesn't matter if the camera date defaulted to original settings because it was turned off and the batteries removed.

The two dates and times in the EXIF data do not match and they should - unless the image was altered.

Richard Lalancette said...

I'm thinking the software she used to retrieve the photo from the device probably tagged the new date in.

That's what I'm trying to find out. I am convinced she didn't change the picture itself, hence why I'm trying to get at the bottom of this.

What else could alter the date, without actually changing the picture data itself?

Anonymous said...

Give up dude. They don't get it. They will try and try and try and spin this until they come up with an answer that fits their liking.

You are right - the EXIF info has nothing to do with chip settings, cam date settings et-all. The two should match and they don't.

Apparently they didn't look at your sample ( the cat photo) you posted because they are too busy trying to back-peddal and come up with a "solution" to the problem which is you and your damn irritating knowledge and logic!

Don't let them drive you crazy. You won and they lost.

Richard Lalancette said...

Well, I think it's good to know how things are driven.

If a piece of software can change a date, without altering anything else, then we can go on false assumptions and speculations.

Here, we want the facts right?

Steve Douglass said...

There are only two things that could account in the difference in dates and exposure time.

One - the image was altered with another image dated 2003 layered on top of the image taken in 2009 - or (Two) the EXIF data was deliberately changed in an image editing program that lets one edit the EXIF data.

Why one would do that - is beyond my thinking.

Why back-date it to 2003? What purpose would that serve?

Cosmic said...

I think it works both ways here. One is trying to "DEBUNK" and the other tying to "UNBUNK". Neither side is going to be happy even the truth be told, or facts listed. A pointless indeveur to skepitcs.
Obviously my camera experience and or others here, are not going to be good enough to UNBUNK on this board, lol.
I'm calling it a complete waste of time to post on this website when the facts are allready there to look at and we're still trying to create something out of nothing.
The "single" image is real, noted, and posted. EXIF data is not false. Measurements noted on all photographs, and my own, proven, described, and layed out with pretty little bows on them so everyone can understand. Yet still not seeing the big picture, and I think pupose for the image to begin with..what are you going to do about it? I can see from this post, and ATS, they skeptics and debunkers are all the same. You simply not going to give up on your false reality for a second, and imagine if it were real or something that is explainable and not natural.

I'm done here. Win or lose, it's not worth my time, I know the truth relavent to this photograph or my own experience.

Thank you all: ~Cosmic

Anonymous said...

Cosmic - I don't think you not what the heck you are talking about. The proof is clearly on Steve's side and to call it a tie like you do and opting out is just your way of trying not to admit the photo is a fake.

This isn't a matter of opinion - its a matter of fact and the fact is (as Steve has proven) the the photo is a fake. You can call it debunking-unbunking - whatever but the truth is the photo of this supposed ET in pure bunk.

I know there is no-way you'll ever admit you lost - but the rest of us know the truth.

Fact trumps stupidity and on your part I give an epic FAIL.

Good job Steve!

Cosmic said...

I really don't care whether you debunk it or not. I'm not opting out because I lost, but because I don't have to keep beating you down with facts which you all are simply going to try and reject anyway possible. Nor do I have to explain why I win or lose because it's not in debate about me. It's about the photo, and in your own little world here on Black Horizon you can debate all you want untill your feble little minds explode, I simply have better things to do.

Good day.

Anonymous said...

What facts? have you beaten Steve down with? You haven't proved anything except your lack of knowledge about EXIF data?

Steve Douglass said...

Oh crap. My feeble mind is about to explode!

Cosmic said...

My lack of knowledge, haha. Not that I have beaten down, sorry. But, the evidense is and fact is allready posted. I allready stated that the EXIF data is not altered because I have original. The duplicate date is not a duplcate date in fact, the 2 dates in 2003 are the manufacturers activation date and a default date which are set at the same time, and the 2009 date is the photo taken date. This is kindergarden stuff. As well, I have posted analysis f my own in the form of 8 seperate files on my website showing many didfferent filters of the original image which show no over expose, no alteration, no misplaced pixels. I work CG, I know this $%^&.
Look at the photos and EXIF I displayed in combination with supporting photos from CSETI and tell me i'm wrong. If you can do that, I say your all need to go back to school, because my dog could tell you the truth here.

My final post: Good day

Anonymous said...

What a moron! He believes in aliens and talking dogs! He writes like a ten year old and wouldn't accept the truth if it bit him on ass.

It's like teaching a pig to fly - it's a waste of time and annoys the pig.

$10.00 says this is not his final post.

Steve Douglass said...

Cosmic didn't offer any links to his supposed evidence.

He wrote about the proof on his website - but he didn't post links.

This is becoming inane and pointless so I'm closing the thread on this. No more posts (unless they are of substance and constructive) will be published.

Thanks for your participation!

-Steve Douglass

Anonymous said...

Hi Steve
Thanks for your great site. I wanted to respond to your posts about EXIF camera data related to the CSET image of the ET. I completely concur that this image is a hoax. I started a thread about on the Alien-Ufo's site, Discloure Project ET photo, and another poster linked to your analysis. You are correct about Image Creation dates matching Image Generation and Digitization as long as the image is not altered. It's not quite that simple, however. "alteration" of an image can be simply resaving the image in another format or another folder. Doing so creates another Image Creation date, because, in effect a new image has been created. If the dates do not match, it is not evidence of a composite image, simply that a new version of the same file name has been saved. In fact, I don't believe there is a way to see the record of all images layered in a composited image. At least, in my work, where I routinely composite images for architectural photography, the final file has the name and EXIF data of the original base image used in the composite.
The dates in the ET photo are funky but for different reason than you suggest. The Generation date indicates a reset of some sort, there can be many reason, including altering metadata. The Creation date simply indicates when the image was saved into the version we see. Also of note, in the EXIF data indicates that Quicktime was the camera software used to create the file. This bears more investigation. Anyway, I don't believe it's likely the photographer shot the image on a camera whose clock reset at a minute after midnight, and then rushed to the computer to download, process, and resave the image as a jpeg on a computer with the correct time and date as claimed. Also, I don't believe it's likely the image was made without a tripod. If it was, we would never see the points of light including the alleged Mars, in an 3+ second handheld exposure. I could go on, but wanted mostly to share thoughts on the EXIF matter.


Richard Lalancette said...

Hi All,


After much talk and digging, I finally found why the picture dates were off.

Raven used a tool on the mac called iPhoto. Upon opening the photo, which was dated with 2003 year, the factory settings for the camera, she then saved the file with the current date.

As we all know, applications have the ability to change the EXIF metadata.

This would cause the 2 dates to be different, without actually changing the image data, or the bitmap data.

This can also be done via scripting as shown here:

I'm very glad that we could finally figure out how these 2 dates could be different.

I also think we should learn a lesson from all this.

EXIF data is certainly not the holy bible truth about a picture, but also that it would be better if these external tools didn't touch the EXIF metadata.

Best regards,


Richard Lalancette said...


You haven't reproduced the appropriate steps then.

I understand that you are in fact not too caring about the truth.

Trying to reproduce what she did would also mean you would have to admit you were mistaken on your report here.

I doubt you are willing to admit you are wrong and I can see nothing else will change your mind.

Anonymous said...

And the mournful cry of the internet loon calls out "unfair -wah - wah - wah."
Keep up the good work Mr. Douglas!

Anonymous said...

Steve, I understand why Mr.Lalancette is adamant about you admitting you are wrong.

This blog rates high in Google at the top of many searches and as a result your shooting down CSETI has lots of weight.

Do a search and you'll see. Dr. Greers' organization is all about bilking money out of the poor rubes who cling to his pseudo-new-age-alien are our pals religion.

If he had honestly made contact with extraterrestrials and could prove it (without a doubt and the fuzzy photos) then he would not be charging for his CSETI field trips.

Your post has cast a real large shadow of doubt on CSETI's credence and that hurts profits and scares off the fish.

P.T. Barnum was right - a sucker is born every minute.

Thanks for your hard work.

- Goatsucker

Anonymous said...

I think Goatsucker is right. The seeds of doubt have been sown;

Richard Lalancette said...

If Steven had any doubts about this photography, He wouldn't have approved the publications.

I would like to remind people that the Ambassador to the universe training trains people in remote view, which was first researched by the military in the 70s.

Each day of the week long training include various teachings and you get good material for the fee. I have been to 3 of them, and the experience is out of this world.

It boils down to preference as of how your money is spent.

I would also like to point out that as compared as other seminars, CSETI offers something that is affordable, for the return you get.

Steve Douglass said...

The commentary thread for this post has been closed.

Darrow said...

First thought on seeing this image. It looks just like Sutek from "Pyramids of Mars"

Anonymous said...

I believe in UFO's / aliens but come on. I watched disclosure and was blown away by the people talking about their experiences while working for the military ect. Skip ahead to this photograph from disclosure, these type of courses are run monthly for a large sum of money, why is it then there are no clear crisp photos from people who are the supposed ambassadors from earth to the universe. Also, if disclosure is out there to teach and inform people in loving harmony why is Steven Greer charging for his time, surely money would be secondary to making people believe.......... He should of stayed as a doctor and done disclosure for free, making him more believable ........Lets all buy a krypton laser, point it to a moving object high in the night sky and hope we get a signal....Then again don't, they can blind us pilots :D
I want to believe but photos like this do more harm than good......

Anonymous said...

Too much is being made of the exif date. It is the exposure time that is crucial. The photo is a double exposure and the "Ambassador" is nothing but a Joshua tree branch. This image can be added to the famous moth photo that CSETI passed off as an alien being. And the insect that was said to be an extraterrestrial "energy anchor". More recently they've even tried to pass off a photo of hotel lights as spaceships! There's even a video on Youtube that shows Greer and his high-paying guests boarding a flying saucer. Trouble is, the saucer is invisible, they're just standing in a farmer's field!

The alien ambassador photo is debunked pretty well here:


José Bonilla said...

2018 here and the exif data has not been changed


Blog Widget by LinkWithin