- Joined
- Nov 25, 2020
- Messages
- 959
- Reaction score
- 2,291
- Points
- 133
- Age
- 52
- Location
- Nottinghamshire, UK
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.
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:
Using Fiji, the image can be analyzed and the pixelation can be mapped out to define the square areas around the objects:
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.
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.
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:
Using Fiji, the image can be analyzed and the pixelation can be mapped out to define the square areas around the objects:
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.