Craig Lamson Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Duane...I was just disappointed by doing another of the flag-earth-astronaut series, and it was perfectly smooth. The black sky showed no variation, being such a dense black that few colors could be extracted. There were no paste-on lines around the earth, and everything seemed "normal". Maybe NASA is perfecting the images against computer enhancement. However, all the OLD images I saved should be untampered. Were the images you sent to me NEW SAVES or OLD SAVES? Jack Jack, you were asked to detail the exact process for your "enhancements" so everyone could check your work. When can we expect this detailed workflow process? After all this is what happens when "GOOD" science and research is being done. You ARE doing good science..right? Please prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Jack is making as much "analysis" as a monkey in front of the Photoshop keyboard would. He's twidding knobs and adjusting scales until it shows something that he will claim is "evidence". Let's face it, Jack has problems driving a PC properly much less complex software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Duane...I was just disappointed by doing another of the flag-earth-astronaut series, and it was perfectly smooth. The black sky showed no variation, being such a dense black that few colors could be extracted. There were no paste-on lines around the earth, and everything seemed "normal". Maybe NASA is perfecting the images against computer enhancement. However, all the OLD images I saved should be untampered. Were the images you sent to me NEW SAVES or OLD SAVES? Jack Jack, you were asked to detail the exact process for your "enhancements" so everyone could check your work. When can we expect this detailed workflow process? After all this is what happens when "GOOD" science and research is being done. You ARE doing good science..right? Please prove it. Could it include the photo identifiers as well please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Duane...I was just disappointed by doing another of the flag-earth-astronaut series, and it was perfectly smooth. The black sky showed no variation, being such a dense black that few colors could be extracted. There were no paste-on lines around the earth, and everything seemed "normal". Maybe NASA is perfecting the images against computer enhancement. However, all the OLD images I saved should be untampered. Were the images you sent to me NEW SAVES or OLD SAVES? Jack Jack, you were asked to detail the exact process for your "enhancements" so everyone could check your work. When can we expect this detailed workflow process? After all this is what happens when "GOOD" science and research is being done. You ARE doing good science..right? Please prove it. Could it include the photo identifiers as well please? Every photo posted is identified. A "compression artifact" (if such is involved) is CAUSED BY SOMETHING. This is what brings out anomalies otherwise unseen. Anyone with a graphics program (Photoshop, etc) can process photos like this. Ninety percent of what the computer does is SUBTRACT COLOR INTENSITY (lightening) of each of the RED-GREEN-BLUE hues with occasional increases in contrast and sharpening. Were I to carry out the process to the extreme, all colors would be removed, leaving a blank screen. By watching the screen as the incremental enhancement advances, I stop it when the optimal enhancement occurs. This process is carried out completely by the computer as I give it commands. I have no notion of what the result is going to be. I consider it a personal attack to be called a MONKEY, and request that some responsible moderator remove this assualt. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 he said as a monkey. I looked rather perfunctorily for the identifier and couldn't find it. I'm interested but it should really have a format of debate so that the lowest common denominator can function for those peripherally interested in these hoax notions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 21, 2010 Author Share Posted September 21, 2010 (edited) As usual Lamson, you didn't disappoint with your typical "jpg compression" excuse.. Well, actullay you did disappoint.. I thought you would have much more of a "rebuttal" than that up your sleeve. The fact that Jack didn't find any "jpg compression" in the last photo he studied, actually proves you wrong .. If it really were only "JPG COMPRESSION", or "scanner noise" ( or any other nonsense you can dream up) seen in these photos, then they would all react the same to Jack's analysis process.. But they didn't. What Jack found in his last analysis was a solid black painted in sky, showing no "jpg compression" artifacts at all .. What he found in the first study he posted here, is a perfect square surrounding the image of "earth".. You can use any excuse you please for that fact, but what it proves is that the image of "earth" was composited into the photo. I also find it amusing that moderator Burton feels the need to abuse his authority here, by comparing Jack's work to that of a monkey. Obviously your desperation is showing.. Especially when all you fellows have for "rebuttals" to the evidence proving the Apollo photos are fake, are "jpg compression" and insults. Edited September 21, 2010 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 21, 2010 Author Share Posted September 21, 2010 Duane...I was just disappointed by doing another of the flag-earth-astronaut series, and it was perfectly smooth. The black sky showed no variation, being such a dense black that few colors could be extracted. There were no paste-on lines around the earth, and everything seemed "normal". Maybe NASA is perfecting the images against computer enhancement. However, all the OLD images I saved should be untampered. Were the images you sent to me NEW SAVES or OLD SAVES? Jack Jack, you were asked to detail the exact process for your "enhancements" so everyone could check your work. When can we expect this detailed workflow process? After all this is what happens when "GOOD" science and research is being done. You ARE doing good science..right? Please prove it. Could it include the photo identifiers as well please? Every photo posted is identified. A "compression artifact" (if such is involved) is CAUSED BY SOMETHING. This is what brings out anomalies otherwise unseen. Anyone with a graphics program (Photoshop, etc) can process photos like this. Ninety percent of what the computer does is SUBTRACT COLOR INTENSITY (lightening) of each of the RED-GREEN-BLUE hues with occasional increases in contrast and sharpening. Were I to carry out the process to the extreme, all colors would be removed, leaving a blank screen. By watching the screen as the incremental enhancement advances, I stop it when the optimal enhancement occurs. This process is carried out completely by the computer as I give it commands. I have no notion of what the result is going to be. I consider it a personal attack to be called a MONKEY, and request that some responsible moderator remove this assualt. Jack This one really does say it all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Every photo posted is identified. A "compression artifact" (if such is involved) is CAUSED BY SOMETHING. This is what brings out anomalies otherwise unseen. Yea...the "something" is LOSSY Compression. Its what happens when a photo is reuced in resolution and then saved as a JPG. INFORMATION gets thrown away. It appears this is way beyond your ability to comprehend. Anyone with a graphics program (Photoshop, etc) can process photos like this. Ninety percent of what the computer does is SUBTRACT COLOR INTENSITY (lightening) of each of the RED-GREEN-BLUE hues with occasional increases in contrast and sharpening. Were I to carry out the process to the extreme, all colors would be removed, leaving a blank screen. By watching the screen as the incremental enhancement advances, I stop it when the optimal enhancement occurs. This process is carried out completely by the computer as I give it commands. I have no notion of what the result is going to be. So exactly WHAT are the commands you are giving? Screen captures please. I consider it a personal attack to be called a MONKEY, and request that some responsible moderator remove this assualt. YOu were NOT called a monkey. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 As usual Lamson, you didn't disappoint with your typical "jpg compression" excuse.. Well, actullay you did disappoint.. I thought you would have much more of a "rebuttal" than that up your sleeve. The fact that Jack didn't find any "jpg compression" in the last photo he studied, actually proves you wrong .. If it really were only "JPG COMPRESSION", or "scanner noise" ( or any other nonsense you can dream up) seen in these photos, then they would all react the same to Jack's analysis process.. But they didn't. What Jack found in his last analysis was a solid black painted in sky, showing no "jpg compression" artifacts at all .. What he found in the first study he posted here, is a perfect square surrounding the image of "earth".. You can use any excuse you please for that fact, but what it proves is that the image of "earth" was composited into the photo. I also find it amusing that moderator Burton feels the need to abuse his authority here, by comparing Jack's work to that of a monkey. Obviously your desperation is showing.. Especially when all you fellows have for "rebuttals" to the evidence proving the Apollo photos are fake, are "jpg compression" and insults. Duane...what they fail to appreciate is that COMPRESSION ARTIFACTS may be what accentuate the area of fakery! For instance, if the sky is solid black, but a rectangular compression artifact appears in an otherwise smooth black sky...it indicates an anomaly caused by a different shade of black than the smooth sky. I welcome finding anomalies depicted by compression artifacts. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 he said as a monkey. I looked rather perfunctorily for the identifier and couldn't find it. I'm interested but it should really have a format of debate so that the lowest common denominator can function for those peripherally interested in these hoax notions. Comparing MY work to that of a monkey contains NO IDENTIFIER? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 As usual Lamson, you didn't disappoint with your typical "jpg compression" excuse.. Well, actullay you did disappoint.. I thought you would have much more of a "rebuttal" than that up your sleeve. I DO have a rebuttal "up my sleeve" I'm just waiting for he proper time to use it. The fact that Jack didn't find any "jpg compression" in the last photo he studied, actually proves you wrong .. If it really were only "JPG COMPRESSION", or "scanner noise" ( or any other nonsense you can dream up) seen in these photos, then they would all react the same to Jack's analysis process.. But they didn't. No, not at all. It really depends on the amount of post processing an image recieves and how it was saved. This is simple digital photo 101, so its no suprise your fail. What Jack found in his last analysis was a solid black painted in sky, showing no "jpg compression" artifacts at all .. What he found in the first study he posted here, is a perfect square surrounding the image of "earth".. You can use any excuse you please for that fact, but what it proves is that the image of "earth" was composited into the photo. Again you miss the point and fail to understand the processes involved, which is why you look so silly in threads like these. Question Duane...what shape does jpg compression create? How many pixels by how many pixels? Can't wait to see your answer.... I also find it amusing that moderator Burton feels the need to abuse his authority here, by comparing Jack's work to that of a monkey. If you think the shoe fits.... Obviously your desperation is showing.. Especially when all you fellows have for "rebuttals" to the evidence proving the Apollo photos are fake, are "jpg compression" and insults. LOL! desperation is doing "enhancements" without the first understanding of what is happening and calling it proof of something. Desperation is agreeing with the author of such trash because you don't have a clue...but it supports your worldview... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Duane...what they fail to appreciate is that COMPRESSION ARTIFACTS may be what accentuate the area of fakery! For instance, if the sky is solid black, but a rectangular compression artifact appears in an otherwise smooth black sky...it indicates an anomaly caused by a different shade of black than the smooth sky. I welcome finding anomalies depicted by compression artifacts. Jack I welcome you saying you have found "anomolies". More quotes to show your ignornance of the subject matter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 he said as a monkey. I looked rather perfunctorily for the identifier and couldn't find it. I'm interested but it should really have a format of debate so that the lowest common denominator can function for those peripherally interested in these hoax notions. Comparing MY work to that of a monkey contains NO IDENTIFIER? Jack Excuse me. he said as a monkey ___________ re image : I looked rather perfunctorily for the identifier and couldn't find it. I'm interested but it should really have a format of debate so that the lowest common denominator can function for those peripherally interested in these hoax notions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 he said as a monkey. I looked rather perfunctorily for the identifier and couldn't find it. I'm interested but it should really have a format of debate so that the lowest common denominator can function for those peripherally interested in these hoax notions. Comparing MY work to that of a monkey contains NO IDENTIFIER? Jack Excuse me. he said as a monkey ___________ re image : I looked rather perfunctorily for the identifier and couldn't find it. I'm interested but it should really have a format of debate so that the lowest common denominator can function for those peripherally interested in these hoax notions. Jack is making as much "analysis" as a monkey in front of the Photoshop keyboard would. The "identifier" is clearly stated to be JACK. Burton clearly compares me to a monkey. Plus, I do not use Photoshop, a false assumption. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 he said as a monkey. I looked rather perfunctorily for the identifier and couldn't find it. I'm interested but it should really have a format of debate so that the lowest common denominator can function for those peripherally interested in these hoax notions. Comparing MY work to that of a monkey contains NO IDENTIFIER? Jack Excuse me. he said as a monkey ___________ re image : I looked rather perfunctorily for the identifier and couldn't find it. I'm interested but it should really have a format of debate so that the lowest common denominator can function for those peripherally interested in these hoax notions. Jack is making as much "analysis" as a monkey in front of the Photoshop keyboard would. The "identifier" is clearly stated to be JACK. Burton clearly compares me to a monkey. Plus, I do not use Photoshop, a false assumption. Jack omg.. forget about the bloody monkey. Whats the frigging # of the image in the earth image study thingy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now