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

reply to post by funkster4

I can't seem to find those pictures from the Lier Turkey sighting. I would REALLY like to see them. You mentioned posting a thread but I cant find it. Help.

Originally posted by funkster4

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

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.

edit on 28-8-2013 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)

Hi...

I keep repeating that anybody can do this...

I'd be interested in your trying to interpolate some derivations of your source image, using your software, and see what you come up with....

Funkster, as you appear to have ignored two previous roots for some info, I will try once more. I don't expect you to give me any of your time, software does not seem to recognize any format other than ,ptm is there an image converter you know of to convert from jpg gif whatever format to ptm, thanks

funkster4
*PTM uses on one single variable to generate the interpretations: light direction

Polynomial Texture Mapping, or also known as Reflectance Transformation Imaging, was originally developed as a methodology to use quality source images as a means for better-looking 3D renderings. It has uses beyond texture maps for 3D rendering engines -- but the key thought is, "quality images."

No professional analyzing photos would bother applying edge-detection techniques (which is essentially what it is) to the crude and heavily artifacted image you supplied. The data would be inconclusive at best, but more than likely misleading.


You never looked for a better image.

You applied a technique intended for quality high-res sources to a poor source.

The results are rubbish... as could be expected.

funkster4
...this is the website where I downloaded the image....
www.thelivingmoon.com...

Seriously?

You used a moon conspiracy site as a source, and not NASA?

Why didn't you look for another image?

Originally posted by flipflop

Originally posted by funkster4

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

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.

edit on 28-8-2013 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)

Hi...

I keep repeating that anybody can do this...

I'd be interested in your trying to interpolate some derivations of your source image, using your software, and see what you come up with....

Funkster, as you appear to have ignored two previous roots for some info, I will try once more. I don't expect you to give me any of your time, software does not seem to recognize any format other than ,ptm is there an image converter you know of to convert from jpg gif whatever format to ptm, thanks

[/quote


Hi...

Sorry, as you can see there are many issues being raised here that I try to answer...

I do not use the PTM software, as I made clear. I was very curious when I learned that a quasi identical methodlogy was being developped by HP and that a software was available for free. I got it but was not able to open it (now, as I explained, I am from the book generation...). If you are using it already and generating files, this mean you maybe can get some help from the HP website, I would think: it is just a conversion matter in my opinion.
Sorry I can't do much...

The point of what i am presenting here is that this methodology can also be applied outside of the quite restricted paradigm of PTM, which relies solely on the use of one single variable, light...

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

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by ExquisitExamplE

 

Can you stop trolling please? If you're not going to add anything pertinent to the thread, don't post.

If you or the OP want to discus pareidolia and other psychological phenomenon that is pertinent to the thread, then I'm game. Obviously its over your head that the images of structures are generated by your mind. Im telling you what I "see" and if it doesn't jibe with what you see, too bad. Its all pertinent, you just don't follow.

Oh, I follow just fine; if you want to pretend that your previous couple of posts were anything but outright trolling and mockery, that's your prerogative I suppose. There's a big difference between disagreeing with the OP and actually making an argument like Abeverage has done, and just screwing around and trolling, like you've been doing.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
Im pretty sure that is a some kind of animal, like a giraffe or a camel that is sitting down. I don't think its a building or a steam engine.

So you're telling me that you actually "see" an animal, like a giraffe or a camel, sitting down in that picture? You may tell me in response that you do see that, but we both know that isn't the truth, that you were simply making up something weird in order to mock the OP, which is the definition of trolling, although I'm sure a self-proclaimed super genius such as yourself is far too full of themself to admit to it.

If you look at my previous post, you'll see that I'm the one actually taking the middle road and asking for more evidence so we can vet the OP's technique.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

funkster4
...this is the website where I downloaded the image....
www.thelivingmoon.com...

Seriously?

You used a moon conspiracy site as a source, and not NASA?

Why didn't you look for another image?

Oh, it get's even better.

He used an image from a moon conspiracy site.....that links to the Clementine Lunar map site....but when you zoom into Zeeman crater, you don't see that blur at all......

Better yet, there is a link included who's subject line reads:

"China has found something shocking on the moon?"

Guess where that link leads to? To a thread right here on ATS created by our very own Arken:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can NOT find that "blurry" picture on any official NASA, JPL or Clementine web site of any of it's images.......

Oh what a funny internet we live in...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

funkster4
...this is the website where I downloaded the image....
www.thelivingmoon.com...

Seriously?

You used a moon conspiracy site as a source, and not NASA?

Why didn't you look for another image?

...do you mean that the image I used is not an genuine NASA image?

funkster4
...do you mean that the image I used is not an genuine NASA image?

I think it's rather clear you're unsure as to the provenance of your own source. And yes, it's also rather clear that I'm saying you're not using a genuine image, because the actual genuine image is different than yours.

Originally posted by abe froman
reply to post by funkster4

 

I can't seem to find those pictures from the Lier Turkey sighting. I would REALLY like to see them. You mentioned posting a thread but I cant find it. Help.

Hi...

I'm not sure this is going to make life easier for me here, but here is a crop of a frame of the Kumburgaz clip, obtained after processing with the same methodology I am clumsily trying to present here...

The crop shows the alledged "window area" where apparent movement can be detected in the film, and which has been the source of much speculation...

I have processed a total of five frames from this clip...

reply to post by ExquisitExamplE

I follow just fine; if you want to pretend that your previous couple of posts were anything but outright trolling and mockery, that's your prerogative I suppose. There's a big difference between disagreeing with the OP and actually making an argument like Abeverage has done, and just screwing around and trolling, like you've been doing.

seriously? who do you think you are? and what is it that you are doing here? sorry my posts weren't to your standards and believe me, I will post what I think is appropriate. My posts were spot on and to the point. You, however, want to start an argument and have added nothing to the conversation whatsoever. No, you don't follow whats going on. its over your head. that's obvious. Do you have a crush on Abeverage or something?

so do you think its an animal or a building?

So you're telling me that you actually "see" an animal, like a giraffe or a camel, sitting down in that picture? You may tell me in response that you do see that, but we both know that isn't the truth, that you were simply making up something weird in order to mock the OP

what I am seeing is pareidolia as I already mentioned. obviously its over your head even after I explained it. the Op can discuss it with me or ignore me. hes a big boy.

which is the definition of trolling,

the definition of trolling is what you are doing. that is certain

although I'm sure a self-proclaimed super genius such as yourself is far too full of themself to admit to it.

as a self proclaimed super genius, what I know is that THAT is over your head as well.

If you look at my previous post, you'll see that I'm the one actually taking the middle road and asking for more evidence so we can vet the OP's technique.

seriously? why would I care what your opinion is? you are a troll.

Originally posted by funkster4

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

funkster4
...this is the website where I downloaded the image....
www.thelivingmoon.com...

Seriously?

You used a moon conspiracy site as a source, and not NASA?

Why didn't you look for another image?

...do you mean that the image I used is not an genuine NASA image?

The image is suppose to be from Clementine, and US Navy probe. Here is a map site of the images it took:

Clementine Lunar Map

If you pan and zoom around, you find many areas that are "blacked" out from data transmission loss (subject of MANY threads here on ATS), stitching errors, and stretched images from making a flat map (again, subject of MANY "Moon Artifact" threads here on ATS).

however, if you pan over to Zeeman crater (that is where your "artifact" is suppose to be) and look, you will NOT see your blur in your image from that conspiracy site.

In fact......you will only find that image on blogs, chines news sites, and copies of it and links to those blogs and news sites here on ATS.

I've yet to find your image anywhere on a official Clementine site.

So it looks like you've used your "method" to enhance a photo that has been tampered with all right, but not by NASA, JPL or the US Navy......but by people trying to sell news.....

funkster4
I have processed a total of five frames from this clip

From what source?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

funkster4
...do you mean that the image I used is not an genuine NASA image?

I think it's rather clear you're unsure as to the provenance of your own source. And yes, it's also rather clear that I'm saying you're not using a genuine image, because the actual genuine image is different than yours.

...may I ask the question again: is this image not a legitimate NASA picture?

last I heard, this image is not disputed per se: NASA only claims the apparent smudge is due to "data loss due to compression" (that's why, actually, I decided to work on it).

Am I wrong on that?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

funkster4
I have processed a total of five frames from this clip

From what source?

...well, I'm honored I have seemed to pique your interest...

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

reply to post by funkster4

Thanks for throwing that picture up. It looks even less clear than the original though. You're right that didn't help your case any...sorry.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by smurfy

 

Yeah that picture of Saturn's moons have been explained in detail in other thread. I've shown how it was done in one of my posts.

This is not to say that NASA doesn't deliberately blur out parts of pictures.

How the Saturn moons job was done was crap to be honest, and not exactly a secret, and..not so long ago.
Far from it, we know that NASA does deliberately mess with pictures, the rationale known only to them and I wish they would stop. Yes I have also seen the uncalibrated image of Titan and Dione which is black and white and a different orientation, the lady could have made a palate of the colours and added them in as near true, (at least as near true as the recorded stock is near true) instead there is an overlay of the picture filters out of sync where she had to use the ol' mascara in big blobs. Why?

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.

Originally posted by abe froman
reply to post by funkster4

 

Thanks for throwing that picture up. It looks even less clear than the original though. You're right that didn't help your case any...sorry.

...yeah, photo interpretation can be tricky...

I do not usually retouch results, but here a version for your benefit, with part of the background detoured, that might make the image easier to visualize...

reply to post by ExquisitExamplE


here now is my interpretation of the OP's Turkey "U" (its only a U because its not an actual object and it doesn't fly) get it?



pretty good eh?