UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jan > Jan 30

Re: Research & Digital Images - Tarbell

From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:03:12 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 07:44:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Research & Digital Images - Tarbell

>From: Michael Stimson <Michael001.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:37:49 -0000
>Subject: Research & Digital Images [was: RLMH Site On O'Hare UFO]


>I chimed in because I think that automatically discounting any
>digital imaging is the wrong approach, since digital photography
>is the most accessible means of imaging available to most
>people. It seems very reasonable to me that most modern UFO
>photographs will come from digital cameras and/or mobile phones,
>since that's what most people use. In my view, it's wrong to
>discount something just because it's a digital image or an MP4
>movie. You'd be losing so much potential evidence by taking that


Hi Michael,

Since I was recently outspoken on this topic, let me follow up a

Lets say the government decides that, in the interest of saving
time and expense, all currency will be printed on plain office
paper at 300 dpi using commercial black ink. Shortly thereafter
you are approached by a stranger with a sackful of this new
money, offering to buy your house for twice it's market value.
How are you going to feel about this deal? If you were getting
other comparable offers in the form of gold, would you even
bother to consider accepting the new paper money?

The analogy is a little strained, but as far as their evidence
value, digital images are just about on par with the new money.
In any given instance it may be legitimate, but there is no way
to be confident that it is. There is little comfort in
assurances from graphics gurus who say, "well, _I_ can't find
anything wrong with it", or, "I see absolutely no signs of
editing", etc. At the resolutions and bit-depths typical of
uploads to the internet, undetectable edits are not only
possible, they are straightforward for a knowledgeable hoaxer.

I concede that the situation with analog (film) images differs
only in degree... it can't be proven conclusively that a given
image is not a hoax. But the difference in degree is
substantial, with much greater difficulty for the analog hoaxer
to get past even a cursory examination of the image. With only a
finite amount of time and resources available, I would suggest
considering only offers in "gold". There are some out there.



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com