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

page: 12
61
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Seen this technique before, it's called "BLAGGING".

Seriously, I could do that with any image and get any kind of result.

I have a software engineering background and I have used the likes of Adobe Photoshop in form or another, as well as image manipulation via code.

Let me put it into layman terms:

If you have a pot and you add some water into it, boil it but add nothing else, you get boiling water, and that's all.

You don't get a nice evening dinner for two, that won't happen unless you "INPUT" additional ingredients.

Same applies to images, you can only work with the amount of data that is present. A high resolution image will typically have a large dpi (dots per inch or pixel density) which basically means it will hold more information in a given area where is a medium and low resolution image (or fixed resolution) image will have a much smaller amount of information for a given area.

So lets say I have I have a high resolution image and I scale it up, it will retain most of it's detail at a larger size (size vs dpi here) because there is enough information present for the software (such as Adobe that uses advanced algorithms) to retain as much detail as possible (and where required make an educated guess due to the amount of information present).

Where as a low resolution image will suffer because there is simply not enough information present.

It's like someone telling you to go somewhere without giving you directions, you may not find the location (lets assume Google doesn't exists here), because there is a lack of information present.

Now on the other hand the OP could have got a hold of some time on a super computer and was able to use some new technique that can take a low res image and literally guess what the detail will be, without enough data present then I want to know more!

For those defending the OP, please get a grip - it's one thing to ask people to be open minded but it's another to support outright stupidity.




posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by funkster4
 

I understand exactly what your saying and for those that keep arguing your point... You can tell their minds are already made up and no amount of explaining will change it. This is very incrediable. Ty for sharing and i hope you can bring other examples of this process to us and reveal more secrets.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by tracehd1
 


Really? This was completely, utterly, thoroughly, scientifically and technically debunked...and you still believe it. I'm shocked. Some other guy has an alien rock thread you will probably love.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tracehd1
reply to post by funkster4
 

I understand exactly what your saying and for those that keep arguing your point... You can tell their minds are already made up and no amount of explaining will change it. This is very incrediable. Ty for sharing and i hope you can bring other examples of this process to us and reveal more secrets.


Just because you may believe in something in general (such as the presence of artificial structures on the Moon which are being kept secret) does not mean that EVERY anomalous picture of the Moon is a picture of a structure.

It has been demonstrated quite clearly here that there is not "enhancement" that can be done to this photograph to bring out details -- and that is because those details don't exist in the first place. If the detail is not there in the image to begin with, there is no amount of enhancement that could magically make those details appear. Enhancement can make something look sharper and more detailed, but those enhancements are simply artificially make something appear sharper.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Does anyone have the newest version of Photoshop?

I believe the Camera Shake Reduction option is the unblur tool they're showing off in in this video. I'm wondering if it really works as well as it does in the video or if indeed there was some magic involved. Unlike funkster4's method of "enhancing" UFO photos this one might actually be worth looking into.




posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
Does anyone have the newest version of Photoshop?

I believe the Camera Shake Reduction option is the unblur tool they're showing off in in this video. I'm wondering if it really works as well as it does in the video or if indeed there was some magic involved. Unlike funkster4's method of "enhancing" UFO photos this one might actually be worth looking into.







That only works on camera shake and not very well on other types of blur.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MisterMahound
Why was the "structure" blurred out in the original image? That is, the non conspiratorial version...


THIS question right there, is the inquiry that ALL should be dwelling on in the first place, but yet people spend there time debunking anything remotely strange that comes form these blurred images...



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigman88

Originally posted by MisterMahound
Why was the "structure" blurred out in the original image? That is, the non conspiratorial version...


THIS question right there, is the inquiry that ALL should be dwelling on in the first place, but yet people spend there time debunking anything remotely strange that comes form these blurred images...


Try reading through the thread all the way next time:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by bigman88

Originally posted by MisterMahound
Why was the "structure" blurred out in the original image? That is, the non conspiratorial version...


THIS question right there, is the inquiry that ALL should be dwelling on in the first place, but yet people spend there time debunking anything remotely strange that comes form these blurred images...


Try reading through the thread all the way next time:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


So what am i to correct myself with here? That the Navy and NASA was the ones presenting these images, or that the old 1.5 program phage spoke of is to blame for providing that blur on the screen?

Are you saying that the Navy would not dare to blur any images for whatever purposes? Or that the 1.5 program mentioned has produced blur spots on other images that was used to present them "on demand"?



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigman88

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by bigman88

Originally posted by MisterMahound
Why was the "structure" blurred out in the original image? That is, the non conspiratorial version...


THIS question right there, is the inquiry that ALL should be dwelling on in the first place, but yet people spend there time debunking anything remotely strange that comes form these blurred images...


Try reading through the thread all the way next time:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


So what am i to correct myself with here? That the Navy and NASA was the ones presenting these images, or that the old 1.5 program phage spoke of is to blame for providing that blur on the screen?

Are you saying that the Navy would not dare to blur any images for whatever purposes? Or that the 1.5 program mentioned has produced blur spots on other images that was used to present them "on demand"?


You see, this is how it always goes:

You ask: Why is the area blurred?

You're given a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why.

Then, you can reject the reason and say it's a "cover up" for what is really there.

So then I show you photos of the exact same area taken by orbiters and the Apollo astronauts of the same area, well before Clementine was even a gleam in the US Navy's eye:





Showing that there was never anything there in the first place to hide with a blur of any kind.

Then you, or someone else, will say: "Ah! It had to of been air brushed out by NASA!"

To which I would ask: "Why would they do such an expert job at air brushing it out of these pictures, but then the US Navy does this HORRIBLE job of just blurring the area (only to release a later image that does not show anything there either)? Why not simply 'air brush" the image before the public has access to it in the first place?"

To which my questions will be either ignored or deflected.

The problem is: we have evidence against anything being there. Pictures showing nothing, and examples of how software can be buggy and produce problems when viewing things (IE Google Earth is a great example of things that can be buggy and then improved later), AND we've shown that the "method" that the OP is using is incorrect and useless in this case.

Where as what the OP has is: a picture with a blur on it that did not in fact originate from the US Navy, but from another conspiracy site. The original blurry image came from the 1.5 browser (as the original digital image from the US Navy did not have any blur in that area). No answer to the repeated question of: if something is there, then why do we not see it on other images taken decades ago? And last, a "method" that the OP says works (but never did show it to work with images that have KNOWN things in them that are blurred then using his method shows those known things again) but is being used incorrectly.

So yes, you should correct yourself on the evidence.

But more than likely you'll continue to believe something else (without a shred of proof) is the reason. Seen it so many times before here on ATS it's pretty much routine now........



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


What conspiracy site was it that the picture first originated from?

Wasn't it established that the Navy was the first to produce these images? What evidence do we have that it was the Navy that first worked on this, then a conspiracy site had produced a blurred image with the crappy 1.5 browser?

The government has not tried to blur anything before?

I'm using the same line of extreme scrutiny that debunkers prefer.

And yeah, i am still probably going to think that the government is hiding stuff from us, based solely on the fact that they have been caught red handed hiding so much other sh**.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by bigman88
 


You didn't read this whole thread then. The original picture was contained in this thread and I think posted by a site admin. The picture in the OP originated from a hoax site and that was confirmed by the OP himself.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 



Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by bigman88
 


You didn't read this whole thread then. The original picture was contained in this thread and I think posted by a site admin. The picture in the OP originated from a hoax site and that was confirmed by the OP himself.


Actually, according to Phage, the picture in the OP originated from a Navy site, from an early version of their browser. He can be seen stating as much in this post-

Post in question-

He also follows up with a larger version of the pic two posts later.

I'm sure you're aware how much clout Phage gets around these parts, and although he's somewhat clinical and rote in his approach to things, from my perspective of course, it is also these qualities that allow him to act as a great check to some of the more... shall we say, imaginative members of our community. So if he says that the picture from the OP came from the Navy site, I'm inclined to believe him as he is quite knowledgeable doesn't generally fib about things in my experience, limited though it may be.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigman88
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


What conspiracy site was it that the picture first originated from?

Wasn't it established that the Navy was the first to produce these images? What evidence do we have that it was the Navy that first worked on this, then a conspiracy site had produced a blurred image with the crappy 1.5 browser?

The government has not tried to blur anything before?

I'm using the same line of extreme scrutiny that debunkers prefer.

And yeah, i am still probably going to think that the government is hiding stuff from us, based solely on the fact that they have been caught red handed hiding so much other sh**.


You are still not understanding the issue: the OP used an image that was NOT the original digital image from Clementine. Period.

The image from the conspiracy site was a screen capture from a panoramic browser, like Google Earth.

Time and time again, we tell people on here that using images that are screen captured from things like Google Earth is NOT a good idea. They contain all sorts of errors in them like stitching errors, stretching, etc.

IF the OP had be SERIOUS about what he was doing, he would have taken the time to RESEARCH and LOCATE the ORIGINAL image of the area. Not taken a copy of an image from a conspiracy site, and seen if the ORIGINAL image had the blur in it or not.

Even going to the Clementine Map Browser is NOT a good idea, as again, it's like Google Earth and can produce errors.

No, instead, the OP should have done some leg work and located the actual original images from that area. If he had, he would have found this web site here:

Clementine Online Data Volume PDS Node

He also would have located WHERE that image was (Zeeman Crater), and it's latitude and longitude coordinates, so that he could use the above site to locate the original images.

If you go to that site, and scroll down to where it says: "Mission to the Moon: Full Resolution Clementine UVVIS Digital Image Model", you will have a index for the images to look through.

Had he (the OP) done that, he would have found the original image (and not one produced by browsing software, nor a screen capture on a conspiracy site):



Image Source Link

A little MORE research and the OP would have found that the original images were originally placed on 88 CD ROM volumes

This isn't about "having an open or closed mind", nor is it about "debunkers vs. believers". This is about the fact that the OP failed horribly in trying to prove something, all because he didn't do proper research, nor did he vette his sources.

Even the most paranoid Conspiracy Theorist learns to do proper research.

Phage used to have a great saying in his signature from Mark Twain: "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ExquisitExamplE
 


Wow, you didn't read the thread either.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The original image has no blur, the one you get from the navy.

The post by phage has the original image in it for reference, then the UN-BLURRED navy image below it.

And for my finale:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The OP admits he got the image in the OP from a conspiracy site, and not the Navy.

Your welcome.

Edit: Also, see the post above me.
edit on 5-9-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


I see what you're saying, and I have read the thread enough to remember the "finale" post you reference, but it still seems fairly clear that although Funkster got the picture from the Livingmoon site, that site got it's copy from the original Clementine Navy browser 1.5 that Phage references. Furthermore, the picture that Skeptic Overlord has shown us is from a new version of the Clementine browser in which the blurred area in question has been "fixed".

To clarify, you say:


Originally posted by raymundoko
The original image has no blur, the one you get from the navy.

The post by phage has the original image in it for reference, then the UN-BLURRED navy image below it.


In reference to this picture:



So you're saying that the original image (Top) has no blur, although it clearly does. To my understanding, and as I've tried to elaborate on in this post, we are looking at two different images that both come from different versions of the Navy's Clementine browser; the one from the OP, which is a zoomed in version of the top picture which Phage has provided, and also the picture that Phage clearly says is from the Navy's site-


Originally posted by Phage
However the image fiddled with by the OP was also from the Navy.


And then we have the image provided by Skeptic Overlord, which is a new version of the same area in question that comes from the current version of the Navy's Clementine browser, in this "new" image, the blurred area in question from the "original" 1.5 Clementine browser has been "fixed".

Of course, none of this has any bearing on whether or not the technique provided by the OP is valid, and since we've had several knowledgeable members argue that it isn't, and the OP never directly answered my questions attempting to get him to prove his technique or at least describe it in step-by-step detail, although he did do almost that in this post-

Funkster's Description of his Technique-

So, until Funkster returns and provides some proof images as I asked him for in this post-


Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
reply to post by funkster4
 


I'd really be sold on your technique if you could, like a few other members have asked, produce a few control pictures that you've intentionally blurred using various techniques, showing us the original undoctored image, that same image with various blurs/occlusions added, and then the new image that you've resolved using your technique. I think that would go a long way toward satisfying the skeptics.


I'll just remain undecided on whether the technique described by Funkster could actually work as he says it can.

Sorry for being redundant, I just wanted to be abundantly clear. Thanks for your time.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ExquisitExamplE
 



I'll just remain undecided on whether the technique described by Funkster could actually work as he says it can.

Good. I hope this means that you will keep in mind that the processed image presented may contain evidence of large animals or mechanical organic beings As my evidence suggests. As you look at the processed image you will also note that not only is the initial smudge artifact purified, the rest of the surrounding area is too. This means that we are seeing things "behind" everything else too revealing even more zoo animals.

Now, what is it that you "see"?



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Giraffe.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by flipflop
reply to post by funkster4
 


how do I convert a JPEG image into a "Polynomial Texture Map" I have tried resaving it with the format of .ptm but it wont recognise that or open it..
I have it all installed ok, and the two sample files namely tablet1.ptm and ushabti.ptm both open and work fine. I can enhance them to mostly anything, all that is ok. but how do I convert an image file into .ptm that is my problem atm
.... otherwise great post and thank you


You can't just use one image, you need multiple images with the direction of light varying. Then you can blend the images together using PTM. Every pixel has its own equation. Say you had three or more photographs of planet Earth with the sun at different angles (latitude and longitude). Then you could apply the PTM calculation and get an equation for each pixel that approximates the pixel color based on latitude and longitude. Then you can calculate what each pixel color would be for any latitude and longitude. Two photographs might give you something, but a hundred plus photographs would give you something statistically significant. Just like those 3000 year old clay tablets.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien "This is not to say that NASA doesn't deliberately blur out parts of pictures."


well they certainly manipulate them, as per the explanation for the Dione/Titan pic

" The person responsible for the manipulation, Emily Lakdawalla, told a forum of excitable theorists that she made the changes because of the way Cassini takes photos.

"So I aligned Dione, cut it out, and then aligned Titan, and then had to account for the missing bits of shadow where the bits of Dione had been in two of the three channels." "


www.news.com.au...





top topics
 
61
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join