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

reply to post by abeverage


Surely you should have made clear your professional qualifications in your first post, in order to make us all aware that we were in the presence of an expert - and not in the second post after seemingly having your a#$ handed to you by the OP?

Surely, because otherwise it seems you're just using a well known method: the 'appeal to pseudo authority figures'..? And you resorted to it when you had been refuted, instead of making a clarion refutation on page one of the thread?

Also - is 'the HP' distinct from 'HP (the company)'..?

And don't call him Shirley.

reply to post by Onslaught2996


You either haven't read the replies on page one, or you haven't understood them. Or the OP either for that matter. Seems odd that you would miss the point completely but still call BS on the OP.

Strange. Muddies the waters somewhat for the seekers.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by abeverage

 

Surely you should have made clear your professional qualifications in your first post, in order to make us all aware that we were in the presence of an expert - and not in the second post after seemingly having your a#$ handed to you by the OP?

Surely, because otherwise it seems you're just using a well known method: the 'appeal to pseudo authority figures'..? And you resorted to it when you had been refuted, instead of making a clarion refutation on page one of the thread?

Also - is 'the HP' distinct from 'HP (the company)'..?

And don't call him Shirley.

edit on 28-8-2013 by FlyInTheOintment because: spelling

1) The op hasn't handed anyone their ass because he doesn't know what PTM is.

2) HP is indeed the company, but that is immaterial as he used neither their software or their method.

Originally posted by Char-Lee

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?

Looks like a structure to me, can even see the entrance.

Yes of course it looks like a structure Because the artifact (data drop out) or whatever it is already looks like a structure...note the rectangular shape of the blurred patch. All the OP was is basically "enhancing" the artifact itself.

That "the structure" is actually no structure you can easily see by looking at the "blurred" image because you can vaguely see the outlines of the craters (the rims) inside the blurred rectangle where they supposedly would have to be (although not very clear, of course). In other words: There is some degree of transparency.
If it was a real structure of some sort the crater rims wouldn't be visible, a structure would obstruct them.

reply to post by funkster4


Is that not the image that Jose Escamilla claimed was a Giant alien next to his spaceship

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by abeverage

 

Surely you should have made clear your professional qualifications in your first post, in order to make us all aware that we were in the presence of an expert - and not in the second post after seemingly having your a#$ handed to you by the OP?

Surely, because otherwise it seems you're just using a well known method: the 'appeal to pseudo authority figures'..? And you resorted to it when you had been refuted, instead of making a clarion refutation on page one of the thread?

Also - is 'the HP' distinct from 'HP (the company)'..?

And don't call him Shirley.

edit on 28-8-2013 by FlyInTheOintment because: spelling

I really didn't see the need to show any qualifications as by the time I posted the OP admitted not using PTM...but ok...

I have Associates degree in CAD (Computer Aided-Drafting and Design). I worked for Hewlett Packard (HP) as a Senior Support Technician in the Photosmart division supporting Cameras and Printers for several years and was trained by HP engineers. I then moved to creating the Web support team and have since moved on to being a Network Administrator. I have also been a 3D graphic designer and CAD operator I know Computer graphics very well, I also do amateur astrophotography so I know cameras as well. I believe that makes me qualified.



But really that doesn't matter because

If you read this post by OP you will see that they clearly state they DO NOT USE PTM. LOL

I cannot help it if people see something cool star it and then fail to read the actual post...

I also can't help it if they cannot read what exactly PTM is as I mention in this post linking to the definition and the FACT you need AT LEAST 2 images of alternating light sources...

Oh and don't call me Shirley...

OH #!
Somebody please run some other images!!!!!!!
How about
The McMinville Oregon UFO picture?
Maybe the photos of Adamski or M Rodifer....Pescara, or argentine navy stuff.??huh huh Please huh
Major Kudos OP!
now get to work with this baby....

I remember that Adobe photoshop would implement this feature into photoshop 6 but I don't know if they really put that feature in ? Because I dont own photoshop 6?

There's a video around on the tube that shows how this works...

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by TWILITE22

 

Why do people still think he did this with a software? No PTM software was used because he couldn't figure it out. He edited a single compressed JPEG using different filters, saving each edit, then combined them. This is not even close to what PTM is. PTM requires multiple source images from different angles or lighting techniques and are then merged into a single image.

The OP is simply a charleton selling snake oil.

edit on 28-8-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

You're wrong.

What the OP did is a valid PTM technique.

Take one image, let's call it 'image.jpg'..apply a software generated light source at 0/360 degrees, save the image as 'image1a.jpg' for example.

Open the original 'image.jpg' again, apply a software generated light source at 7.5 degrees, save the image as 'image1b.jpg' and repeat a further 46 times. (moving the light source 7.5 degrees each time)

The resulting 48 images will be identical, except the angle of the light source, so essentially we now have an image lit from 48 separate angles.

Stack all of the images and the effect is very similar to a dedicated applet or program.

Ideally, you'd want a real live subject and real light sources, which would give a better result, but the software stacking with multiple lighting angles will do the trick.

Oh..and if you talk to Shirley, you didn't see me.

Originally posted by MysterX

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by TWILITE22

 

Why do people still think he did this with a software? No PTM software was used because he couldn't figure it out. He edited a single compressed JPEG using different filters, saving each edit, then combined them. This is not even close to what PTM is. PTM requires multiple source images from different angles or lighting techniques and are then merged into a single image.

The OP is simply a charleton selling snake oil.

edit on 28-8-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

You're wrong.

What the OP did is a valid PTM technique.

Take one image, let's call it 'image.jpg'..apply a software generated light source at 0/360 degrees, save the image as 'image1a.jpg' for example.

Open the original 'image.jpg' again, apply a software generated light source at 7.5 degrees, save the image as 'image1b.jpg' and repeat a further 46 times.

The resulting 48 images will be identical, except the angle of the light source, so essentially we now have an image lit from 48 separate angles.

Stack all of the images and the effect is very similar to a dedicated applet or program.

Ideally, you'd want a real live subject and real light sources, which would give a better result, but the software stacking with multiple lighting angles will do the trick.


Open the original

Ok but the OP claimed they could clean up ONE photo taken of the moon using PTM (but they didn't)...because an artificial light (created in say PHOTOSHOP) as a source is going to create false data!

Why? Because you are not getting another data source you are "Creating" another digital light source.

Also let's say they do what you suggest how are they applying the additional light sources on the moon?

They can't they are only applying it to the Original image. Anything they create is then artificial! Which was my argument that you couldn't use it to prove or disprove an anomaly...

Now could this be done with a stereographic image or the same area taken under different times and lighting. Yes but the point was they didn't! They used ONE image.

oh yeah....

Originally posted by funkster4
...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...
That's really cool.
Is that YODA I SEE.
LOL

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:

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



And here is the processed image.

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

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



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

Originally posted by MysterX

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by TWILITE22

 

Why do people still think he did this with a software? No PTM software was used because he couldn't figure it out. He edited a single compressed JPEG using different filters, saving each edit, then combined them. This is not even close to what PTM is. PTM requires multiple source images from different angles or lighting techniques and are then merged into a single image.

The OP is simply a charleton selling snake oil.

edit on 28-8-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

You're wrong.

What the OP did is a valid PTM technique.

Take one image, let's call it 'image.jpg'..apply a software generated light source at 0/360 degrees, save the image as 'image1a.jpg' for example.

Open the original 'image.jpg' again, apply a software generated light source at 7.5 degrees, save the image as 'image1b.jpg' and repeat a further 46 times. (moving the light source 7.5 degrees each time)

The resulting 48 images will be identical, except the angle of the light source, so essentially we now have an image lit from 48 separate angles.

Stack all of the images and the effect is very similar to a dedicated applet or program.

Ideally, you'd want a real live subject and real light sources, which would give a better result, but the software stacking with multiple lighting angles will do the trick.

Oh..and if you talk to Shirley, you didn't see me.

edit on 28-8-2013 by MysterX because: correction

Applying fake light source against the same single image and different angles, will produce fake images.

It's not real. The software decides how an image would look if you were to light that image with a light source from a certain angle, but it will not be a true representation of how the 3D object in the image would look if it actually had light sources for real illuminating it from different angles.

Shadows cast by 3D objects, are shadow cast by 3D objects.

Photoshop programs are only illuminating the IMAGE from different angles. A shadow cast by a mountain will still be cast in the other images, no mater where you try to place your artificial light. It will only change the shade of that shadow originally cast in the original image (and add specularity if you include it).

Using the method you are suggesting will not actually reveal something hidden in a single image, because all you are doing is illuminating the IMAGE, and not what is actually IN the image.

In order for this method to work and give a accurate picture, you MUST use real images taken with REAL light on the objects in those images at different angles.

That is the only way. Anything else is simply giving you a false representation of what is there.

reply to post by funkster4


Where did ya go??? has someone in ATS put a bag over the posters head, please take it off...

Are you able to enlighten me on how you can convert an image to the format .ptm I cannot find an image converter to do this, and the problem is that the software won't read other image formats, any help appreciated.........ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! I'm ok I'm ok damn and blast....

reply to post by MysterX


You are fundamentally confused about what PTM is.

Originally posted by jaffo
reply to post by PINGi14

 

But people ARE speculating. People are attributing to NASA motivations and plans which are quite simply not supported by any actual evidence. Seriously, if they wanted to hide something, they simply wouldn't release the pics. They wouldn't release them and try to blur them out. To think otherwise is to mold the existing reality to fit one's preconceived ideas.

That might just depend on when it was done, not necessarily why. Below is an example that had buffs in a tizzy, it's a picture of Titan and the smaller Dione, both moons of Saturn. In the overexposed picture on the right you can clearly see the work of a dick artist brushing out the Dione background, while there appears to be a vestige of coloured lights behind Dione partially shown. There is an explanation for the handywork here, and from the lady artist;

www.news.com.au...

You can make up your own mind as to how plausible the explanation is, I would not wish to preconceive what other peoples conceptions might be. Now, there are our Moon pictures that did get the mascara treatment too, I'm not sure if there was explanations for those. Point is, they did exactly what you say they would not do. Once done any opinion is up for grabs.

Maybe its just me....But I still don't see anything....abnormal.

Originally posted by DarkAngel8

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
im pretty sure that's a steam engine.

I agree. Maybe a long lost relative of Thomas the Tank Engine?

Hahaha laughing my butt off...not really.. Im sure there is a forum for children's topics. But this is where we discuss topics of a different nature. Not choo choo trains. Either way the photo doesnt show much. To my eyes anyway. If anything its an old crumblimg structure. I dont see aliens or spaceships. I wish I did though

Its definitely an old crumbling structure and not a steam engine. Perhaps it was an ancient pyramid or a castle from long ago inhabited by giants. a steam engine was a childish immature suggestion....yeah, ah just kidding.

Originally posted by MysterX

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by TWILITE22

 

Why do people still think he did this with a software? No PTM software was used because he couldn't figure it out. He edited a single compressed JPEG using different filters, saving each edit, then combined them. This is not even close to what PTM is. PTM requires multiple source images from different angles or lighting techniques and are then merged into a single image.

The OP is simply a charleton selling snake oil.

edit on 28-8-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

You're wrong.

What the OP did is a valid PTM technique.

Take one image, let's call it 'image.jpg'..apply a software generated light source at 0/360 degrees, save the image as 'image1a.jpg' for example.

Open the original 'image.jpg' again, apply a software generated light source at 7.5 degrees, save the image as 'image1b.jpg' and repeat a further 46 times. (moving the light source 7.5 degrees each time)

The resulting 48 images will be identical, except the angle of the light source, so essentially we now have an image lit from 48 separate angles.

Stack all of the images and the effect is very similar to a dedicated applet or program.

Ideally, you'd want a real live subject and real light sources, which would give a better result, but the software stacking with multiple lighting angles will do the trick.

Oh..and if you talk to Shirley, you didn't see me.

edit on 28-8-2013 by MysterX because: correction

Sorry but the OP's technique is not PTM, certainly as defined by HP, they even say as much them self, in the description of their methodology.

"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."

This is a description of a process of blending together a set of images, each of which are simply alterations of a single source image, their adjustment of its contrast, brightness, sharpness etc.

This process has nothing to do with that set out by HP in their 2001 Siggrapph paper...
HP's 2001 paper
... in that all the techniques described in it rely on multiple images being taken of an object or scene under varied conditions (light direction and depth of field being those described).

There is no mention in the paper of any PTM technique that relies on only a single source image, as it is precisely the the use of multiple images of an unchanging object and an unchanging camera position, subject to an external variable (light direction) that provides information on the surface topology.

Regarding your example of "...apply a software generated light source at 7.5 degrees, save the image as 'image1b.jpg' and repeat a further 46 times. (moving the light source 7.5 degrees each time)"Text, this is flawed in that there is no information in the image describing the surface topology of the object/scene for any useful lighting to be applied to it. The techniques described by HP include a method for deriving that topological information by estimating the surface normals on a pixel by pixel basis, based on the variation of the surface illumination under varying lighting condition.

To say that "Ideally, you'd want a real live subject and real light sources, which would give a better result, but the software stacking with multiple lighting angles will do the trick." demonstrates that you have fundamentally misunderstood how PTM works.

The detail that the OP's processing brings out in the image, is simply an amplification of noise in the image, that is given apparent structure due to the "blockiness" nature of JPEG compress artifacts, due to the fixed size (8x8 and 16x16) compression regions of the image (Macroblocks).

Sorry to be so blunt about this but similarly to abeverage I'm also a computer graphics professional (of some 25 years), my previous employers including Nvidia Corp.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculianIts definitely an old crumbling structure and not a steam engine. Perhaps it was an ancient pyramid or a castle from long ago inhabited by giants. a steam engine was a childish immature suggestion....yeah, ah just kidding.

Nah, it's just people need to lighten up. It's understandable though, since ridicule in this forum is rampant.

Anyone can do this, like I showed using a few adjustments in Fireworks MX. No special skills or software. I'm sure if I fiddled with it longer, I could pull more detail out. I'm just not sure how accurate a depiction it is of the actual image behind the smudge or blur.

...well, some interesting exchanges here. Let me adress the more salient points.

*I think I have explained quite clearly how the methodology I use differ from PTM, and how they nevertheless rest on identical principles: generating interpretations of a finite data set and interpolating them will give you more knowledge of said data set.

*PTM uses only one variable (light direction), and it would be interesting actually to develop an argumentation about why it should be so. Why use one variable only (actually, they are now starting to use texture also as a variable...)?
Granted, light is crucial in optics, but less so in problem solving, which is how I approached this initially. In problem solving situations (where you have to postulate valid unknowns, based on present information), what you would look for can be boiled down to "frequency". 60% of a valid sample of the US population tells you they gonna vote for Obama next week, that's frequency of information put to use to make a valid prediction about an unknown future event: you know the name of the next President. You have obtained valid ( but previously unknown) data, simply by using frequency of information in previous data.
This is just what is at work here, only applied to finite optical data sets, i;e. pictures or film frames...

*the HP team has estblished that the technique can be used on digital images, which is what I am doing.


"Using the method you are suggesting will not actually reveal something hidden in a single image, because all you are doing is illuminating the IMAGE, and not what is actually IN the image."

Well, that is where the methodology i use differs from conventional PTM: I do not rely only on using light as the only variable fro deriving iterations...

In order for this method to work and give a accurate picture, you MUST use real images taken with REAL light on the objects in those images at different angles.
*one poster suggested I was trying to push some money scheme here by selling the methodology: I am not amused.
I have explained repeatedly that the process can operate with most basic software, and I have already explained repeatedly the basic modalities. I can post a specific post with detailled modalities for those interested.

And no, I am not on a PR campaign for a coming book.


*some posters have commented about how they interpret the processed image. I post below a different iteration from the original NASA picture, which gives a different interpretation and shows details in a new light (pun intended...)

*"1" shows a large horizontal opening in the lower right part of the Structure, reminiscent of a huge warehouse or hangar, of the kind used for assembling airplanes or rocket parts

*"2" shows a perfect segment of a circle, a quite unatural feature. Keen obervers will note with interest how it interacts with the dark rectangle behind it

*"3" shows a pipe-like artefact which appears to come out of the base of the building, and actually cuts across the contour of the crater


I would think that all three details rule out the hypothesis that this could be a pile of rocks...