I'd like to show you a de-blurred HOAX picture of the Clementine Structure...

page: 1
61
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
...which was obtained using a brand new image-processing methodology called Polynomial Texture Mapping (first presented in 2001 in a scientific paper by an Hewlett Packard team headed by Tom Malzbender: Google it).

I joined this forum just a few days ago, because I have realized that this methodoly is actually unknown, even of the self-proclaimed experts in things optical, the kind you find on forums like this one, while it is actually very propably a paradigm change in the way we can now analyze films and pictures of alledged unknown flying craft.

PTM is considered by top scientists now as a major breakthrough in image processing: it was put to use notably to solve the Anthykythera Mechanism mystery (a riddle which had kept archeologists mystified for more than half a century), by bringing out previously undecipherable inscriptions.
It is so powerful as en enhancement technique that it can even bring out original data hidden below posteriously added data. Yeah, that's right...

Just to show you how unconventional this technique is..

I have applied this technique to only two UFO materials: the Kumburgaz UFO clip from Turkey, and the Clementine Structure picture from NASA.

I'd like to show here the results obtained on the Clementine Picture using this technique, as an incitation to objective searchers (whether they be skeptics or "believers" at the present time) to go and use this technique for the analysis of films and pictures.

This is a real game changer, believe me.


here is the original NASA pix I worked with:



[img]
[/img]



And here is the processed image.

This is a raw result, with no manual retouching of the image (no drawing, colouring, contouring, etc) whatsoever




[img]
[/img]



The very good news is that you do not need expensive software to do it. PTM is based on the very simple principle of interpolating varying iterations of the source material, which can be done with any sotware enabling the creation of overlays....
edit on 27-8-2013 by funkster4 because: additional info
edit on 28-8-2013 by SkepticOverlord because: HOAX




posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
What are we supposed to be seeing unblurred aside from more rocks?

What is this "structure" supposed to be, according to theorists, anyway?



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Ahh what a cool technique.

How is it done? Is it a program one downloads or buys?

I know absolutely nothing about stuff like this otherwise I'd be putting it to use on a few pics of Mars esp the Gusev crater region. There are areas there that are blocked out just like the Clementine pic.

So what do you think this is? Do you have any theory as to why this area was blurred?

I can see at the bottom that it looks to be rounded like a wall. I am not saying it's a wall just using it for a visual.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nyiah
What are we supposed to be seeing unblurred aside from more rocks?

What is this "structure" supposed to be, according to theorists, anyway?



...you would be looking, in this case, at rocks forming a very convincing artificial-looking structure, right in the middle of a crater: that is actually quite unusual, I would think...
edit on 27-8-2013 by funkster4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Awesome. I'm looking forward to your's, and other's threads utilizing this trick.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Hmmm...never seen this used in threads I have read before so S&F for adding something new to the mix. While I have no idea what I am looking at, it would seem odd that, unless the blurred object is of some significance, it would be blurred in the first place. That alone makes me a bit skeptical of why it was blurred but without knowing the validity of this type of analysis I will have to research this some to see the validity for myself.

Here is a link:

Polynomial Texture Mapping
edit on 8/27/13 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Well, regardless of what is revealed in the Martian photo... this is apparently some very useful software. So thank you for sharing.
Tell me, would this program allow one to view Photoshopped images as they were prior to being altered?
If this is the case, I can think of many many photos and films which have been brought to the table at ATS, to which this tech may give great insight.

For example, this thread discusses a possibly altered photo of great implications.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 27-8-2013 by ecapsretuo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Ahh what a cool technique.

How is it done? Is it a program one downloads or buys?

I know absolutely nothing about stuff like this otherwise I'd be putting it to use on a few pics of Mars esp the Gusev crater region. There are areas there that are blocked out just like the Clementine pic.

So what do you think this is? Do you have any theory as to why this area was blurred?

I can see at the bottom that it looks to be rounded like a wall. I am not saying it's a wall just using it for a visual.



Hi....

HP actually offers a free dowload of a PTM sofware, but I was not able to make it work (I am not computer friendly). But you are probably more savvy with this things than I am. In any case, i can explain the methodology I use in half a page: I actually derived it independently, and thought I was only compensating for my lack of expertise in image processing by devising this quite simple methodology. I only discovered last month watching a documentary that it was actually just being recognized as a major breakthrough in image processing, The scientific papers on PTM can be hard to read, but what it boils down to is simply that the interpolation of varying iterations of an identical data source (image) actually brings tremendous enhancement, of a kind never thought possible previously.

Now, take any source image, and apply to it any variable settings you choose: light, contrast, contour, sharpness,, etc, just anything. You will have generated then a different interpretation of the original data set.
if you add/blend/multiply/ substract this iteration with the original, you will produce another iteration, containing valid information as pertain to the original set. You can then interpolate it with any of the two previous iterations. Ad infinitum.
What you are actually doing is building a self-fed data loop, which is simply sorting out objective/true data from noise, by mere frequency of manifestation. I was really quite amazed to discover that this was actually a totally novel approach in the field of image processing.

Classic PTM only uses one variable (light) and (for the moment) a limited number of iterations (50). I use all the variables offered by the conventional optical settings, and do not hesitate to use large numbers of iterations, when needed. In 2010, Malzbender actually stated that "the more iterations, the better"

These are the only operational differences between conventional PTM and my methodology



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by funkster4

Originally posted by Nyiah
What are we supposed to be seeing unblurred aside from more rocks?

What is this "structure" supposed to be, according to theorists, anyway?



...you would be looking, in this case, at rocks forming a very convincing artificial-looking structure, right in the middle of a crater: that is actually quite unusual, I would think...
edit on 27-8-2013 by funkster4 because: (no reason given)


I hope he would, as I sure am not.

Also, test it again OP. Use a random image of any known obscured nothing. Let it make things appear.

You cannot introduce missing information from nothing. If you get anything, you get random inclusion.

Other wise, tell me the next number in this sequence.

1, 5, 999, 2.

-- eta

If you are working with a natural gradient, of any sort, then you will get what coul dbe a representation of that missing part. Sure.

you're saying here that there is an artificial inclusion where nothing exists.

I cannot accept that as there is NO indication of anything artificial there. You're basically interpolating data into low quality images and saying that the added data, as it appears uniform, is real.

eta 2--


A series of images is captured in a darkened room with the camera in a fixed position and the object lit from different angles. These images are then processed and combined to enable a virtual light source to be controlled by the user inspecting the object.[1] The virtual light source may be manipulated to simulate light from different angles and of different intensity or wavelengths to illuminate the surface of artefacts and reveal details


Does no one else see the issue here with not following the proper procedure, and altering the lighting artificially of the image?

If a single image with a single angle of lighting were sufficient then this techinque would not require such methodology. As it relies on it, the premise here to reveal obfuscated infrastructure on other planets, is simply not valid.

edit on 27-8-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mugen
Awesome. I'm looking forward to your's, and other's threads utilizing this trick.



Hi..

I posted some results obtained with this technique on frames from the notorious Turkey Clip, in a thread that mentions Dr leir in the title. You might want to check them out...



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ecapsretuo
Well, regardless of what is revealed in the Martian photo... this is apparently some very useful software. So thank you for sharing.
Tell me, would this program allow one to view Photoshopped images as they were prior to being altered?
If this is the case, I can think of many many photos and films which have been brought to the table at ATS, to which this tech may give great insight.

For example, this thread discusses a possibly altered photo of great implications.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 27-8-2013 by ecapsretuo because: (no reason given)


Hi...

This is not a software actually,: it is just a methodology (quite simple actually), described above .

Could the process be able to detect 21st century forgeries? I don't know; The process is able to retrieve and enhance very weak signals present in the data set being explored. That is why we can now see what was previously hidden underneath the smudge in the Clementine Picture: the original information was still present, only obscured.
I don't know how PhotoShop trickery operates:

-if the original data is destroyed/removed, it will not be retrievable
-if it is still present, it might be retrieved in some form
-in case of suppression and replacement of data, it might be possible to detect evidence of the inclusion of extraneous data, notably by analyzing patterns boundaries

In any case, I can tell you that the original material I worked with, absolutely not related to the UFO case, established also that forgeries in films and pictures taken in the 60s could be not only detected, but cleaned up to reveal the objective information/images actually recorded.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by funkster4

Originally posted by Nyiah
What are we supposed to be seeing unblurred aside from more rocks?

What is this "structure" supposed to be, according to theorists, anyway?



...you would be looking, in this case, at rocks forming a very convincing artificial-looking structure, right in the middle of a crater: that is actually quite unusual, I would think...
edit on 27-8-2013 by funkster4 because: (no reason given)


I hope he would, as I sure am not.

Also, test it again OP. Use a random image of any known obscured nothing. Let it make things appear.

You cannot introduce missing information from nothing. If you get anything, you get random inclusion.

Other wise, tell me the next number in this sequence.

1, 5, 999, 2.

-- eta

If you are working with a natural gradient, of any sort, then you will get what coul dbe a representation of that missing part. Sure.

you're saying here that there is an artificial inclusion where nothing exists.

I cannot accept that as there is NO indication of anything artificial there. You're basically interpolating data into low quality images and saying that the added data, as it appears uniform, is real.

eta 2--


A series of images is captured in a darkened room with the camera in a fixed position and the object lit from different angles. These images are then processed and combined to enable a virtual light source to be controlled by the user inspecting the object.[1] The virtual light source may be manipulated to simulate light from different angles and of different intensity or wavelengths to illuminate the surface of artefacts and reveal details


Does no one else see the issue here with not following the proper procedure, and altering the lighting artificially of the image?

If a single image with a single angle of lighting were sufficient then this techinque would not require such methodology. As it relies on it, the premise here to reveal obfuscated infrastructure on other planets, is simply not valid.

edit on 27-8-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)






Hi...

"You cannot introduce missing information from nothing. If you get anything, you get random inclusion."

I post below an excerpt from the presentation of PTM, which shows how data unvisible in two varying iterations ("a" and "c") actually manifest itself clearly, nonetheless, in interpolation "b".

Use details of the throat in "b" to verify this....

The data does not come out from "nothing". it is actually present in iteration "a", but hidden below the shadow.
The process reveals it because the "new" data ("c") agregates itself coherently with the "old" data ("a")






I explained on purpose the differences between classic PTM and the process I use, so that it would be easier for critics to state clearly which of the differences might be defective.

Let me say it again: conventional PTM use only one single variable (light direction) to generate its data base; I use the conventional optical settings to generate mine.
This means I use more variables to create my database. Now I will argue, from experience, that the more varied/the larger the datatabase, the more likely you are to reduce uncertainty/unkowns within a finite data set.

Critics might want to dispute this point...

edit on 27-8-2013 by funkster4 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-8-2013 by funkster4 because: additional info



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   
While interpolation of data is a great technique in the course of trying to fill in information when data has been lost or corrupted, but to proving whether an object is being obfuscated it would be missing the point. It also might prove more contentious in dis-proving alien artifacts as the data is reconstructed artificially and may create a more artificial looking image.
edit on 27-8-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by abeverage
While interpolation of data is a great technique in the course of trying to fill in information when data has been lost or corrupted, but to proving whether an object is being obfuscated it would be missing the point. It also might prove more contentious in dis-proving alien artifacts as the data is reconstructed artificially and may create a more artificial looking image.
edit on 27-8-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)


Hi...

No, the data is not reconstructed artificially. It comes out simply from the agregation of weak signals (pertaining to true/objective data) contained in the two sources pictures. The details on the statue's throat are not created out of thin air. It is simply the result of the interpolation of data sets "a" and "c" that makes them visible in "b".

There is no creation of data here, simply a refining of the available information.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by funkster4
 


This procedure/software is commonly used in bringing out details in astronomical images, comets, distant galaxies, etc. It is respectable.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by funkster4
 


This procedure/software is commonly used in bringing out details in astronomical images, comets, distant galaxies, etc. It is respectable.


..thanks...


I was beginning to feel a bit lonely here....



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by funkster4
 


What you're doing is not polynomial texture mapping so stopping using that to give credibility to your images.

The difference is that in the picture of the statue, B is a combination of A + C.

In your pictures you only have A, a single frame. You can't just alter the image and then use that to create new details, such as aliens and moon bases.

edit on 27-8-2013 by freelance_zenarchist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by funkster4
 


What you're doing is not polynomial texture mapping so stopping using that to give credibility to your images.

The difference is that in the picture of the statue, B is a combination of A + C.

In your pictures you only have A, a single frame. You can't just alter the image and then use that to create new details, such as aliens and moon bases.

edit on 27-8-2013 by freelance_zenarchist because: (no reason given)



Hi...

I think you missed it: I derive iterations/interpretations from a source material, and then interpolate the results.
Maybe you've missed the part in the HP presentation when they conclude that PTM can be used on digital pictures.

Meaning, you know, you can work with one single picture by changing the settings and iterating it.

Yeah, you probably did miss it...

As explained, they use one variable, while I use several, that's all.
I do not "alter" the image, no less that you could claim that a scanner image of a human hand is an "alteration" of the picture of a human hand. they are different interpretations of the same data, and you will be very hard pressed to prove which one of the two is "truer" than the other (good luck with that one...)....

Actually they are both valid, though quite different (they do not carry the same information, but the information they carry is objectively true)...

You might want to prove your point by demonstrating why information derived ffrom a picture in the conditions I indicated (using conventional optical settings) might not produce reliable information. I am curious...

Oh, and I am was not looking after aliens or moon bases; I worked on those images only as a verification of totally unrelated results...


Just noticed you're the same guy who is objecting vehemently to the images of the Turkish Clip I posted in the other thread.

Vehemently, but with not much supported argument, as I demonstrated quite easily.
I seem to remember also that I proposed to make available a sample of the Frame 11 image tp you, for your convenient review.

I don't think I have heard your reply....

edit on 27-8-2013 by funkster4 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-8-2013 by funkster4 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-8-2013 by funkster4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I think it's great that amateurs are becoming sophisticated enough to learn about image processing and actually finding success at de-obfuscating NASA or any other images which may have been subject to obfuscation.

edit on 27-8-2013 by PINGi14 because: clarity



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
How can you make something out of nothing?

The statue is not a good example as the throat is there, it is just hidden behind the shadow..would you not have to just lighten it to see the throat? Is this not just what the program did?

As for the moon pics...it was hidden/smudged out(meaning there is no available information) ..so how can program decide what is there and what isn't? Guessing?





new topics

top topics



 
61
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join