Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Any explanation will do


Whoopdeedoo

Recommended Posts

The only thing I did was make the photo (which I took myself) smaller by resizing, to fit the site's size criteria. I just take photos and am not able to or interested in editing beyond making too large photos (473kb) into smaller, uploadable ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, OPS said:

Hello Whoopdeedoo,

Can you specify if this image has been edited?  Where did you get this photo from?  Did you take it yourself?

According to my software, this picture has been edited.. See below:

 

*** Searching Compression Signatures ***

  Signature:           0182408A81A4ABF04D4A34A8A5E98C58
  Signature (Rotated): 012D821C6AB210E2A753BE053B8F55D0
  File Offset:         0 bytes
  Chroma subsampling:  2x2
  EXIF Make/Model:     NONE
  EXIF Makernotes:     NONE
  EXIF Software:       NONE

  Searching Compression Signatures: (3347 built-in, 0 user(*) )

          EXIF.Make / Software        EXIF.Model                            Quality           Subsamp Match?
          -------------------------   -----------------------------------   ----------------  --------------
     CAM:[SONY                     ] [CYBERSHOT U         ]         [                         ]   Yes              
     SW :[Adobe Photoshop 7.0      ]                                       [Save As 07      ]                  
     SW :[Apple Quicktime              ]                                       [0466-0467       ]                  
     SW :[Digital Photo Professiona]                                       [05                    ]                  
     SW :[IJG Library                       ]                                       [075                  ]                  
     SW :[MS Paint                          ]                                       [                        ]                  
     SW :[MS Visio                          ]                                       [                        ]                  
     SW :[ZoomBrowser EX            ]                                       [low                  ]                  

    The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
     SW :[GIMP                                  ]                                       [075             ]                  
     SW :[IrfanView                            ]                                       [075             ]                  
     SW :[idImager                             ]                                       [075             ]                  
     SW :[FastStone Image Viewer   ]                                       [075             ]                  
     SW :[NeatImage                         ]                                       [075             ]                  
     SW :[Paint.NET                          ]                                       [075             ]                  
     SW :[Photomatix                        ]                                       [075             ]                  
     SW :[XnView                              ]                                       [075             ]                  

  NOTE: JFIF COMMENT field is known software
  Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata:

  ASSESSMENT: Class 1 - Image is processed/edited
 

As the originally posted image had no metadata attached, I'm guessing you used software that makes guesses about the metadata/post-processing from the image's characteristics.. The OP has already said it was resized, so pretty much all bets are off if he is unwilling to post the original and it seems that is the case. Even posting images here involves them getting re-processed/compressed.  FTR, I'm gunna take a wild guess that you used Jpegsnoop, which has these sort of provisos about its use:

Quote

JPEGsnoop can be used with reasonable confidence in identifying "processed" images, but what can we draw from the tool's assessment that an "Image has a high probability of being original"? ... only that the JPEG compression "signatures" and certain metadata elements match those expected from the indicated camera model(s)....  Is this sufficient information to prove that an image is "original"? In a word, no.

Important Note: For this, and related reasons, the tool should not be used as direct evidence for legal investigations!

 

The pic in the OP had no metadata whatsoever.  So unless we see the original...

Edited by ChrLzs
why does this silly editor keep adding lines to quotes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all too complicated for me.  I guess it was fun uploading an interesting photo at the time.  But the scrutiny and stuff beyond my limited capabilities.  I hope everyone has fun with their real ghosts and goblins. Out a here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Almighty Evan said:

I can still hear Archie Bunker saying it.

So, that's who I remember saying it in a certain way. Thanks for clarifying my memory! :D:tu: 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.