Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Excellent! If you don't mind my asking, which analysis was yours, and could you explain what you did and which image you used? Please feel free to retain your anonymity if you choose, I'm really interested in the techniques used more than the identity of the person who did the work![]()
That way, others can repeat your work, and repeatable testing showing the same results... well I'd call that Scientific Analysis indeed![]()
The Rense article I wrote is this one.
Rense Article
I didn't have anything new other than the image adjustments I'd made, so I just put together a short commentary to jaz it up a bit. I was pretty excited by my discovery and eager to share what I had found.
I got a copy of the photo that made the cover of the newspaper. It was supposed to have been taken from the original negative. It had been posted in one of the stories on Rense. The photo I used is at the top of my article.
Since the image is in black and white the only real adjustment that could make a difference is brightness and contrast.
I used Adobe Photoshop to make the adjustments. The tool I used is called the Levels tool. You can access it by choosing from the drop down menu Image / Adjustments / Levels or you can use the keyboard shortcut Ctrl+L. Unfortunately, I can't give you the numbers I ended up with. When you open an image again everything goes back to default.
Using the levels tool I adjusted the brightness and contrast in the photo so that the mid tones were brought out. I lowered the brightness and balanced the light in the image to bring more detail into focus. There are three controls for what the control calls the Input. As I remember I brought the two outside ones closer together and adjusted the middle one until the image was clearer.
It was several years ago when I worked on the image. As I recall I made quite a few attempts at getting it right and finally lucked out by getting one that was clearer than the rest.
I also inverted the image which seemed to make the shape more distinct.
I agree, repeatability is a good method of proving something. I welcome others to see for themselves that the original photo can be adjusted to match my adjustments. Even if you don't have access to Photoshop you can use another image editor to get enough of a result to see that my image's content isn't changed other than the contrast.


