
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 nytimes.com, 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!
CLICK TO ENLARGE

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!
CLICK TO ENLARGE



