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

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by smurfy

 

Perhaps she did a piss poor job at it. I have attempted the same thing in my post www.abovetopsecret.com...

However it is a poor example of trying to prove that NASA manipulate and blur out their images. There are other better examples.

And to keep in topic in this thread I still don't understand what the op is trying to do. Many posters have repeatedly explained that his method is erroneous.

No, they have not. They have only pointed out what I have explained as a starter: I use more variables than conventional PTM. I am yet to hear a supported argument as to why the use of more variables to analyze a data set in a problem solving situation would be an invalid proposition...

..I just noticed that someone has modified the title of this thread by adding the word "hoax" in it.

I just would like to know if this is a common practice here. If that's the norm, I'm afraid I chose the wrong forum to discuss this...

Please let me know urgently: I do not have time to waste...

reply to post by funkster4


You mean you deliberately ignored SO's (SkepticOverlord and Site Owner) questions and explanation?

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by funkster4

 

You mean you deliberately ignored SO's (SkepticOverlord and Site Owner) questions and explanation?

edit on 8/28/2013 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/28/2013 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)

I did not ignore anything: I answered the questions asked, and, on the other hand, asked just one question:: is this or not a legitimate NASA picture?

I would be interested in the supported argumentation that what I am showing is a hoax, which is I would think a pretty harsh claim: a hoax means deliberate treachery, as I understand it.

I resent very much the fact that such a judgment could be passed so off handedly, whithout for instance demonstrating why it should be so.

I've explained carefully what I do. It is easy to pick up any modalities of the process I use, and try to demonstrate that it is impossible for it to act as claimed (retrieving weak signals). That is the objective critic approach I want.

Opinions, how forcefully expressed, I just dont need...

reply to post by funkster4


www..abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread967252/pg8#pid16865658
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread967252/pg7#pid16865551

These two posts above explain why your subsequent OP is considered a HOAX. The imagine you used shows nothing different than the actual image from NASA, without any filter or modifications using software.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Actually none of the images are from NASA, they're from the US Navy. Clementine was the Navy's baby.

However the image fiddled with by the OP was also from the Navy. The thing is, it came from an early version (1.5) of the image browser. That browser was buggy and produced a number of oddities in its attempts to create image mosaics "on demand". Better tools are now available to access the original dataset.

reply to post by Phage


Ah, thank you for the correction phage!

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Here is one of the actual images from Clementine of the area.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dec2a5f342d5.png[/atsimg]

funkster4
I downloaded several versions of the clip from YouTube, and and sceencaptured different frames...

Apparently you have an issue with providing actual links to source material. A hallmark typical of those who wish to deceive.

reply to post by Phage


Would be awesome if someone used the PTM technique to those two images.

reply to post by Deaf Alien

Problem is you need a pile of images from the same POV (but with different lighting) to do so.

funkster4
..I just noticed that someone has modified the title of this thread by adding the word "hoax" in it.

If you examine the opening post, you'll notice the edit market has my username, hence, it was me.

I just would like to know if this is a common practice here.

If you review many of the threads in our [HOAX] forum, you'll see a similar trend. We don't want people in-bound from Google searches to be fooled by hoaxes.

I do not have time to waste...

Indeed. There are many site more gullible than ATS.

reply to post by Phage


I was being a little sarcastic but yes.

Apparently the OP still doesn't understand after multiple explanations.

Deaf Alien
Apparently the OP still doesn't understand after multiple explanations.

Our thread author is beginning to show the typical patterns of someone caught in a deception -- not saying it's him precisely, he could have been fooled by other hoaxers. The constant, "are you saying it's not a NASA image" after being explicitly told it's not, is a telling pattern with which ATS members have extensive experience.

funkster4
...but here is a crop of a frame of the Kumburgaz clip...

Which you stated you obtained off YouTube.

This appears to be the first occurrence of the video, five years ago...
www.youtube.com...

Now, apparently you lack some core knowledge of digital imagery and especially video. Grabbing frames of an extremely low-res video is a crap-shoot under the best of circumstances. And something using YouTubes transcoding methods of five years ago, makes it even worse.

Each frame of a digital video -- especially highly-compressed low-res videos -- is not self-contained. File sizes are kept small because digital video compression codecs attempt to keep only the changes between frames, with reference "keyframes" at certain intervals. Still-image analysis on digital video should ONLY be performed on the first-generation uncompressed original. The provenience of the video uploaded to YouTube is third generation, at best. And at worst, it's only 320x240. Here's a grab of the best quality frame I could find...

That's at actual size. Scaling it up in video players only creates bicubic interpolation that adds additional information that never existed in the first place.

Here's a 400% actual zoom on a portion of the frame...

Notice the compression artifacts now that we see the actual pixels? It's a junk image, not worthy of much else other than contrast/brightness manipulation.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Deaf Alien
Apparently the OP still doesn't understand after multiple explanations.

Our thread author is beginning to show the typical patterns of someone caught in a deception -- not saying it's him precisely, he could have been fooled by other hoaxers. The constant, "are you saying it's not a NASA image" after being explicitly told it's not, is a telling pattern with which ATS members have extensive experience.

You don't say? LOL

Is doing a vindication dance Off Topic or does it break the T&C's?

Originally posted by funkster4

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by funkster4

 

You mean you deliberately ignored SO's (SkepticOverlord and Site Owner) questions and explanation?

edit on 8/28/2013 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/28/2013 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)

I did not ignore anything: I answered the questions asked, and, on the other hand, asked just one question:: is this or not a legitimate NASA picture?

I would be interested in the supported argumentation that what I am showing is a hoax, which is I would think a pretty harsh claim: a hoax means deliberate treachery, as I understand it.

I resent very much the fact that such a judgment could be passed so off handedly, whithout for instance demonstrating why it should be so.

I've explained carefully what I do. It is easy to pick up any modalities of the process I use, and try to demonstrate that it is impossible for it to act as claimed (retrieving weak signals). That is the objective critic approach I want.

Opinions, how forcefully expressed, I just dont need...

edit on 28-8-2013 by funkster4 because: (no reason given)

Showing an image that has been manipulated by you to show something only proves that you know how to manipulate images. It does not in fact prove that something is (or is not) there.

Regardless of how well an image by you is manipulated, supporting evidence that something is really there (and not there due to how the image was messed with) is needed.

This is why I and others, posted photographs of that very same area of the moon, from different sources (Lunar Orbiter, Apollo, etc) that do not show anything in the same area as you were showing, nor any evidence that the specific area was tampered with.

You chose for some reason to ignore these inquires in your thread. Those photos posted by us are not "opinion" but are fact. They are images taken of the moon, of that same area, and do not show anything. That alone raises problems with your OP of this thread.

You failed to include a link to the original source of the image. "Original Source" means: the source from the organization that hosts the original digital image. In this case it would be the web site for Clementine by the US Navy. Other times it might be from NASA, JPL, ESA, JAXA, etc.

Instead, you provided a link to a conspiracy site that had the image. That's not it's original source. Even if it had been a picture here on ATS...it again, is not the original source.

Claiming or believing it's the original source would be like me having a copy of the Mona Lisa in my living room and claiming it's the original.

At this point, it does not mater if you method for trying to clean the blurry area is valid or not: you are not using an original image, and are refusing to answer people's questions in your thread (even if it's a simple "I don't know."). The more experienced of us on here know that behavior like this means something is going on (as we've seen it before from other members).

But no, your method will not work in the way you are using it. It's been explained several times now: you need several images taken of the same area, but with lighting at different angles. A single image will not do it correctly, and trying to make separate images from only one, using "artificial light" will not work either.

It's not opinion. It's fact. I too work with different software for stacking and manipulating my astrophotography photos I take.

Maybe next time try to answer questions people ask of you more, and do not ignore dissenting view points, but try to address them.

And as SkepticOverlord said: Vette your sources.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by funkster4

 

www..abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread967252/pg8#pid16865658
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread967252/pg7#pid16865551

These two posts above explain why your subsequent OP is considered a HOAX. The imagine you used shows nothing different than the actual image from NASA, without any filter or modifications using software.

~Tenth

edit on 8/28/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

..Hi...

The image I used show a very visible smudge, contrary to the image you refer to. Again. I am not aware of NASA disclaiming the image with the smudge: I am aware of NASA claiming it is due to data loss following compression, which is a totally different thing.

The hypothesis that the smudge is a forgery (inductive of your reasoning) leads to interesting questions, I would think:

* why create an undecipherable smudge, instead of seemingly convincing artefacts, if you are some whacky nutjob and want to prove your point that NASA is hiding the truth about alien presence? Why put some amorphous blob on a lunar picture, instead of, say, some Giger-type architecture?

*why engage in a trickery that would take 20 years to bear its fruit?

I just don't see the alledged logic behind such hypothetical actions.

Again, I am quite disappointed that such definitive judgment could be passed on what is being discussed here, in what I consider a desultory manner .

funkster4
The image I used show a very visible smudge, contrary to the image you refer to. Again. I am not aware of NASA disclaiming the image with the smudge:

You've provided no evidence that the image you used has a provenance traced back to NASA or the Navy.

Images that do have such provenance lack the smudge.

It's time to either say you've been fooled, or your deception failed.

"At this point, it does not mater if you method for trying to clean the blurry area is valid or not: you are not using an original image, and are refusing to answer people's questions in your thread (even if it's a simple "I don't know."). The more experienced of us on here know that behavior like this means something is going on (as we've seen it before from other members).

But no, your method will not work in the way you are using it. It's been explained several times now: you need several images taken of the same area, but with lighting at different angles. A single image will not do it correctly, and trying to make separate images from only one, using "artificial light" will not work either. "

..well, I would think I have tried to answer every question put to me as best as I could: maybe you could indicate those I missed...


" It's been explained several times now: you need several images taken of the same area, but with lighting at different angles. A single image will not do it "

That's where I believe you are wrong: what you are explaining is the conventional PTM methodology. I am saying that you can have similar results using other variables with the "light" variable.