Originally posted by Cosmicdjinn
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
You are getting your facts wrong my friend. it's a minimum 33 visitors, and tuition is $995 for a year, which includes 6 trips all over the
Just because someone removes an image does not make it a hoax, it just means that person didn't want that image to keep drawing bad attention.
Has no one seen my analysis images? and EXIF data?
No, I didn't. Ah! Wait...
did you mean these ones?
Image 1 - Standard
Image 2 - Invert
Image 3 - Over-Exposed
Image 4 - RGB-Enhance
Image 5 - Over-Exposed Shadows
Image 6 - Threshold
Image 7 - Mutliple
Image 8 - Multiple and Zoom
Image 9 - Render
Image 10 - EXIF
And according to you these are analysis? If it's a joke, then it's funny, but if it's not, then it's sad to say the least. To me (apart EXIF data
which are correct), they look ALL to be random FILTERS, likely applied by someone who got as gift for his birthday the full photoshop filters fun
Question # 1: what is supposed to be the aim of applying the "invert" filter?
Question # 2: did you know that an over exposure can be applied ONLY straight to the camera and ONLY BEFORE taking the photo? That is a CG EMULATION
of an over exposure, and unfortunately, even IF one would manage to over expose such an image, all he would get would be some even poorer quality
image (as it happened), and anyway the visual result would be jeopardized, period. CG UNDEREXPOSURE can be useful in case of SLIGHTLY overexposed
(from the source) images, the opposite will NEVER work.
Question # 3: what is supposed to be the aim of the so called RGB-Enhance? In the "enhanced" image itself i read (verbatim)
This RGB enhancement alows us to get a better picture over all,. Saturated colors allow us to visualize better what objects are what and what light
they are using.
NO. This caption is quite bizarre, immaginative and fanciful and shows some embarassing lack of knowledge from the guy who made it: THAT RGB
"enhancement" just made more visible the pixels falling between some "x" and some "y" gamma colors, and obscured all the rest, this is what it
did, all the rest is blah blah blah, OK? There's no need to be some rocket scientist to understand that it's yet another jeopardized image. Now
since when one might even just hope to reveal some "hidden" details by ERASING other details and changing (FACT not guess) the color gamma of the
suriving pixels? That's a big mystery to me.
Question # 4:
It's not properly a question: after seeing that you think that shadows can be overexposed artificially, and that it could be somewhow useful, I'd
say that we can put to rest every discussion about overexposure, because it would be just a waste of time.
Question # 5, "Image 6 - Threshold":
Even my cat laughed when he saw it: the question is: do you own a cat? If yes, the try this experiment: show the image to him and film the cat while
he's looking at it: it won't help for the analysis, but you'll have got some YouTube superstar video for sure
Image 7 - Multiple: multiple laughs
Image 8 - Multiple and Zoom: multiple laughs with parsley & boiled potatoes
The quality of the image throws it in the Hoax catagory, thats all. Everyone is basing their conclusion on quality. Where in fact this is a real
image, taken where it was said, and under the conditions itwas explained.
MOST (not everyone) are basing their conclusion on the fact that it has been claimed that it was some extraterrestrial entity while all that we have
is an amorphic bunch of pixels and claims, a whole bunch of claims, nothing else: since the source is a confirmed
, who tried to pass off as some "light interdimentional being" some MOTH
(making you paying a FEE for it), who claimed to "have been briefed by CIA about UFOS" by James Woolsey, whom only fault has to have been so
incautious to share a dinner party with him and a LOT of more sad stories that are available everywhere.
Here's why it's in the forum it belongs to : hoax forum, where people discuss about hoaxes, attention seekers and all those who want to exploit a
REAL phenomenon like UFOs for making money.
As i always say, the biggest fault is the one of those who try still desperately to give to him some credit.
I think you all are too lazy to actually research...your having too much fun disputing.
Maybe you are right (actually i am lazy, but not whenever it comes to research, i spend ALL my time in research): i'm lazy whenever it comes to walk,
to run, to swimm, ectcetera: but brain is not a muscle, it doesn't need any form of practice but THINKING and LEARNING.
Thanks all for proving how intelligent you really are, and how open you are to discover real truth. I know the truth, I don't have to defend this
image, it is just an image. One day I guess you all will wake up and say "holy #$%^" they were right.
If you are wondering why i am being a little bit rude with you, then look for the answer in this statement: you are putting into the basket of
allegedly non-intelligent people some of our BEST members, used to be noticed especially because of their intelligence and for always using reason,
logic and common sense. They all have in common with me their love for this subject matter, and NO ONE can bring into question their intelligence,
least of all some dude who has learned yesterday how to use Photoshop filters and tries to pass it off as image analisys, (which would be an hoax by
Thank you for your post.
[edit on 3/3/2010 by internos]