A good ole Nut's and Bolt's case: Maslin Beach Photos.

[ProblemChild]

Not sure if we ever discused this over at OMF and it might be new to some folks. I wondered with the advances in detecting fraud in photos if these were worth revisiting.

189

190

191

192

Photo's from Ufocasebook.com.

Some backround: http://www.ufocasebook.com/maslinbeach1993.html

A google search will pull up a fair amount of info too.

[Doc]

I remember seeing those short after they were released. I don't recall ever seeing an analysis of them. Thanks for posting them here.

[Marvin]

248

EXIF shows the above was "Shopped" on a Mac back in 2005.

If we had the originals... maybe we determine more about them.

[Doc]

Thanks, Marvin. Let's see if any of the members can get the originals.

[ProblemChild]

248

EXIF shows the above was "Shopped" on a Mac back in 2005.

If we had the originals... maybe we determine more about them.

Hey Marvin good to see you!

The images I posted above were more an introduction than anything else. There are loads of copies on the net and I'm sure most have been manipulated in some way. Shot in 1993 on a cheap 35mm camera I don't think any of our Exif snoopers are going to move us forward any. Although photoshop was around in 1993 the elderly gentleman who took them dosen't seem to have been computer savvy. This along with Carp/Guardian case was one of my early introductions to the subject.

I think the choices are that it is either a suspended model or a large object some distance from the camera. If it's the latter it's a whole other discussion.

I hope that revisiting them here with the expertise and tech we have available we could shed some new light on the case. I'm reluctant to use the term, but this was the "drone" case of the day.

There was a satff member at UFOcasebook, HUBCAP9, who knew the witness personaly but he hasn't posted since Jan 2011. Does anybody have connections over there?

[Marvin]

248

EXIF shows the above was "Shopped" on a Mac back in 2005.

If we had the originals... maybe we determine more about them.





Hey Marvin good to see you!

The images I posted above were more an introduction than anything else.



Great to see you too PC!

You may notice, the photo I posted and checked wasn't from your post... but the only one that appeared to be original, which I could find on short notice.

The photos you posted were stripped of the EXIF data. This photo had the EXIF data.

There is no doubt the photo I posted had been "washed" through Photoshop back in 2005 on a Mac PC. It is not conclusive proof the objects are Photoshopped... but, having the "shopped" tag does not support the image as being original (or untampered with) either. As suggested on Casebook, it could have been a real object tossed into the air and photographed. I reserve judgment until an original image can be found.

M

[ProblemChild]

Hey Marvin,

Yes sorry I didn't notice at first it was a different picture. What I was trying to say is that the orginals were on film so wouldn't have any Exif data. All we have is the images such as they are. The negatives were supposedly examined by Kodak, although I don't have anything to support that, and were declared clean of interference. I'm totally open to an object thrown/ suspended theory but I've always felt it was too complex to be practical. There must be more in these photos that we can pick at?

[Doc]

Now that ProblemChild mentions it, I only ever saw film of this. I'm not sure now if the original was film or still. Is anything known about the camera, its resolution, etc.?

[Marvin]

If the photos were shot on movie film, I would really like to see the film.

If they are 135mm, then that would explain a lot.

Since it appears the negatives (I assume they are 135mm) have been vetted by Kodak, then getting a hold of the highest resolution digital versions of the photos available would be very helpful to do a study.