Fact or faked?

OP
titch2k6

titch2k6

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
99
Reaction score
256
Points
53
Age
49
There are two main issues I have with both sets of pictures.

The second picture, taken in August of 2019, does not accurately define the view in the picture originally taken. Apart from satellite images to back up the fact, and short of going to the location personally, there is nothing to show what is beyond the opening that is viewed in the original.

Secondly, and Debi hit it on the head, there are anomalies in the original picture.

sample1.jpg


There is clearly defined pixelation around the figure and square objects that also have a defined straight edge. These are more obvious when the image is converted to 8-bit:

sample1-1.jpg


Using Fiji, the image can be analyzed and the pixelation can be mapped out to define the square areas around the objects:

sample1-2.jpg


Objects in digital pictures can 'bleed' pixels, but not to the extent we see here, nor in such defined shapes that we see around these objects.

My observations lead me to believe that the figure, and the blocks, are not from the original capture.

But was it faked?

Potentially, there is the possibility. I'm no Paintshop Pro guru by any means, but even I could duplicate something like this. However, I do not know the original poster and therefore I cannot, nor will I, judge them.

I am more prone to either a 'double exposure' on the medium (which can happen even with digital data and we have no idea what else is stored on the phone in photo or video format) or, knowing that this was taken on a mobile phone, digital contamination from another source amongst all the electronics and signals these devices constantly process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paintman

Duke

Open-minded critical thinker
Staff
Joined
May 11, 2018
Messages
6,051
Reaction score
8,977
Points
203
Location
Dayton, OH
UPDATE: Contacted the photographer yesterday via social media to clarify the dates of these pictures, as what was released by the association did not make sense as some of you have picked up on. Someone wants shooting as they have recorded things completely wrong........

The original picture of the uncle fishing was taken in 2013. The photographer went back to the spot in August 2019 during a break in the UK lockdown.

Further information from the photographer - the pictures were taken at Hawstead Fishing lakes, Suffolk. The fishing lakes are out in the middle of nowhere - literally:

View attachment 30729

Talking to the photographer, the approximate spot where the picture was taken is marked on the picture below and there is clearly no statue or buildings around. As this satellite image is from 2020, I have also contacted the owner of the lakes (which was an interesting conversation!), who has confirmed that there have never been any structures or statues on the land around the lakes.

View attachment 30730
Ok, so to clarify:

1) It was a third party ("association") who incorrectly gave the date of the second photo, not the photographer?

2) You said the photographer took the second photo when he "went back to the spot in August 2019 during a break in the UK lockdown." This would appear to be a disconnect since there was no COVID issues in 2019. So was the second photo taken in 2019 or 2020?

3) Any idea how long the property owner you spoke with has owned the property? Did he own it in 2013? Is that property owner related or otherwise affiliated with the photographer and/or the fisherman uncle?

4) I'm confused about the yellow "x" in the satellite photo. The distance from the photographer to the fisherman (taken from the fisherman's left) in the original photo doesn't look to be that great. If the x is correct, the photographer seems to have been standing, facing to the right of the x, looking/photographing the clearing to the ENE of the x. Per the satellite photo, the distance from the fisherman/photographer relative to the lake looks a long way to cast fishing lines, especially through trees. Even allowing for several years tree growth from the original photo to the satellite image, that would appear to be an unlikely position from which to cast/fish. Could the position of the x be in error?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lynne and Paintman

Duke

Open-minded critical thinker
Staff
Joined
May 11, 2018
Messages
6,051
Reaction score
8,977
Points
203
Location
Dayton, OH
4) I'm confused about the yellow "x" in the satellite photo. The distance from the photographer to the fisherman (taken from the fisherman's left) in the original photo doesn't look to be that great. If the x is correct, the photographer seems to have been standing, facing to the right of the x, looking/photographing the clearing to the ENE of the x. Per the satellite photo, the distance from the fisherman/photographer relative to the lake looks a long way to cast fishing lines, especially through trees. Even allowing for several years tree growth from the original photo to the satellite image, that would appear to be an unlikely position from which to cast/fish. Could the position of the x be in error?
No need to answer my #4, you addressed that in your response posted (see below) as I was writing my post. We agree the photographer's two photos do not represent the same location/perspective.

"The second picture, taken in August of 2019, does not accurately define the view in the picture originally taken. Apart from satellite images to back up the fact, and short of going to the location personally, there is nothing to show what is beyond the opening that is viewed in the original."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lynne
OP
titch2k6

titch2k6

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
99
Reaction score
256
Points
53
Age
49
Ok, so to clarify:

1) It was a third party ("association") who incorrectly gave the date of the second photo, not the photographer?

2) You said the photographer took the second photo when he "went back to the spot in August 2019 during a break in the UK lockdown." This would appear to be a disconnect since there was no COVID issues in 2019. So was the second photo taken in 2019 or 2020?

3) Any idea how long the property owner you spoke with has owned the property? Did he own it in 2013? Is that property owner related or otherwise affiliated with the photographer and/or the fisherman uncle?

4) I'm confused about the yellow "x" in the satellite photo. The distance from the photographer to the fisherman (taken from the fisherman's left) in the original photo doesn't look to be that great. If the x is correct, the photographer seems to have been standing, facing to the right of the x, looking/photographing the clearing to the ENE of the x. Per the satellite photo, the distance from the fisherman/photographer relative to the lake looks a long way to cast fishing lines, especially through trees. Even allowing for several years tree growth from the original photo to the satellite image, that would appear to be an unlikely position from which to cast/fish. Could the position of the x be in error?
1) Yes it was.

2) Good catch Duke. After reading your comment, I got back in touch with him and it was actually August 2020, he just put the wrong year:

mchat.jpg


3) The property owner has owned the land and run it as a fishery for years. He has no associations with the photographer or the subject. One thing he did mention is that the land has undergone some changes over the years and is different to what it was like back in 2013, but adamant that no buildings or statues were on the site ever.

4) Possibly. As with any remote investigation, I can only go on the information that I am given by the people involved :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Debi and Duke

Duke

Open-minded critical thinker
Staff
Joined
May 11, 2018
Messages
6,051
Reaction score
8,977
Points
203
Location
Dayton, OH
1) Yes it was.

2) Good catch Duke. After reading your comment, I got back in touch with him and it was actually August 2020, he just put the wrong year:

View attachment 30745

3) The property owner has owned the land and run it as a fishery for years. He has no associations with the photographer or the subject. One thing he did mention is that the land has undergone some changes over the years and is different to what it was like back in 2013, but adamant that no buildings or statues on the site ever.

4) Possibly. As with any remote investigation, I can only go on the information that I am given by the people involved :)
Ok, thanks. After reading your take on the photos, we agreed on your main points relative to the time/location of the two photos and the possibility/probability of a double/multiple exposure as I brought up in my initial post. Cool. Great minds.....;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Debi

TexDanm

Truth Seeker
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
909
Reaction score
1,816
Points
133
Age
67
The thing is that while most of us here want to believe we are also probably more jaded than most people in this. This means that we don't take things at face value and try to figure out how hard something would be to fake. We look at the details where most people would just focus on the obvious and then either believe or not believe mostly based on opinion rather than analysis. This one seemed to have more questions than most and seemed to me to be pretty easy to duplicate. I'm not saying that it is faked, rather it would be awful easy to fake and that makes it hard to feel sold on. With the sophistication of cameras, even the ones built into phones, these days I am always a little skeptical about fuzzy indistinct pictures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lynne and Debi

Lynne

Art Bell fan
Tier-1 Mod
Joined
Oct 4, 2015
Messages
73,585
Reaction score
40,335
Points
223
Age
60
Location
Michigan
I just got to this post. What a fun exercise. You all are so smart about this stuff. We can all agree that this may well be a fake or an accidental overexposure however what if it was real. Wouldn’t that be creepy !!!