Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
61
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by funkster4
 


The clementine images....notoriously infested with jpg artifact on many i have seen. What types of source files are you looking for to start with?

This is interesting, and would be something I could likely do.




posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by funkster4

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.





Hi,

Having worked for the HP in photo imaging and printing, I thought I would give you the definition of Interpolation...
In the mathematical field of numerical analysis, interpolation is a method of constructing new data points within the range of a discrete set of known data points.

If Data is missing which is often the case in remote imagery interpolation most certainly does artificially create it because there is no data. Further if the area of an image is too small the data becomes useless as well because there are not enough points to extrapolate information. en.wikipedia.org...

Also after re-reading I have found what you have done is not Polynomial Texture Mapping en.wikipedia.org...
You must have multiple images with varying light sources, this allows for 3D rendering which also for the data points to be extrapolated. (I also do 3D graphics)... You did not do PTM...


That said this is a great way of cleaning up images and making them look complete when data is missing but I am still not entirely convinced its worth for disproving proving anomalies.

p.s. have you linked to that Turkey video? I would love to see what this does on video, but seeing how you used no PTM software and there is most likely no alternate image sources how would you have done this?
edit on 27-8-2013 by abeverage because: Clarifications



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Onslaught2996
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?


Hi..

No, it is not made out of nothing. the process is simply retrieving weak signals, meaning signals that are actually present in the data set under observation, but too subtle to be picked up by the human eye. That is all..


"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?"

That's actually very precisely the point: it is just hidden behind the shadow. But it is there...


"would you not have to just lighten it to see the throat? Is this not just what the program did?"

No, you would not have the same amount of fine details in "b" by just lighting up the shadow in "a". You would miss the agregation of discrete details (pixel value with fixed coordinates, if you want) that is present in "c" but not in "a".It is the coherent agregation of those discrete difference between the two iterations that brings out details discernible neither in "a" nor "c".

But basically, you are right. By, for instance, changing the lighting conditions of the image, you will bring objectively true information that will not be visible in the source picture. By simply adding them to the original, you will have more "knowledge" of the data set under observation. Quite simple really...

What PTM does on a limited basis (using only one variable, light) can be done as you have pointed out using simply the classic optical settings of image processing as variables. This means we have here a free, incredibly powerful image enhancement technique, that can be used by anyone. It should be a tremendous tool for serious searchers.

That is all, actually, I am saying...

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 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by funkster4
 



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.



Sounds good but it still seems like you are creating false data with this process. The statue example is one thing as we can all clearly see and agree on the results. However, the statue example is not the same process that you are using and the "Clementine Structure" is NOT a clear example of "de-blurring" something. To have actual credibility, you will have to demonstrate that your process will actually work. Show actual images where this process can be verified to uncover hidden details in photos.

regardless of how technical your explanation of your process is, there is just no way to verify that you "de-blurred" anything. Do you have any verifiable examples?



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
some filters... very strange. almost looks like some thing fixing some thing. shadow looks strange too..

i don't know it could just be rocks.





posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by funkster4
 



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.



Sounds good but it still seems like you are creating false data with this process. The statue example is one thing as we can all clearly see and agree on the results. However, the statue example is not the same process that you are using and the "Clementine Structure" is NOT a clear example of "de-blurring" something. To have actual credibility, you will have to demonstrate that your process will actually work. Show actual images where this process can be verified to uncover hidden details in photos.

regardless of how technical your explanation of your process is, there is just no way to verify that you "de-blurred" anything. Do you have any verifiable examples?




"Sounds good but it still seems like you are creating false data with this process"

I will have to ask you to expand a bit about how this could happen in your opinion...

The process used on the statue is identical to mine, with the difference, already explained in detail, that they use only one variable while I use several. And the technique can be used on digital phtographs, which is what I do.

I did not intend to de blur anything in the Clementine Picture. Actually, just like with the Turkish Clip, I was trying to verify if the process would bring out enough details to clear the controversy. I knew the NASA said it was "data loss due to compression", and I knew critics claimed the smudge was deliberate, presumably to hide something of interest; Though I found the picture intriguing, I had no preconception about it....


" Show actual images where this process can be verified to uncover hidden details in photos."

Well, I'd thought I've just done that...

I would suggest, again, that you check Tom Malzbender whebsite to read, with your own eyes, how the HP team was able to bring out details from famous paintings that were later obliterated by the painter.

You might want to read this again: using this interpolation technique, it is possible to retrieve data which has been occulted by posteriously added data.
edit on 27-8-2013 by funkster4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by funkster4
 


The clementine images....notoriously infested with jpg artifact on many i have seen. What types of source files are you looking for to start with?

This is interesting, and would be something I could likely do.


Hi..

i picked up the image I worked with from this very site, as I recall



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by abeverage

Originally posted by funkster4

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.





Hi,

Having worked for the HP in photo imaging and printing, I thought I would give you the definition of Interpolation...
In the mathematical field of numerical analysis, interpolation is a method of constructing new data points within the range of a discrete set of known data points.

If Data is missing which is often the case in remote imagery interpolation most certainly does artificially create it because there is no data. Further if the area of an image is too small the data becomes useless as well because there are not enough points to extrapolate information. en.wikipedia.org...

Also after re-reading I have found what you have done is not Polynomial Texture Mapping en.wikipedia.org...
You must have multiple images with varying light sources, this allows for 3D rendering which also for the data points to be extrapolated. (I also do 3D graphics)... You did not do PTM...


That said this is a great way of cleaning up images and making them look complete when data is missing but I am still not entirely convinced its worth for disproving proving anomalies.

p.s. have you linked to that Turkey video? I would love to see what this does on video, but seeing how you used no PTM software and there is most likely no alternate image sources how would you have done this?
edit on 27-8-2013 by abeverage because: Clarifications



hi...

Thanks for taking the time to check this.

I came to this from a totally different approach than the HP team: I came to this considerng the problem of weak signals in market research. Absolutely nothing to do with image processing; My reasoning was based on the premise that objective/true data will have a propensity to manifest itself more coherently and more frequently, however it was interpreted, than random noise would; Using frequency as a filter, the mere iteration of interpolations would filter out objective data from noise.

It seems to me that the HP team, because of their background, focused primarily on light because light is a crucial variable in optics. As explained, my approach was derived from problem solving, and problem solving is about making valid extrapolations, the key word here being "valid".

Yes, I have worked on the Turkish Clip with that methodology with very interesting results; I don't know if it is proper to post them here though, It might confuse things a bit (though it is in fact a verification of the process on different material)

Let me know....
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 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Quick crude adjustments of the original 'blurred' image using Fireworks MX. There's some similar information there. Just don't know how accurate.




posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I've read this post and (I think) understand exactly what the op has shared with us, and how he came about creating it, or rather, restoring it.

Now that the 'obstruction' NASA placed over the original image has been lifted, I think that someone more conspiratorial-minded should run with it. It certainly doesn't look natural to me, but I'm also not an expert on moon rocks.



The picture in the post above this one kinda looks like a harvester of some sort leaving a wake of obliterated moon rock behind it lol



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by funkster4
"Sounds good but it still seems like you are creating false data with this process"

I will have to ask you to expand a bit about how this could happen in your opinion...


I think that abeverage explained it pretty well in his last reply.



The process used on the statue is identical to mine, with the difference, already explained in detail, that they use only one variable while I use several. And the technique can be used on digital phtographs, which is what I do.

That's fine but I'm not looking for more explanations, just a clear example.


" Show actual images where this process can be verified to uncover hidden details in photos."
Well, I'd thought I've just done that...

well. not really. With the statue, the details are enhanced. with the Clementine image, it looks like the image was completely changed. what you need is an obfuscated image,a processed image and then the original non-obfuscated image to compare with your processed image.



I would suggest, again, that you check Tom Malzbender whebsite to read, with your own eyes, how the HP team was able to bring out details from famous paintings that were later obliterated by the painter.

I'm not doubting the process. I'm doubting that it would work the same way as you are applying it here because we don't know if there was ever any data in the Clementine image to begin with. In the case of a painting or a statue, we already know that there is information there to be recovered. we cant say the same thing for images of aliens piloting UFOs over Turkey as they are not known to exist... and can we really call them pilots if all they do is stay in one spot without really knowing if they are flying?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Quick crude adjustments of the original 'blurred' image using Fireworks MX. There's some similar information there. Just don't know how accurate.

im pretty sure that's a steam engine.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Why was the "structure" blurred out in the original image? That is, the non conspiratorial version...



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by funkster4
 


What image are you using (c) to interpolate and create that image?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by funkster4
 


That combines two images to create a 3rd image. In the case of the statue it had all the data it needed. In the case of your image you are creating data from nothing.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


It would seem to me, that given the results, and the credentials provided one could only conclude that:

A. The HP software did what it was designed to do and removed an 'obstruction,' to reveal the original, unaltered image.

B. The HP software did not do as it was designed and altered the image randomly, which is what we're seeing here.

or

C. The op fabricated this image and is lying.

Now, I have suspended some disbelief and taken the op as truthful because his postings and intentions seem genuine. His claim isn't even far fetched--that NASA would obscure a sensitive moon photo.

From a technical standpoint, I don't see an issue with this process (and the way the op is applying it), but would still urge him to do a 'control experiment' to verify results.



However, I can't help but think, surely someone somewhere has already tried this method?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


Only when there are multiple images of the same area.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


To wit if there's a second image of the same area then perhaps you can apply that technique and create a new interpolated image ("b")



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Now you're trying!

I see steam engine, I also see MarsOne-esk bunkers/quarters.




...this is like cloud watching. DEBLUR MORE!



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by anon29
 


There is no software he used from what I read. He did this on his own. His posts remind me of that hirama guy from the thread about an object orbiting the sun. Rigth down to quoting people then using quotations to quote them again under the quote.

Even with the edit job he did though it seems that it's a pile if rocks IMO.






top topics



 
61
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join