Roswell Slides Solve the mystery in 1.5 minutes (Your independent verification welcomed)

a reply to: Springer Mark,

Smart DeBlur came out in October, 2012.

As far as the Pentagon, I do not believe anybody there, in any capacity, was ever contacted by the slides hoaxers.

On April 12, 2015, Don Schmitt said that the contents of the placard aren’t readable and they have had experts including Dr. David Rudiak, Studio MacBeth, Photo Interpretation Department of the Pentagon, as well as Adobe all echo the same sentiment.

My research has yielded these results -

1) There is no such department as the "Photo Interpretation Department" of the Penatagon.

2) Adobe does not do independent photo analysis.

3) David Rudiak admits he had the actual slides for years.

4) Studio MacBeth denies any knowledge of these slides.

5) This in from one of the RSRG members who is in contact with Maussan's camp:

"Schmitt is telling Maussan that he confessed due to pressure from a company that'd he'd named, but that actually had not conducted an analysis. The company's lawyer has forced him to deny everything."

My Conclusion -

No research was ever done, except until recently by the RSRG and the ATS community.

And, btw, it was crucial to have independent crowd sourced analysis done of the slides, under the tutelage of Isaac Koi, here on ATS. These independent verifications here held more sway than one can imagine.

Pitiful...

a reply to: LiteraryJourney

Check my post prior to yours. Vladimir Yuzhikov joined Github on June 26, 2012 and had posted a 1.27 version of the Smart Deblur software. So, it was already past beta and into the easy versions. I'm sure the software was out on some other sites for beta testing before this, so it seemed to be out there at least sometime prior to June 2012.

Source

a reply to: Springer

That could only be answered by the software developer Vladimir Yuzhikov, unless someone here had all the early versions to test it. However, on the early Github page for him he shows an image he still uses today on his website of the amazing results of the software.

June 26, 2012 image of results from Smart Deblur



Here's Smart Deblurs contact page:
Source

a reply to: Springer

Springer, my 3rd question - about the Pentagon/Adobe vs. SmartDeblur - was mostly ironic.

indeed, SmartDeblur is quite an amazing piece of software, and I had never heard about it until a few days ago, thanks to the RSRG

originally posted by: LiteraryJourney
From Paul Kimball's blog, The Other Side Of Truth -

"This in from one of our RSRG members who is in contact with Maussan's camp:

"Schmitt is telling Maussan that he confessed due to pressure from a company that'd he'd named, but that actually had not conducted an analysis. The company's lawyer has forced him to deny everything. This is believed to be an excuse by Schmitt to get him out of trouble with Maussan."

And so it continues..."

Thanks for the info, LiteraryJourney.
Actually, I do not believe this.
My impression is that Don Schmitt's apology was sincere, suffered and heartfelt.

a reply to: LiteraryJourney

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Yes in theory the original line or avenue of investigation could have had almost 3 years to 'deblur' the label in the photo? Of course that is if you know what you are looking for. If you were looking at all.

Don't get me wrong I think the de-blurring of the placard/label nails the case as solved. It was vital in making the details solid and leaves it solved beyond reasonable doubt. Well except maybe to a couple of individuals still in denial.

However are we in danger of missing the bleeding obvious?

There really is nothing in the slides to make any sane individual think they look like an alien body that might have been put in secure storage by the military in 1947.

Which also makes me consider that LiteraryJourney's post hits the nail on the head and this was sadly all part of a cash grab and nothing more.

a reply to: LiteraryJourney

That fits so well with the utter *#!xx* Maussan has been spreading since the placard was deblurred that I wouldn't believe if it came from someone other than Mausdsan I sure as hell don't believe it coming from him or his "people". lol

While I certainly believe it could be true, I just won't accept it from this source anymore than I would accept anything else they say as true...

originally posted by: CosmicRay
I have a question, where is Adam Dew?

good question.
I have the same question.
Plus:

There is a deafening silence from Tom Carey.

-------------------------------

(about Maussan we know, and there is no need to comment...)
// end sarcasm

a reply to: IsaacKoi

I just saw this post Isaack and I agree with your points of irony and I want to thank you again for sharing everything you've shared with us over the years...

My singular answer to most of your ironies is:

When you are trying to pull a fast one (a hoax, a lie, a scam, etc...) and you're not as smart as the people who could catch you out, you never release anything.

I've said many times over the years, exposing these charlatns, their B.S., and helping to facilitate the broadcasting of the truth, in spite of these hucksters, are the driving forces behind my involvement in ATS. I believe that is a factor in your use of ATS.

In other words, you and I are on the exact same page (I know how tired and cliche "the same page" is, but it's the perfect analogy in the instance).

originally posted by: LiteraryJourney

As far as the Pentagon, I do not believe anybody there, in any capacity, was ever contacted by the slides hoaxers.

1) There is no such department as the "Photo Interpretation Department" of the Penatagon.

Well shucks, my second question was going to be who at the Pentagon can I send my blurry vacation photos to for deblurring.

As for Adobe, I remember them demoing a pretty mind blowing deblurring feature for Photoshop back in 2011. Here's an example IMAGE and the VIDEO. Just for #s and giggles, does anyone here have the current version of Photoshop? I believe the feature is called Camera Shake Reduction Filter. I'm curious how it compares to the results from Smart Deblur.

I have current version of Photoshop and the Shake Reduction didn't do anything much to the placard image. Certainly it didn't help it to be read. I tried custom kernel lines. Maybe others had better luck?

I'm kind of dumb when it comes to old photographic equipment.
My mother let me play around with her camera.
The Spotmatic had B, 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 125, 250, 500
Looking at some pictures of Cuba in 1964 I couldn't figure out why the tree trunks looked so sharp and straight?
Not to mention the artifacts..

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Thanks, I had a feeling that Adobe video was too good to be true.

a reply to: CosmicRay

Don't go by my testing. I have't used it that deeply. Photoshop Shake Reduction might work just as well as Smart Deblur with some more experience with it.

My question on this subject is a simple one.

How can so many people be so stupid?

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Hey Pixel! You're famous! The Hoax Team's photographic expert, Dr. David Rudiak quoted you on Kevin Randle's blog, "A Different Perspective" -

"Blogger David Rudiak said...

There's a difference between just a mummy and a mummy with skeletal deformities that may have thrown medical pathologists off, so far off they declared it nonhuman. Tom and Don's whole case was obviously based on that expert testimony, so it does very much matter as to why they believed they had an alien on their hands rather than a mummy.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=

thepixelpusher. May, 14 2015

"I know firsthand that Don Schmitt had very strong misgivings about the slide, but the experts they lined up over the years were telling them they had something unusual. And the experts they had were no amateurs either. It seems even the experts had not done as well as the Roswell Slide Team."

(I have no idea who pixelpusher is.)"
(end of Rudiak quote on Randle's blog)

Lol. I know this much Dr. Rudiak; Pixel & Heywood are much better photo analyst's than you proclaim to be. Btw, I believe Rudiak was quoting Pixel in order to sustain some weird theory he now has that the mummy is that of a grossly deformed child (see above). Therefor, the image fooled their "experts". Which is a non-sequiter. He's grasping at some strange straws here.

And Pixel, let me find it, I'll be back in a bit, but Rudiak admits to simply using Photoshop to analyze the slides.

From Dr. David Rudiak(from Kevin Randle's blog, 'A Different Perspective") - Dew, Maussan, et. al.'s expert photo analyst -

"Like many things, doing it is "easy" once the answer has been spoon-fed to you.

I've been doing a little bit of an autopsy trying to understand where the deblurring efforts failed. What I've concluded so far is that you have to find the right settings in the particular blur program or you get lousy results.

Please also note that all and what I presume others were given was just the cropped placard area, and nothing around it, which might have provided additional blur information that would have helped.

I had no success with the previous deblurring programs I used. When I heard of SmartDeBlur, I downloaded the trial copy. I used Dew's website placard plus surrounding area scan, then cropped it down to just the placard area, just like what I previously received. Then I reduced it to 50% of full size to speed up the processing.

You can set different blur analysis areas in SmartDeBlur. Smaller speeds up processing, but too small might miss critical blur information. Not knowing what a good blur analysis area might be, I just set it to the entire placard.

First go I used the default blur size of 100x100, no aggressive detection of blur, medium smoothing of artifacts. Results were terrible.

So I arbitrarily set the blur size down to 60x60, or the half setting. Great results! Got a boomerang-shaped blur model kernel that resulted in top line almost completely cleared up, obviously all CAPS printed letters, not script, reading MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD BOY, clearer when I smoothed it to the 80 range. Could also read a likely "San Francisco, California" at the bottom.

Well, that was too easy, I said. Too bad I didn't do this earlier."

Indeed, too bad. He had access to these slides for years. But then again, how much money is there in deflating a hoax?

originally posted by: neformore
My question on this subject is a simple one.

How can so many people be so stupid?

It's a cumulative effect. Every person has a bit of stupidity within. The more people get together the more stupidity there is. Ideally, the smartness will also increase, keeping the stupid at bay. But.

When money becomes involved it changes the dynamic. Instead of an arithmetic relationship, stupidity grows geometrically.


Also, confirmation bias.

a reply to: LiteraryJourney

Here's the interview with Carey and Schmitt on the April 12, 2015 The Conspiracy Show with Richard Syrett where he states his early skepticism and reliance on experts, including Carey. I don't have any special knowledge other than the public statements Schmitt made at a UFO lecture I attended last year. The amount of back and forth on this is really surreal.

Interview starts at 1hr 4min.