It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WarminIndy
Do you have a hard time believing this is a natural formation?
taobabe.files.wordpress.com...
originally posted by: MysterX
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WarminIndy
Do you have a hard time believing this is a natural formation?
taobabe.files.wordpress.com...
There are those that believe the Earth, the entire planet, and all other astronomical bodies are in fact, segments of a larger life form, or rather a life force..in which case, if they are on the right track at least...there are NO natural formations, all is deliberately lain out before us, using natural materials to form these odd looking unnatural features.
Depends on your point of view in more ways that one i suppose.
originally posted by: jaffo
originally posted by: MysterX
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WarminIndy
Do you have a hard time believing this is a natural formation?
taobabe.files.wordpress.com...
There are those that believe the Earth, the entire planet, and all other astronomical bodies are in fact, segments of a larger life form, or rather a life force..in which case, if they are on the right track at least...there are NO natural formations, all is deliberately lain out before us, using natural materials to form these odd looking unnatural features.
Depends on your point of view in more ways that one i suppose.
So. . . the face of Jeebus in a piece of toast is put there by the universe?!
originally posted by: jaffo
Because it's "enhanced" and shows features which are not there. I really wanted the Face to be there, but it's not.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
originally posted by: jaffo
Because it's "enhanced" and shows features which are not there. I really wanted the Face to be there, but it's not.
Features are there, that's why you see them.
You see a face because of the the features, right? So therefore you see a face.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
Now we are left with interpretation. And that's what science is all about, interpretation of facts.
FACT: There are features that look like a face.
FACT: By applying filters to said image, the face is more obvious.
FACT: I published said scientific method.
FACT: I published it for peer review.
originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: WarminIndy
ok - can we have the workflow path that created this " enhanced " image ?
because - to be blunt - most " enhanced " images that get posted up here - are run through filter after filter - saving only the edits that show what the " enhancer " wants to see and undoing any changes that dont .
i suspect that this is your MO too .
which means that your " results " are utter twaddle
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2
A HUMAN face... with a terrestrial "crown".
originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
Regardless if the theory presenter is right or wrong, someone else picks up a nugget and creates a massive breakthrough -
How would someone thinking they see something that doesn't actually exist lead to any sort of "massive breakthrough" in anything?
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: draknoir2
Did you not even read my post?
I said "Peer reviewed" because my post was reviewed by my peers of ATS.
I said "published' because it is indeed published as intellectual property on ATS.
I said "scientific method" because that is what I used.
Whether or not you agree, the fact is I have said nothing out of the way, ATS is my medium of publication and it was reviewed by my peers on ATS.
You can disagree all you want, scientific method relies on interpretation of facts. I offered all that is required. Now you can stop the accusation of hoaxing because I have shown what steps were taken. And if you had read my posts you would know that I said that I had wanted to debunk it.
Everybody now has access to replicate it by that same method.
originally posted by: jaffo
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: draknoir2
Did you not even read my post?
I said "Peer reviewed" because my post was reviewed by my peers of ATS.
I said "published' because it is indeed published as intellectual property on ATS.
I said "scientific method" because that is what I used.
Whether or not you agree, the fact is I have said nothing out of the way, ATS is my medium of publication and it was reviewed by my peers on ATS.
You can disagree all you want, scientific method relies on interpretation of facts. I offered all that is required. Now you can stop the accusation of hoaxing because I have shown what steps were taken. And if you had read my posts you would know that I said that I had wanted to debunk it.
Everybody now has access to replicate it by that same method.
"Peer reviewed." You keep using that word. . . I do not think it means what you think it means. For example, if I write a paper stating that magic elves build my shoes and include grainy manipulated pictures of said elves and then pass that around to my friends, or "peers," it does not mean that my paper has been "peer reviewed." I'm just saying.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
originally posted by: jaffo
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: draknoir2
Did you not even read my post?
I said "Peer reviewed" because my post was reviewed by my peers of ATS.
I said "published' because it is indeed published as intellectual property on ATS.
I said "scientific method" because that is what I used.
Whether or not you agree, the fact is I have said nothing out of the way, ATS is my medium of publication and it was reviewed by my peers on ATS.
You can disagree all you want, scientific method relies on interpretation of facts. I offered all that is required. Now you can stop the accusation of hoaxing because I have shown what steps were taken. And if you had read my posts you would know that I said that I had wanted to debunk it.
Everybody now has access to replicate it by that same method.
"Peer reviewed." You keep using that word. . . I do not think it means what you think it means. For example, if I write a paper stating that magic elves build my shoes and include grainy manipulated pictures of said elves and then pass that around to my friends, or "peers," it does not mean that my paper has been "peer reviewed." I'm just saying.
May I say again...
Scientific method was used. ANYONE can use scientific method. I think you prefer the Establishment to tell you that you can't think or investigate anything on your own?
originally posted by: draknoir2
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2
A HUMAN face... with a terrestrial "crown".
And after applying my published and peer reviewed scientific filtration method we get this:
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: draknoir2
Did you not even read my post?
I said "Peer reviewed" because my post was reviewed by my peers of ATS.
I said "published' because it is indeed published as intellectual property on ATS.
I said "scientific method" because that is what I used.
Whether or not you agree, the fact is I have said nothing out of the way, ATS is my medium of publication and it was reviewed by my peers on ATS.