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.

 

Any way to reverse 'photoshopping' to expose the real pics?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
When I see what seems to be a cover-up job by major organizations and the like, I want to know what the images (laying below the 'grey smudges') are REALLY like, as well as every other like-minded person around.

****

I had a mini conversation with another member last night, and had asked this person if there was some way that we can 'reverse' (get rid of) the grey blotches that cover up what seems to be artificle structures?

The other member said, "Unfortunately No."

I made a comment (paraphrasing):

"Kinda reminds me of this one particular technique used by guv officials in the Roswell incident regarding disclosure papers. When the public had asked for the official papers pertaining to all the ET's, crafts, etc., we received all this blacked out crap; as if all the papers were copied, then all the info was blackened out with a (marker?) then copied again for public dispersial."

In many cases, it was just a bunch of blackend out pages they were handing out. What good is that? Pfft....

There would be no way for the public to find out what is under all that black 'editing' unless one had the original documents.

****

Getting back to my topic. Is this the same type of scenerio in regards to all these greyed-out, photoshopped pics that we see from Mars, the Moon, etc?

If there is NOTHING of consequence to view in the pics that are provided by Nasa or the European Space Agency, et al, then why go through all the trouble to do these things?

Aside from hacking into a site or getting whistle-blowers to come forward with tangible evidence, is there any way that the 'codes' of these greyed out pics can be 'reversed engineered' or something?

I think this is valid question to ask.

~Ducky~




posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I personally would love to see something that would do this. A program that could detect the changes, and then "un-write" them. I haven't heard of anything like that, and I'm sure that if there were such, people like internos and mikeSignh would already have it.

But it is on my Christmas wish list.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Due to the way that most "photoshops" are saved (jpg), it uses a lossy technique removing the original data, in the case that you referred to if my memory serves me right, it was due to finding the differences in the shades of "blackness" and then extracting the original writing that way.

However there are techniques for gaining back some data or inferring such data. I have a nice piece of software (IRIS) that I use on a regular basis to refocus pictures, it is also possible to remove repeating patterns such as meshing or scanlines from photos. I am not a "professional" shopper but I have won my fair amount of award for some.

It is always preferable to gain access to the original media, take for example the letters sent to you containing your PIN for your new credit card, it has been shown (and you can test this yourself) that you can read the PIN through the obscuring panel if you get the light shining off it at just the right angle.

It is hard to say a definite no or yes, because of circumstances on one photo may not be the same for another. So take each one as it comes and see what the experts here can do


Hope that helps!



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   
First of all I'm not trying to discredit all footage or obvious blurred out objects. This just addresses the geometrical shapes/civilization/compression errors that are often used as evidence.

I was looking at another thread about supposed evidence of a civilization on mars and found that it was very easy to "remove" that civilization from the planet.

This was the evidence:



Notice the geomtetrical shapes in the bottom left.

Now, when I open the image in photoshop, and change the hue by just 10(+), all of those geometric shapes dissapear:



The same effect does ofcourse not happen when tested on a known populated location.

Without hue:


With hue:



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


Exactly! That, and those Smart Goggles.

There has to be somekind of software out there, that can detect these 'codes' and delete them without harming the original data.

I'm saying 'codes' for lack of better terminology. Can the codes be that intricately imbedded?

~Ducky~



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   
The geometric shapes your seeing there is a classic example of compression.

As for changing the hue, and why it changes the look of the compression artifacts is due to the way most compression tecniques work, which is to compress the Blue layer of the, RGB (Red Green Blue) hues, the most. By removing the Blue layer completely you can generally sharpen up most images (although it will effect the colour)



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by freakyclown
 



It is always preferable to gain access to the original media, take for example the letters sent to you containing your PIN for your new credit card, it has been shown (and you can test this yourself) that you can read the PIN through the obscuring panel if you get the light shining off it at just the right angle.


I have to try that one. Holy Moly.

I love solving puzzles. Ok here's one for ya:

Years ago, I had the privelage of discussing a few things with an off-duty cop. It was around the time when people wern't privy to DVD players and most people had respectable VCR's. This cop told me that alot of thieves involved with identity theft, had found out an ingenious way to 'scan' stolen ATM bank cards and find out the PIN numbers.

The 'magnetic strip' on the back of these cards contained the owner's info, and when one could take the top of some VCR's and 'run the magnetic strip of the ATM cards along 'something' in the machine, the info was splayed on the TV screen. Including the customer's PIN number. nasty eh?

It's probably old school info to a lot of those reading this right now; mabey it's true, mabey it's not - I personally never tried it.

What I'm getting at, is the fact that there are people out there that try the most amasing things to solve problems. lolol gotta give them credit.

I would suppose if anyone DOES have the right equipment to get rid of these photoshop codes, they might be a bit hessitant to present the evidence in here. BUT....if someone does get the nerve to post them, they should take every opportunity to do so in my opinion. Spread the word!

I don't think our minds should be made up with what we can or cannot see when it comes to these greyed-out pics that COULD hold the keys to many answers we've been asking for ages. "Are we alone?"

When we recieve pics from Nasa or whomever, and get a lot of photcrapping, it's like someone is handing us a menu in the restaurant, and telling us we can look, but you can't eat.

~Ducky~



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by freakyclown
 


I know what you're referring to, but I'm talking strictly about the greyed out ones. Not pixilations.

I bombed out on my other thread concerning this issue already.

I'm bringing this thread to the table right now.

~Ducky~



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
OK lets first deal with the whole PIN and vcr thing.....utter tosh...its impossible for data on a mag stripe to be displayed on a TV - period.

As for reading the data you can make a magstripe reader using an old walkman or tape deck, but not a vcr! (didnt we all do this at some point in our youth) or you can buy one (fairly expensive - we have one here at work) which can read any data off a mag stripe including a credit card (we use our for reverse engineering of security access cards).

So now thats laid to rest, lets consider the lilly......er...greyed out images.

Can you give me an example of what you mean?



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Huh.....a fugitive wanted for child abuse was recently identified by a European agency that successfully "unswirled" his image on an Internet site. It had been intentionally twisted in order to mask his identity...but they had some software that straightened things out enough to make an ID.

There's that at least.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Lol yes i remember that, he had basically posted a picture using a standard filter that whirls an image around a point, reversing the while basically undid it.

Its technically the same as rotating a picture to the left....then rotating it right.
Not exactly a trivial thing to do as they had to work out the exact center of the whirl and then find the best settings to "unwhirl" it.

*edited to add pic*
docs.gimp.org...


[edit on 17-3-2008 by freakyclown]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I think there is a software package out there that does this...if not all those nasty people out there with there pictures obscured on the net wouldn't be caught....

like the guy who has just been caught in the east and they undid the photoshop editing to catcth the sicko....

Im probably wrong but its a long shot



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Adobe is actually working on software that can detect when the clone brush has been used and prob other things, I dont know when they plan to release it but it already exists in their labs.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
It is already possible to detect if a clone brush is used in a picture by an amature or semi-professional by looking for the tell-tale signs of "combing"

Take for example this well known faked picture,
Check out where the word "fake" appears and you will see the repeating pattern that screams out its been cloned
i50.photobucket.com...



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Sometimes you can read the "electronically disguised" pictures on TV by squinting and unfocusing your eyes.
The picture you then see is a face you'd probably recognize if you'd seen it before.
Or perhaps saw it later.

It can help to get back from the screen a ways.

Try this, put a picture of a face on a photo program and enlarge it several times over to the point where you can't really tell what it is.
Then, physically move back and the face will become quite clear.

I think this is what was done in some early TV interviews where they used computer technique instead of simply a dark room to disguise an informant or similar.

I think it was a UK documentary on the JFK assassination where they had 'disguised' pictures via computer, but the squint your eyes and unfocus technique made for an easy to see face.


Somewhat along those same lines, a digital photo that's dark can be simply lightened up - similar to an overexposed film picture - and the previously hidden information will come to light.
All the information is there, it just needs to be lightened a touch to enable it to be seen.

Doesn't work with film camera pics.

Simple stuff, granted, but perhaps it will set a more technologically inclined person to thinking about doing a particular thing in a different way so as to obtain information.


I'm wondering too, if some of the digital pic techniques as used on the CSI shows where they can enlarge a photo considerably and then clear it up so a license plate can be read or a person can be recognized is a real thing?
Seems to me there's not enough bits of information to bring up what you want.

Then again, technology advances rapidly.
25 years ago satellites could read license plate numbers and note the brand of cigarettes via the pack which was lying on a table.

We can only guess at what they can do now.
Recognizing a particular person is routinely done from what I understand....

(edited for spelling)

[edit on 17-3-2008 by Desert Dawg]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
OK squinting to see a picture that is blurry is due to the depth of focus, by squinting your eyes you are decreasing the apature of the eye and therefor increasing the depth of focus giving the illusion that the image is becoming clearer.

As for the CSI like image enhancement, thats just entertainment

You correctly said there is not the information there to enlarge, there is a point to which you can infer data that is there, and possibly using some pattern matching could work out a numberplate....but you cant improve on what isn't there!



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
PLEEEEAAASSSEEE STOP IT ALREADY!


There is no cover up by NASA...if they didn't want you to see something in the pictures they take (e.g. artificial structures) they would not just smudge or blur the areas...they'd use techniques like cloning in photoshop.

If they tried to hide something from us on those pictures, WE (and I mean all of us) would never know, cause if they want to hide something they'll do it the right way.

And even IF they tried to hide something on the moon, they wouldn't use photoshop, they have image processing software way cooler than photoshop. They use this software for analysing images and in some cases false color to better show some areas..this is not a secret, NASA says that they do this on a regular basis and it's often noted beneath the pictures description on thier website.

So please stop posting about every single photo that has a glitch or a compression artifact..we'll never push this research forward if we keep on doing this.

As for the pics posted by shroomery, those are also just artifacts. The picture you posted isn't a photo, it's a 3D image (CGI) and a photo has been used as a texture, that's why the compression artifacts don't have straight angles and also cover some mountains. (Which they wouldn't do if those shapes were actually ON mars).

To get back on topic (
), there is no software that could remove those blurs or smudges (assuming they were put there by NASA or ESA) because once you blur the image, the image's information (those 10100010101 etc.) is changed for ever.

cheers!

[edit on 17-3-2008 by redshirt0202]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Some jpg formats actually encode multiple copies of the same image on the same file, the larger main image and a smaller lower resolution, thumbnail sized image. You can alter the entire main image but the thumbnail will stay intact and unaltered. You should then be able to use other tools to extract and enhance the thumbnail, so to answer your question I say it may be possible but only to a certain degree.

Btw, the vcr hack is bogus.
The head assembly of a vcr is round, angled and rotates at 1800 rpm so to get the vcr to read any data from the mag strip you would have to curl and wrap the card around the head assy, and angle it to allow for diagonal swipe. But even if the small thin heads were able to detect any data from the much wider mag strip it would still not be able to produce any video strictly because it is not video data and there are no video sync signals present.
You'd have better luck using the stationary audio head to read data from the card but even this would require more effort to decode the info.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by redshirt0202
 


Aww, c'mon, there is no better imaging software than Photoshop, everyone knows that!


And most of the blatant attempts to alter images were committed long before the modern advances in digital imaging.

When they airbrushed an image, they actually used an airbrush.

And those doing the altering in the 60's and 70's did not anticipate the advances that would take place in the field of digital imaging and the power that would be in the hands of the masses.

But you're right on the other two points:

Digital imaging has become so sophisticated that it'll very difficult if not impossible to determine where a modern image has been "sanitized" for our consumption.

And once the original digital information has been overwritten and published, it's impossible to revert back to the "original" data.

It's just not there anymore.

Edit to add:

Link to a thread that just came up in a parallel vein:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'



[edit on 17-3-2008 by goosdawg]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   


And most of the blatant attempts to alter images were committed long before the modern advances in digital imaging.

When they airbrushed an image, they actually used an airbrush.


Good point! Didn't think of that


But if they had a picture a picture with an alien city, couldn't they have just kept it for themselves or would somebody have noticed?



[edit on 17-3-2008 by redshirt0202]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join