"Tungstene": the end of the UFOs photos tampering?

[elevenaugust]

Hello guys,

I thought that you might find this interesting.
Sorry for the rough translation from French...

"Roger Cozien, French mathematics Phd and former criminology expert, presented in 2010 May at the French National Assembly a software called Tungstene, which should make possible to know if a photo has been altered in any way.

For Mister Cozien and for the deputy Valérie Boyer as well, at the origin of a law project for the reporting of people whose appearance has been altered by image tampering, this is an end to the lie about the photos forgeries that our society had too long and too often tolerated .

One can cite the "gummed beads" celebrities that impose a new standard for the teens and push them to anorexia, or the missile that magically appeared on a picture of war on the front page of a grand public magazine to make the scene more dramatic and increase sales....
But it must also serve in the judicial field as well, like that was the case during a recent lawsuit against a rugby player in Ireland, with the photo that involved him and that, in fact, was tampered with.

If this technology developed by the company eXo makina remains restricted to large structures due to its cost (+/- 50.000$ actually...) and special training for its use, a large public version is scheduled.
It also worth a note that the company is working on another similar technology, but for videos studies."

SOURCE (in french)

Tungstene site

Examples:







Hopefully, the "grand public"; version will not be that expensive...

What do you think? Any input will be appreciated!

[nablator]

Very interesting. Thanks for the information!

There are many techniques that were recently discovered and studied in academic circles that seemingly never evolved into a marketable software product. I tested some of them and noticed that they could be useful in some situations, but seem very untrustworthy in general. For example statical analysis of DCT coefficients in JPEG to detect differences in recompressed areas works reasonably well when the quality is not too high. Maybe there is a better way to do that than the ones I know. Many other anomalies can be detected by applying a liberal dose of algorithmic magic.

In http://www.exomakina.com/eXo_maKina/Tungstene.html there is something (trade secret I bet) called "ruptures dans les statistiques profondes" ("discrepancies in deep (sic) statistics").

Then there are inconsistencies in the laws of physics for scattering of light and chrominance. Something like this: http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/20423/?a=f

Then EXIF data consistency, histograms, JPEG double quantization, defects in luminance linearity (whatever that means, maybe defects in interpolation) and electronic noise. And of course copy/paste detection is featured prominently in the examples above.

OK, so maybe nothing really new, but if done well a neat package of useful tools that were not available to the general public previously. Well, they still aren't but one can hope.

[elevenaugust]

Very interesting. Thanks for the information!

There are many techniques that were recently discovered and studied in academic circles that seemingly never evolved into a marketable software product. I tested some of them and noticed that they could be useful in some situations, but seem very untrustworthy in general. For example statical analysis of DCT coefficients in JPEG to detect differences in recompressed areas works reasonably well when the quality is not too high. Maybe there is a better way to do that than the ones I know. Many other anomalies can be detected by applying a liberal dose of algorithmic magic.

In http://www.exomakina.com/eXo_maKina/Tungstene.html there is something (trade secret I bet) called "ruptures dans les statistiques profondes" ("discrepancies in deep (sic) statistics").

Then there are inconsistencies in the laws of physics for scattering of light and chrominance. Something like this: http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/20423/?a=f

Then EXIF data consistency, histograms, JPEG double quantization, defects in luminance linearity (whatever that means, maybe defects in interpolation) and electronic noise. And of course copy/paste detection is featured prominently in the examples above.

OK, so maybe nothing really new, but if done well a neat package of useful tools that were not available to the general public previously. Well, they still aren't but one can hope.

Thanks Nablator!

I'm actually in the process to learn more about this soft and what could be its future applications. In this point of view, I agree that it could be no more than a package of known techniques, such as those you mentioned above.

As for me, I already tried many software that have some good results in our field of study, such as Registax (image stabilization), ImageAnalyzer (Study of the blur with the Fourier Transform, for example...), Exiftool (for a complete Exifs information tool), etc etc...

I hope that in the future, the classic "mouse and cat" game between the hoaxers and those who fight against them will end (I know, I'm a dreamer! ), and IMO, a great and complete (and cheaper than it is actually!) tool will contribute at least to reduce faker's possibilities.

Will let you know any more informations I could learn about Tungstene, anyway.

[Buckwild]

Hi guys,

Is this the French Connection section here ?

Here is a document that might be interesting for you :
http://www.narcap.org/reports/narcap_IR ... oaxing.pdf

Like you guys said, many researchers are working on a variety of digital forensics tools to catch such manipulations.
From what I have read, tools that analyze lighting are particularly useful because lighting is hard to fake without leaving a trace.

You might want to get in touch with Micah Kimo Johnson @ MIT :
http://www.mit.edu/~kimo/downloads/cv.pdf

He might have a commercial version of his software, because, from what I know, it requires an expert user.

OK, so maybe nothing really new, but if done well a neat package of useful tools that were not available to the general public previously. Well, they still aren't but one can hope.

There sure is a logical reason behind this, digital forensics is a new enough field of research, that even the best tools are still some distance away from being helpful to a general user. But you guys are right from what I know, it seems that different manipulations need different tools to be spotted, so a neat package is needed, package that could be used by the general public so to say.

Cheers,
Buck

[chrLz]

Don't want to be a naysayer (but hey, it's my job!)... however..

All of these tools, it seems to me, are only useful given a couple of provisos:

1. You have access to the original, unresized image (which really means you need access to the original media, and also have a chain of evidence to prove that..) That may seem obvious, but how often do we truly get access to verifiably original images?

2. The tools used to manipulate the image leave identifiable traces.

The reason I re-raise these points is firstly that the vast majority of images are not available from the source... Which, to me, points to the fact that the image taker is either not serious about their claim, or has been 'grabbed' by any of the pseudo ufologists (a special hi to Jaime Maussan!!) who see some value in getting them to withhold the image, ask for money, milk the story, etc... And of course they will claim they have had the images analysed by leading experts who assure us... (cough splutter).

Anyway, given we do get access to a useful original, there is still the very basic question - how difficult is it to manipulate an image in such a way that there are no traces of tampering? Given what I know about image files and the storage mechanisms used (which is a fair bit, but I won't claim to be an authority!), it's not hugely difficult. And of course if the tools to detect tampering are made publicly available, then the first thing a decent hoaxer will do is use those, and simply do a little 'reverse engineering' to ensure that the image has been 'recoded' as necessary to fool them. It's not rocket science - you can easily look up and tamper with exif, statistical analysis of textures/noise is already available, jpeg compression algorithms are all documented... so all of that just means that the fakers have to get a little smarter - and of course they will! The technology is moving so fast that it's just a little game of cat and mouse - like malware versus antimalware - no end to the battle.

Which is why I always jump on my hobby horse.. It's not the image. It's the evidence surrounding it.

I would suggest that 99.9% of fake images can be busted simply by looking at the story that surrounds them, the lack of corroboration, the lack of credible witnesses.

And I've gotta say, even if you came up with the most perfect, most high res, most credible, most believable image ever... If there was only one of them and it was not repeated - what's the point? One visitation, no other evidence, and never repeated? Why then would it be important, in the grand scheme of things?

To me, *that* is the ETH's biggest problem. A real alien visit will involve much more than a compelling 'undebunkable' image. Indeed, the images will just be the icing on the cake...

So, I'll patiently wait. Not holding my breath. And I think the only thing more exciting and interesting than the thought that we are not alone, is the possibility that we are..

[nablator]

1. You have access to the original, unresized image (which really means you need access to the original media, and also have a chain of evidence to prove that..) That may seem obvious, but how often do we truly get access to verifiably original images?

Not often indeed. Resizing a JPEG image helps hide the most obvious effects of tampering, but there might still be clues left if the quality is not too bad. To name a few: inconsistencies in sharpening, shadows, colorimetry, digital noise, etc.

Anyway, given we do get access to a useful original, there is still the very basic question - how difficult is it to manipulate an image in such a way that there are no traces of tampering?

It would require a lot of work. First the modification must be done without leaving any telltale sign, which is hard. Drawing something in Photoshop or copy-pasting CGI is not enough, a specific type of noise must be applied, and since cameras' firmware apply interpolation and sharpening filters they must be matched.

Getting the EXIF and compression parameters right and section and sub-section ordering and flavor (many different ways to encode JPEG) is the easy part. Then comes the bigger challenge of figuring out the encoding rules that the camera uses in parts that are not displayed in JPEGSnoop: just like junk DNA, these parts are seemingly meaningless, but not random. They can't be copied from an original because the new thumbnail, with a different size than the original, offsets everything that follows, which usually breaks unwritten rules...

It is much easier to pretend that the original JPEG is lost, and only copies stored on flickr or ATS media remain.

To me, *that* is the ETH's biggest problem. A real alien visit will involve much more than a compelling 'undebunkable' image. Indeed, the images will just be the icing on the cake...

Sure.

[Buckwild]

Hi Chrlz,

Not all tools are made available to the public, this is probably why Micah Kimo Johnson have big names (magazines, etc..) sending him material before they buy it. Some photos do cost a lot of money and if his software was known, it would or could be useless ! You sure raised a valid point but not all hoaxers are that good. That's (more than) probably why people like Jaime Maussan never want to give away original vids & pics when asked (I did in the past)

And I've gotta say, even if you came up with the most perfect, most high res, most credible, most believable image ever... If there was only one of them and it was not repeated - what's the point? One visitation, no other evidence, and never repeated? Why then would it be important, in the grand scheme of things?

To me, *that* is the ETH's biggest problem. A real alien visit will involve much more than a compelling 'undebunkable' image. Indeed, the images will just be the icing on the cake...

So, I'll patiently wait. Not holding my breath. And I think the only thing more exciting and interesting than the thought that we are not alone, is the possibility that we are..

You are partially right, one event is not enough but so are multiple similar events (if it's only optical data). Scot Stride well defined what would constitute proof of alien technology/observable manifestations in his papers. Personaly, I have a very different strategy/approach than most if not all ufologists. I "apply" a "filter", in other words, I only use material (video-captures) that comes from astronomers and guess what ? That way I found, what I estimate, based on different criterias, what imo (& to my knowledge) constitutes the best UFO video ever. Nablator and I worked on it in the past but I do not release it because it still is under study and for other personal & strategical reasons. (no profit involved or fame) One of the strategical reasons is that I am looking for a similar object with similar intrinsec characteristics (general aspect, flight envelope, aerodynamic considerations & profile, behavior, etc...)

If I posted the video with the work that has been done on it, well, chances are that people (hoaxers) might not only realize that they could duplicate it but also, that a "good" ufo video should have the same characteristics. Since I do not want that to happen, I'll keep it under "secrecy".

The video-capture is interesting in many ways (non-exhaustiv list). First, the person who filmed (his system) it, is an astronomer who could careless about it. If it was made with the help of a 3d artist, it sure would have been a very smart one. Why ? Because some features are not noticeable, unless you perform an in-depht analysis. Not only that, but at first sight, it (kind of) looks like something that can be explained. The more you analyze it, the less it becomes identifiable, it is inversely proportional in that sense. Most people (a few) who have seen it, do not even realize why the video is so interesting, even big names in the "ufo microcosm" like V.J.B.Olmos. (what a paradox !*) On the other hand, astronomers who have seen it and who use motion detection optical systems find it interesting and unidentifiable. Like I said, you've gotta be damn smart to anticipate/predict all that and at the same time, take a chance that the video will go/stay unnoticed. Well, I could talk about it for hours, since so many features are just unexplainable by any known natural or artificial phenomenas and/or technology.

* Not even, I noticed that ufo aficionados & "experts" are the worst at spotting & understanding what an interesting video is, don't ask me why. Maybe it is because, they expect ufos to look and behave one way or another ?? Some sort of ufological/cultural bias & a priori

I stated too many things already...

Now, what would constitude evidence of alien technology ? This is a very complicated subject, I suggest you to use google and search for Scot Stride's work & strategy proposals or listen to the Space Show for a start :
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=359

You might wonder why I search/collect video-captures if I know all that ? Well, I partially explained it in the UAP/Italy projet thread.

The thing is, I know I am not wasting my time and there is a reason why, I've seen UFOs. So I do not need to be convinced by anything or anyone. I don't believe, I just know, I know what features to look for (specialy in the flight behavior). Are ETs visiting/monitoring us ? That I do not know...but if this is true, then it's implications are just unmeasurable imo.

Could I be wrong about my own observation and my goal ? I could, I know it, but I am taking a chance, because with my strategy and futur project, I might contribute at my own level to other fields of research and that's better than any counter-arguments.

Cheers,
Buck

[nablator]

Nablator and I worked on it in the past but I do not release it because it still is under study and for other personal & strategical reasons. (no profit involved or fame) One of the strategical reasons is that I am looking for a similar object with similar intrinsec characteristics (general aspect, flight envelope, aerodynamic considerations & profile, behavior, etc...)

As chrLz said, corroboration and credibility are everything. Multiple sources are needed. It doesn't matter if you study witness testimony or instruments recordings, they can all be faked or wrongly interpreted, and we know many examples of both.

The thing is, I know I am not wasting my time and there is a reason why, I've seen UFOs. So I do not need to be convinced by anything or anyone. I don't believe, I just know, I know what features to look for (specialy in the flight behavior).

"UFOs are real"... so what? I've seen a light in the sky (much like your "red satellite"), and it never even occurred to me to think that it could be something extraordinary. Maybe it was. On the other hand I've seen one UFO that convinced me thoroughly that it couldn't be anything prosaic. I was wrong about this one... Perceived anomalies are just anomalies. Self-deluded ufologists manage to convince themselves that they must be significant. I'm not saying that they aren't, but without independent corroboration, and validation by other means, perceived anomalies are interesting but ultimately mean nothing.

[chrLz]

First, may I say it's such a pleasure to have these discussions with people such as your good selves! If you are wondering why I say that, I've just signed off on my last post at ATS, having finally had enough of the ignorance...

In essence i agree with all that you guys have added, but to add a bit more...

To Nab..

Resizing a JPEG image helps hide the most obvious effects of tampering, but there might still be clues left if the quality is not too bad. To name a few: inconsistencies in sharpening, shadows, colorimetry, digital noise, etc.

True - there are often traces left by clumsy work, and once you get down to below say half original size or less, it's really hard to do any serious analysis at all. And as for Youtube quality.. - useless.

Anyway, given we do get access to a useful original, there is still the very basic question - how difficult is it to manipulate an image in such a way that there are no traces of tampering?

It would require a lot of work. First the modification must be done without leaving any telltale sign, which is hard. Drawing something in Photoshop or copy-pasting CGI is not enough, a specific type of noise must be applied, and since cameras' firmware apply interpolation and sharpening filters they must be matched.

Getting the EXIF and compression parameters right and section and sub-section ordering and flavor (many different ways to encode JPEG) is the easy part. Then comes the bigger challenge of figuring out the encoding rules that the camera uses in parts that are not displayed in JPEGSnoop: just like junk DNA, these parts are seemingly meaningless, but not random. They can't be copied from an original because the new thumbnail, with a different size than the original, offsets everything that follows, which usually breaks unwritten rules...

Again, also true, however, don't forget there are other tricks available to the hoaxer that can make life easier - eg re-photographing an image can give you all the right noise, compression patterns, sharpening, most of the exif data, etc.. (I won't go into further detail on the why's and wherefore's on that technique.. ).

It is much easier to pretend that the original JPEG is lost, and only copies stored on flickr or ATS media remain.

Yes, but I don't think it's the majority of images that will cause a 'problem'. But one really good, knowledgable hoaxster could create quite a 'kerfuffle'.. I actually find it a little surprising that no truly good hoaxer has yet sprung up - the quality of the stories and evidence being provided by the current crop of fakers is just awful. With a lot of knowledge and a bit of cooperation, possibly/probably coordinated across the web, I reckon we are due for a few really big hoax attempts.

To Buckwild:

Not all tools are made available to the public, this is probably why Micah Kimo Johnson have big names (magazines, etc..) sending him material before they buy it.

Fair point, but as Nablator has elaborated, the issues are 'validation' methods are all quite well known - and while there is a degree of complexity in creating a 'perfect' hoax image, it is by no means out of reach of anyone with the desire and motivation. And the number of gullible folk out there - many with wallets - is plenty of motivation!

You sure raised a valid point but not all hoaxers are that good.

Yep, but it will only take a couple of goodun's to do a lot of damage. Having said that, in a way i think it's good - the more and better the hoaxes, the more people realise, once they get busted, that things can be faked very effectively and they become a lot more wary and hopefully look at the evidence surrounding the image instead.

That's (more than) probably why people like Jaime Maussan never want to give away original vids & pics when asked (I did in the past)

It's interesting to note that Jaime is now, in many circles, seen as the kiss of death! (Am I misreading that?) I think the mere fact that money grabbing (expletive)s like him are willing to offer money, and that the creators of the images and videos are seeking it so desperately, largely gives them away. I know if it was me, I would be posting my images freely and inviting the world to examine and interrogate my originals..! (I'd look for endorsements *afterwards!*)

I only use material (video-captures) that comes from astronomers and guess what ? That way I found, what I estimate, based on different criterias, what imo (& to my knowledge) constitutes the best UFO video ever.

Sounds interesting... but...

The video-capture is interesting in many ways (non-exhaustiv list)...

While all that is very intriguing, in a way this is my very point. At the end of the day, what would be the best possible outcome on this footage you have?

That it is unexplainable? That it is somehow proven alien? If the latter, I'm sure you would have that evidence by now! Thing is, I presume this event has not been recorded again, and is a one off? So, as I said above, in the grand scheme of things, what do you really have?

And even if you have several similar pieces of footage, then unless there is something compellingly alien (or whatever) about each of them.. well, all you have is several similar unexplained things, even if they are beautifully captured...

The thing is, I know I am not wasting my time and there is a reason why, I've seen UFOs. So I do not need to be convinced by anything or anyone. I don't believe, I just know, I know what features to look for (specialy in the flight behavior).

I don't quite get this - how can you 'know' what features to look for? Do you just mean "impossible with our known technology"? After all, a ufo is just an unidentified flying object - I've seen plenty of them too, but none that *now* make me think that we have been et-visited, or that my world view of aerodynamic possibilities is completely wrong. And while I wouldn't currently call myself an amateur astronomer (once was, but too lazy these days), I spend a lot of time stargazing - it's one of my favorite pastimes. And I've yet to see any convincing footage that is so inexplicable or unexplainable to require alien intervention.. (And the alien hypothesis would not be my first choice for technologies/behavior that was simply unrecognisable.. it's not really a valid hypothesis anyway - it is based on no evidence whatsoever..)

Are ETs visiting/monitoring us ? That I do not know...but if this is true, then it's implications are just unmeasurable imo.

Well, yes, of course the implications would be large... but if all that they cause is a few odd lights in the night sky...? Not really all that interesting imo. If however they even just dropped in for five minutes in a very public way, shared a bit of undeniably alien technology, left a few books or videos about their culture ... now that would have implications...

But if belief in aliens requires that they be sneakin' around in the night sky (with lights on??), infiltrating gov'ts in a way that is effectively undetectable and the like, it just sounds like some tinfoil from those people who desperately want to blame society's woes on anything they can get a handle on, or perhaps dream that alien samaritans will be our salvation (or, in a huge conflagration kill off everyone who has made their life a misery, saving only the 'true of heart', etc..) - well, count me out.

Please note I'm not saying you are in that group, Buck, but I'm looking for something a bit more compelling than a really cool one-off video..

Anyway, it's all good! Keep searching the skies, and I'd love to hear all about your find, when you are ready (if ever).

PS It's a beautifully balmy night here, and I'm about to hop on my little scooter and go for a ride of about 25km to a local beach, on some isolated backroads through sugar cane plantations (and lots of bugs!), well away from lights. I'll have my camera, as usual, but it's all satellites, planets, stars, planes and meteors around here most nights (oh and the 3/4 Moon tonight, of course..)

PPS - I've just checked the weather radar, and there is a big line of storms racing towards me, so I'm puttin' off my night ride, maybe tomorrow. Dang.

[Buckwild]

Hi Nab',

As chrLz said, corroboration and credibility are everything. Multiple sources are needed. It doesn't matter if you study witness testimony or instruments recordings, they can all be faked or wrongly interpreted, and we know many examples of both.

I do not agree with you regarding witnesses. This is how I see it : witnesses = ufology = 60 years of nonsense. We know cases where multiple witnesses were wrong ! This is what Scot Stride said about proof :

Proof is not real-time
A single observation is not good enough
Scientificaly acceptable proof of robotic probe technology will depend on using statistical methods on a large set of data

Nab' : "UFOs are real"... so what? I've seen a light in the sky (much like your "red satellite"), and it never even occurred to me to think that it could be something extraordinary. Maybe it was. On the other hand I've seen one UFO that convinced me thoroughly that it couldn't be anything prosaic. I was wrong about this one... Perceived anomalies are just anomalies. Self-deluded ufologists manage to convince themselves that they must be significant. I'm not saying that they aren't, but without independent corroboration, and validation by other means, perceived anomalies are interesting but ultimately mean nothing.

I agree, perceived aomalies "mean nothing" (ETI wise), that's why I said, that I cannot tell you if ETs are visiting us or not. Actually, you do not even need to see UFOs to be interested in joining SETV/SETA/S3ETI initiatives. The question and motivation comes from Universal knowledge & considerations.

I found an explanation for that red satellite observation, I never talked about UFOs when I reported it :

The first four Lacrosses have a characteristic orange-red hue as a result of the extensive use of gold coloured kapton thermal insulation, as shown in the photo below. Lacrosse 5 is the first that does not have this distinct colour. It is more or less white, which enables the human eye to perceive it as about one magnitude brighter than its predecessors

http://satobs.org/image/lac2.jpg

Source : http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/forum/un-sa ... t6597.html

Translation of the title : A little out of the ordinary satellite ?

But I did see UFOs and you know exactly what I am talking about, because you've read my report. Call it a perceived anomaly if you want because that's also what it is, but I also call it an Unidentifiable as to this day Flying as opposed to being carried by the wind (it was a coordinated flight) Objects as opposed to phenomenas or biologicals (It was a pretty close, multiple objects, daytime, 20 mn long, clear blue skies observation with anomalous/out of the ordinary features and behavior)

I've been trying to rationalize it for the past 13 years and some of the best ufo-skeptics in France don't know what it is neither. I would add that it is one of the most "extraordinary" sighting that I know of (in the ufology litterature)

UFOs are like you said, no big deal (for some), a big deal to get an answer for me. The paradox, is that my own observation made me become (with time because I was a pro-ETH) skeptical and promote methodological skepticism & methodological naturalism. I take the matter very seriously, unlike some other people. Are you going to invest a large amount of money and time to participate in a scientifical initiative or just wait (WETI) and use ufology as a hobby ? I am.

I am a pro-SETV*-Hypothesis**, I admit it, but this is very different than being a pro-ETH, because the hypothesis is not the problem, only the methods & strategy that are used can be a problem...

* The SETV (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Visitation) model is new and an offspring of SETA (artifacts) and SETI. SETV includes the construction of passive and active autonomous data acquisition platforms using
"commercial off-the-shelf" hardware, to collect reliable and unambiguous data on anomalous observational phenomena that may be ETI probes. The SETV hypothesis and experimental methods will be described. The SETV hypothesis can be experimentally tested and attempts to statistically reject a null hypothesis
which states that ETI probes do not exist. SETV Pre and Post-detection protocols are necessary and will be examined. SETV is a timely, results-oriented, method worthy of serious consideration in our continuing
desire to answer the question "Are we alone?"

** : This hypothesis is based on the premise that ETI exists, are technologically mature, sufficiently intelligent to utilize electromagnetic energy, and recognize that certain frequency bands in the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum
can be used to signal or communicate with other intelligences. The underlying assumption is that ETI are (...)

Source : http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/sunsta ... ti-ata.pdf

@ Chrlz : I'll get back to you later tonight (UTC+1) since It might be a long message...


Cheers,
Buck

[elevenaugust]

First, may I say it's such a pleasure to have these discussions with people such as your good selves! If you are wondering why I say that, I've just signed off on my last post at ATS, having finally had enough of the ignorance...

Ditto! Very interesting exchanges here.

However, I find it very damageable for the ufology study that such smart and educated people like you finally resigned ...
Weariness?

Anyway, I asked for some more precisions about Tungstene to his creator, Mr Roger Cozien, here's the first reply I just got:

"Good evening,

Thank you for your interest.

Any person or organization may acquire one or more licenses software. However, I draw your attention to the fact that this acquisition also requires the establishment of comprehensive training on the operation of the software.

The software is regularly updated. The current version is 2.8.

We do not distribute any guide. However, you will find on our website and in the press some papers about our work. Particularly in the numbers 52 and 54 of the magazine MISC.

There is a lighter version called TUNGSTEN EVIDENCE. However, the concept of "grand public" is a misnomer because this is a matter of advanced and specialized technology.

For any other questions, particularly about marketing, we prefer direct contact.

Good evening"

Now, let's find what's all about MISC 52 and 54.

Here's the summary of the n°54:
pp[74-82] PHOTOGRAPHIES NUMÉRIQUES : MANIPULATION DES OPINIONS ET RUPTURE D’ALIGNEMENT SÉMIOTIQUE

Which can be translated in English by:

"Digital Photography: HANDLING OF VIEWS AND BREAKING SEMIOTIC ALIGNMENT"

Some interesting papers about this particular article can be seen HERE (In French, sry chrLz... I'll try to find English-speaking equivalent). Obviously, this paper mention both JPEGSnoop and ELA...

This one is more precise and accurate...

And here's the summary of the n°52:
pp[76-82] Sémiotique opérationnelle : manipulation des opinions et contre-ingérence

"Semiotic operations: manipulating opinions and cons-interference"

Just a beginning....

PS: the MISC site

[chrLz]

First, may I say it's such a pleasure to have these discussions with people such as your good selves! If you are wondering why I say that, I've just signed off on my last post at ATS, having finally had enough of the ignorance...

Ditto! Very interesting exchanges here.

However, I find it very damageable for the ufology study that such smart and educated people like you finally resigned ...
Weariness?

Weariness caused by the absolutely ridiculous 'moderation' that now exists at that site. At ATS, moderation seems to now mean allow the loonies to say what they like and take complete disinterest in creating an environment of actual debate. But I digress, and if i said what I really think..

Oh, and thanks for the compliment (- i see i've fooled another one!.. )

I'll take a look at the software in a bit more detail later, but as i outlined above, there are sneaky ways the hoaxers can wriggle their way beyond most tests.. I'd be most interested to hear the software creator's own opinions about how far they are in front of the hoaxers..

[nablator]

Hi Buck',

I take the matter very seriously, unlike some other people. Are you going to invest a large amount of money and time to participate in a scientifical initiative or just wait (WETI) and use ufology as a hobby ? I am.

Yeah WETI is the optimal strategy. Wait for something interesting to show up while doing serious scientific research (i.e. not ufology). The only way to notice really interesting anomalies is to study and learn more about the universe, not jump to conclusions about what is anomalous a priori and how ETI might be detected based on ignorance.

I am a pro-SETV*-Hypothesis**, I admit it, but this is very different than being a pro-ETH, because the hypothesis is not the problem, only the methods & strategy that are used can be a problem...

So how do you propose to test it? Classify pictures/videos of "anomalous" lights in the sky according to your criteria, and then what? Why is an anomay an evidence of ETI?

BTW we are way off topic, so let's continue in the thread about your methodology proposal that needs a serious overhaul.

[Buckwild]

Hi guys & Chlrz,

I just hate myself, I did not copy my message and I've lost it

I'll make this one much shorter then.

First, may I say it's such a pleasure to have these discussions with people such as your good selves! If you are wondering why I say that, I've just signed off on my last post at ATS, having finally had enough of the ignorance...

Same here

Yes, but I don't think it's the majority of images that will cause a 'problem'. But one really good, knowledgable hoaxster could create quite a 'kerfuffle'.. I actually find it a little surprising that no truly good hoaxer has yet sprung up - the quality of the stories and evidence being provided by the current crop of fakers is just awful. With a lot of knowledge and a bit of cooperation, possibly/probably coordinated across the web, I reckon we are due for a few really big hoax attempts.

I agree and I found a way to make a great ufo video. If you are interested, send me a pm and I'll give you all the details. No 3d involved, so it would be really hard to debunk.

While all that is very intriguing, in a way this is my very point. At the end of the day, what would be the best possible outcome on this footage you have?

Good (hard) question ! Extracting meaningful information from the imagery is the first step (long & tedious process)

There are two main steps involved in this process :

1. Digital Processing (DP)
2. Visual interpretation and Manual Interpretation (VI & MI)

These two steps are complemetary because DP may be used in most cases to enhance data as a prelude to VI & MI. DP and analysis may also be carried out to automatically identify objects/targets and extract information completely without manual intervention by a human interpreter. In order to be able to achieve this, we can modify the settings within the optical capture software. It works like a filter so to speak. However, rarely if not never is digital processing and analysis carried out as a complete replacement for VI & MI. It's only a supplement to assist the human analyst.

What is the purpose of VI & MI ?

It's limited to analyzing only a single channel of data or a single image at a time due to the difficulty in performing visual interpretation with multiple images. (i.e : a video)

This is why these two steps are complementary. Computer environment is more amenable to handle complex images of several or many channels, in this sense, DA is usefull for simultaneous analysis and also because it can process large data sets much faster than VI or MI. Let's not forget that VI and MI are a subjective process, while DP allows you to obtain more consistent results. The hard part is determining the validity and accuracy of the results from DP.

Then it would be stored in an image databank to start with. If another similar event occurs, it would be used as a referential for comparisons. Let's say that two optical systems catch a similar event at the same time and that the data obtained from DP-VI-MI is a good match. We could store this targets in the same category (as a result of their intrinsec characteristics) and say : Hey guys, we''ve got something here ! I did not say ET but something that is either unknown (as a natural phenomena) and/or something that outperform known & actual technology & propulsion systems & aerodynamical constraints.

I don't quite get this - how can you 'know' what features to look for? Do you just mean "impossible with our known technology"? After all, a ufo is just an unidentified flying object - I've seen plenty of them too, but none that *now* make me think that we have been et-visited, or that my world view of aerodynamic possibilities is completely wrong. And while I wouldn't currently call myself an amateur astronomer (once was, but too lazy these days), I spend a lot of time stargazing - it's one of my favorite pastimes. And I've yet to see any convincing footage that is so inexplicable or unexplainable to require alien intervention.. (And the alien hypothesis would not be my first choice for technologies/behavior that was simply unrecognisable.. it's not really a valid hypothesis anyway - it is based on no evidence whatsoever..)

Each observation is different, in my case, I observed special features in the flight characteristics & behavior, plus many other things and one of them is what I would call simultaneous & instantaneous visual disapperance (3 objects) . I won't go into further details (it would take too long) but just like you, I do not think that it proves that we are being visited. It's the emerging questions that are interesting.

Please note I'm not saying you are in that group, Buck, but I'm looking for something a bit more compelling than a really cool one-off video..

You better not, because so I am and I am probably even more skeptical (methodological) than you to start with. (yes sir)

This is why I think that optical data might be usefull to just proove that ufob (i.e : AFR 200-2) exist. It has been done for TLEs with a less rigorous method than the one I exposed, why would it be different for UFOBs ? UFOB is not equal to ETI

Now, when it comes to answering the question "are we alone"...well, it's a "little" more complicated than that and this is why I am interested in the S3ETI initiative.

Cheers,
Buck

[Buckwild]

Yeah WETI is the optimal strategy. Wait for something interesting to show up while doing serious scientific research (i.e. not ufology). The only way to notice really interesting anomalies is to study and learn more about the universe, not jump to conclusions about what is anomalous a priori and how ETI might be detected based on ignorance.

Hi Nab',

I was asking this question to you personnaly.

Replace Wait by Search & Complementary observing programs and replace Ignorance by SETIlike methodology based on multi-data gathering tools and statistics.

Would you say that the SETI (radio) or OSETI (Optical) programs are trying to detect ET signals & observable manifestations based on ignorance ?

BTW we are way off topic, so let's continue in the thread about your methodology proposal that needs a serious overhaul.

You are right.

Cheers,
Buck