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

Originally posted by funkster4

*"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...

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

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.

and now there are other organic life forms emerging around the seen

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


seems legit.

So where did the OP go? I would like to see more of his efforts.

Originally posted by NoRulesAllowed

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.

...I suggest you look attentively at the processed picture to verify that the contour of the crater immediately in the background is actually occulted by the structure.

This is quite evident, even to the casual observer...

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

seems legit.

So where did the OP go? I would like to see more of his efforts.

Hi..

I'm right here...

just posted a different version of the processed picture, with details I think are of interest...

Originally posted by stirling
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....

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

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

hi...

I intend to work on more UFO related material with this methodology. Maybe some coordinated effort can be made with the supplying of high quality source material pertaining to known cases. Since the process is cost-free and very simple, this could be a shared initiative...

So where is the structure in these pictures?







They are all images of Zeeman crater, at 70 deg S, 135 deg W, which is where your image is from.

Where is your structure?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


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

reply to post by funkster4


I'll just repost here my post from earlier, in case you may have missed it.

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE

I'd really be sold on your technique if you could, like a few other members have asked, produce a few control pictures that you've intentionally blurred using various techniques, showing us the original undoctored image, that same image with various blurs/occlusions added, and then the new image that you've resolved using your technique. I think that would go a long way toward satisfying the skeptics.

Also, I'd be very interested to see step-by-step instructions of how your technique works, and disclosure of which programs and/or software you've used to accomplish this technique. Not only so we can further vet your process, but so we ourselves can try it out and see what we might uncover! I for one, have a plethora of images that I'd love to try out your technique on in hopes of uncovering something savory!

Can you provide a control picture so we can see how reliable your technique is when we do know exactly what's under the occlusion?

Originally posted by funkster4
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.

Please do, I'm quite interested!

Originally posted by eriktheawful
So where is the structure in these pictures?

They are all images of Zeeman crater, at 70 deg S, 135 deg W, which is where your image is from.

Where is your structure?

It most likely had wheels or crawled away....to the hoax bin...maybe

funkster4
*"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

You need to work harder at locating proper source images before applying "sophisticated" methods to crap imagery.

The crater in question was not difficult to find on the Navy's Clementine Browser: www.nrl.navy.mil...

Here's a scaled-down version of what I found:


Click the thumbnail for a bigger version:


Or, for an even bigger version, click here

It's clearly the same as your altered image:



If you were intent on the truth, you would have looked harder for a better source.


HOAX

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....

Originally posted by funkster4

Originally posted by stirling
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....

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

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

hi...

I intend to work on more UFO related material with this methodology. Maybe some coordinated effort can be made with the supplying of high quality source material pertaining to known cases. Since the process is cost-free and very simple, this could be a shared initiative...

No.

If you really want to show that your alleged PTM technique can even work to bring out detail from blurred images, then I'd suggest you start with REAL examples (where it's known what it is) to first prove that what you say has any merit. THEN you can try to enhance UFO images.

Because otherwise your method will simply give you liberty to claim whatever you want (as with the alien images in the other thread).

The funny thing is that proving whether your method works is VERY easy. All you need is some example images and blur out various sections and then SHOW here how your method can get back all the detail which was blurred out. Then you would be much more credible in regards to your method.

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.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

funkster4
*"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

You need to work harder at locating proper source images before applying "sophisticated" methods to crap imagery.

The crater in question was not difficult to find on the Navy's Clementine Browser: www.nrl.navy.mil...

Here's a scaled-down version of what I found:

Click the thumbnail for a bigger version:


Or, for an even bigger version, click here

It's clearly the same as your altered image:

If you were intent on the truth, you would have looked harder for a better source.


HOAX

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

...do you mean that the image I worked with is not an authentic NASA image?

and I didn't alter it, by the way...

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by MysterX

 

You are fundamentally confused about what PTM is.

Could you please clarify your interpretation of PTM thank you

funkster4
...do you mean that the image I worked with is not an authentic NASA image?

Didn't I just show you that?

You never provided provenance of your source.

reply to post by purpleivan


That there already was noise in the picture is something I can easily agree with, making the result flawed. But, maybe a better image might make the application by Funkster more usable. Better still, you and Stargate, and Funkster get together on this and rework the old Apollo pictures that were really messed about with. NASA still does that and I wish they would stop.

reply to post by ExquisitExamplE


perhaps OPs technique has revealed that the moon is under water and what we are seeing is a giant underwater moon creature. what do you think?

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.

Originally posted by flipflop

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by MysterX

 

You are fundamentally confused about what PTM is.

Could you please clarify your interpretation of PTM thank you

Hi...

I think I've explained it several times already but...

*the core principle of PTM is using several interpretations of a finite data set to interpolate them and thus gain added knowledge

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

*I am saying that you can use an identical approach by not limiting yourself to one variable, but by taking advantage of the conventional optical settings to generate variations of the source material. That is all

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

funkster4
...do you mean that the image I worked with is not an authentic NASA image?

Didn't I just show you that?

You never provided provenance of your source.

...this is the website where I downloaded the image....


www.thelivingmoon.com...