Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[Cosmic Yak]

A science experiment operates through the scientific method, typically in these steps:

1. Question – Identify a specific, testable question.


2. Hypothesis – Form a prediction based on existing knowledge.


3. Experiment – Design and conduct a controlled test, changing one variable at a time.


4. Observation/Data Collection – Record what happens during the experiment.


5. Analysis – Interpret the data to look for patterns or outcomes.


6. Conclusion – Determine whether the hypothesis was supported or refuted.


7. Report – Share results for review or replication.



That’s the essential start-to-finish structure.

Erm...None of this has anything to do with my post. Are you sure you're replying to the correct post?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Have we got to the part where nt1 says what his claim is yet?

 

[nt1]

Erm...None of this has anything to do with my post. Are you sure you're replying to the correct post?

Erm. Magh. Are you referncing the thebold erm my guad book meme?

I was trying to center your attitude to the real conversation which is scientific method to approaching a topic.

Here is a screenshot. Angle of shadow. East west. Only two possibilities.

This video shows a strong enough possibility to surmise the times shown in my wittle pictures

It would be remiss for someone to act like a king and require any post for discussion to be laid down requiring zero effort to lift a finger to make an examination or consideration.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Erm. Magh. Are you referncing the thebold erm my guad book meme?

Please try to respond in something approaching comprehensible English.

I was trying to center your attitude to the real conversation which is scientific method to approaching a topic.

I am well aware of what the scientific method is, thank you. However, the 'real conversation', as you put it, is what your claim actually is- something you seem to be having trouble answering.

Here is a screenshot. Angle of shadow. East west. Only two possibilities.

This video shows a strong enough possibility to surmise the times shown in my wittle pictures

It would be remiss for someone to act like a king and require any post for discussion to be laid down requiring zero effort to lift a finger to make an examination or consideration.

Yes, yes, yes. Very nice, I'm sure.
Now, back to the topic at hand:
What is your claim?

 

[GlennB]

Please try to respond in something approaching comprehensible English.


I am well aware of what the scientific method is, thank you. However, the 'real conversation', as you put it, is what your claim actually is- something you seem to be having trouble answering.


Yes, yes, yes. Very nice, I'm sure.
Now, back to the topic at hand:
What is your claim?

You/we won't get a rational answer. nt1 isn't well.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not unless it's contained in one of those videos.

 

[Thermal]

Erm. Magh. Are you referncing the thebold erm my guad book meme?

I was trying to center your attitude to the real conversation which is scientific method to approaching a topic.

Here is a screenshot. Angle of shadow. East west. Only two possibilities.

This video shows a strong enough possibility to surmise the times shown in my wittle pictures

It would be remiss for someone to act like a king and require any post for discussion to be laid down requiring zero effort to lift a finger to make an examination or consideration.

Ok. One angle is that the Der Speigel article or video or whatever that is (please don't use screenshots like ever on the forum, brah) doesn't have a time stated, or location or date or anything. So it doesn't mean much on this end, since it is not even a claim.

Another angle is that the AI is wrong. It's still wrong about pretty much everything except the most black and white issues. For instance, it gives a morning and evening possibility for the pic. We'll, the shadows would be 180 degrees (+/-) opposite directions, right? That means that particular AI conclusion is poorly concluded, I'd think.

 

[JayUtah]

Good lord almighty. Did you type all of that?

Yes. Are you able to address any of it?

A science experiment operates through the scientific method...

I am well acquainted with the scientific method. As a practicing licensed engineer, I am legally liable for my rigor in the application of it to work done for the public. Are you able to show how your luminance map exercise satisfies those steps?

 

[Axxman300]

Hi Prestige. I havent made a claim yet. I brought to attention that manipulating the curve of footage raises concern.

I have brought a science based evaluation to footage. I have countless facts, citations, and references. I havent quite made it through the international skeptics hazing orocess yet. Its only day one. So, im kinda getting beat up right now. If you are genuinely interested, i would be excited to expand on a claim or theory or present fact based evidence with citations that are in the public domain. But right now, im dealing with a hoard of gangbangers jumping me into their gang.

No, you are using photos that are copies of copies of copies. Or photos taken from video that was either 480p, 580p, or the network 780p footage taken with telephoto lenses. This does not include the thousands of images taken on 35mm film stock, and other smaller film used in instamatic camera common for the average person on 9-11-2001.

To put it politely, your source material is crap.

Then you decide to mix it up with actual engineers and folks who are knowledgeable about physics using ChatGTP, as if it's some kind of miracle tool. All this against a background of ignorance about the events of 9-11 in any detail. Hundreds of thousands of eye-witnesses, thousands of photographs taken by people from all walks of life, and multiple investigations conducted: The FBI, CIA, NYPD, FDNY, ATF, FAA, NY State Police, private insurance companies, and private investigators all tell the same story with the same facts. Al Qaeda hijacks four commercial jets and flew them into the WTC complex, Shanksville PA, and the Pentagon. That's it.

You claim only one criminal conviction for 9-11, yet there are five. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three others pled guilty, and fully admitted their work in planning the attacks (for which they are proud).

As far as WTC-7 goes, most of the actual experts you've chosen to argue with here on this board have differing opinions about the exact causes, and failures that created the collapse. You should read those threads and learn something. But none of them think is was a controlled demolition. But like every other hack conspiracy theorist on this subject, you ignore the fact that WTC-7 took 20 minutes to collapse, and focus on the final plunge as if it was the entire event. Forget the fact that the NYPD Bomb Squad was right there when it happened (you'd think they'd notice). Either way, you're not very good at this,

 

[JayUtah]

Hi Prestige. I havent made a claim yet. I brought to attention that manipulating the curve of footage raises concern.

What you brought to our attention was your mystification over an induced image artifact that is trivially explained as your misuse of a tool you don't seem to understand.

I have brought a science based evaluation to footage.

No.

You've made an observation predicated on your ignorant misuse of technology that you then insinuate to be some kind of anomaly. Then you've jumped to a conclusion that you think explains that allegedly anomalous observation in terms of a narrative that you seem content to hide for now. And all this is done without the slightest scintilla of controlled testing—or even a demonstrable understanding of what you're doing.

If you are genuinely interested, i would be excited to expand on a claim or theory or present fact based evidence with citations that are in the public domain. But right now, im dealing with a hoard of gangbangers jumping me into their gang.

You've been shown genuine interest. But all you can seem to manage is a snarky dismissal of questions intended to engage your claims in good faith.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Not unless it's contained in one of those videos.

Do YT videos count as legally binding facts?

 

[nt1]

Do YT videos count as legally binding facts?

Am i a country or judicial system? Am i the one that should be investigating a crime properly?

Are you paid to do this?

What a hilarious question.

 

[nt1]

What you brought to our attention was your mystification over an induced image artifact that is trivially explained as your misuse of a tool you don't seem to understand.


No.

You've made an observation predicated on your ignorant misuse of technology that you then insinuate to be some kind of anomaly. Then you've jumped to a conclusion that you think explains that allegedly anomalous observation in terms of a narrative that you seem content to hide for now. And all this is done without the slightest scintilla of controlled testing—or even a demonstrable understanding of what you're doing.


You've been shown genuine interest. But all you can seem to manage is a snarky dismissal of questions intended to engage your claims in good faith.

The black line comes from a 2000 home video

With curve manipulation applied. Notice a uniform black line

The white line. Is wtc7 collapsing. Notice the zig zag line. That is a computer unable to trace a straight line like the light of the sun reflecting would do.

If i am wrong. Thennwork on proving that. If i am right are you not concerned?

If you dont care. Does that speak volumes?

Also. I like the wig in your avatar photo.

 

[JayUtah]

With curve manipulation applied. Notice a uniform black line

I've explained how your manipulation of the luminance channel is producing these effects. They aren't in the photo. They are 100% caused by you fiddling with the luminance in a way you don't seem to understand. In this latest example, your method—which eliminates the difference between adjacent midtones—is causing the aliasing.

If i am wrong. Thennwork on proving that.

I did.

If you dont care. Does that speak volumes?

I do care, which is why I'm engaging your purported method.

 

[nt1]

No, you are using photos that are copies of copies of copies. Or photos taken from video that was either 480p, 580p, or the network 780p footage taken with telephoto lenses. This does not include the thousands of images taken on 35mm film stock, and other smaller film used in instamatic camera common for the average person on 9-11-2001.

To put it politely, your source material is crap.

Then you decide to mix it up with actual engineers and folks who are knowledgeable about physics using ChatGTP, as if it's some kind of miracle tool. All this against a background of ignorance about the events of 9-11 in any detail. Hundreds of thousands of eye-witnesses, thousands of photographs taken by people from all walks of life, and multiple investigations conducted: The FBI, CIA, NYPD, FDNY, ATF, FAA, NY State Police, private insurance companies, and private investigators all tell the same story with the same facts. Al Qaeda hijacks four commercial jets and flew them into the WTC complex, Shanksville PA, and the Pentagon. That's it.

You claim only one criminal conviction for 9-11, yet there are five. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three others pled guilty, and fully admitted their work in planning the attacks (for which they are proud).

As far as WTC-7 goes, most of the actual experts you've chosen to argue with here on this board have differing opinions about the exact causes, and failures that created the collapse. You should read those threads and learn something. But none of them think is was a controlled demolition. But like every other hack conspiracy theorist on this subject, you ignore the fact that WTC-7 took 20 minutes to collapse, and focus on the final plunge as if it was the entire event. Forget the fact that the NYPD Bomb Squad was right there when it happened (you'd think they'd notice). Either way, you're not very good at this,

Copies of cooies of copies is accurate in some ways. It also is not

Ill show you falling man.

Ill show you a direct download. A screenshot. And a screenshot of a video camera filming a newspaper it is printed on.

It remains.

Yes. For forensic legal evidence you should have a raw original source.

I can show the same halo through separate and different generations of iteration. So no. It does not invalidate cause for concern.

I did not supply the moat direct download from the photographers website it is buried. Here are three separate examples. I eould be happy to find the original and also try 10 other examples. Results are the same.

It is an alpha halo hidden in the photo. Exposed by bending light.

Look if you are comfortable and happy with everything just respond with. "Nothing's wrong. No need to examine anything. Please stop."

Or say what it is, you do think needs examining. Ill do that for you too.

 

[nt1]

No, you are using photos that are copies of copies of copies. Or photos taken from video that was either 480p, 580p, or the network 780p footage taken with telephoto lenses. This does not include the thousands of images taken on 35mm film stock, and other smaller film used in instamatic camera common for the average person on 9-11-2001.

To put it politely, your source material is crap.

Then you decide to mix it up with actual engineers and folks who are knowledgeable about physics using ChatGTP, as if it's some kind of miracle tool. All this against a background of ignorance about the events of 9-11 in any detail. Hundreds of thousands of eye-witnesses, thousands of photographs taken by people from all walks of life, and multiple investigations conducted: The FBI, CIA, NYPD, FDNY, ATF, FAA, NY State Police, private insurance companies, and private investigators all tell the same story with the same facts. Al Qaeda hijacks four commercial jets and flew them into the WTC complex, Shanksville PA, and the Pentagon. That's it.

You claim only one criminal conviction for 9-11, yet there are five. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three others pled guilty, and fully admitted their work in planning the attacks (for which they are proud).

As far as WTC-7 goes, most of the actual experts you've chosen to argue with here on this board have differing opinions about the exact causes, and failures that created the collapse. You should read those threads and learn something. But none of them think is was a controlled demolition. But like every other hack conspiracy theorist on this subject, you ignore the fact that WTC-7 took 20 minutes to collapse, and focus on the final plunge as if it was the entire event. Forget the fact that the NYPD Bomb Squad was right there when it happened (you'd think they'd notice). Either way, you're not very good at this,

There are five

 

[nt1]

No, you are using photos that are copies of copies of copies. Or photos taken from video that was either 480p, 580p, or the network 780p footage taken with telephoto lenses. This does not include the thousands of images taken on 35mm film stock, and other smaller film used in instamatic camera common for the average person on 9-11-2001.

To put it politely, your source material is crap.

Then you decide to mix it up with actual engineers and folks who are knowledgeable about physics using ChatGTP, as if it's some kind of miracle tool. All this against a background of ignorance about the events of 9-11 in any detail. Hundreds of thousands of eye-witnesses, thousands of photographs taken by people from all walks of life, and multiple investigations conducted: The FBI, CIA, NYPD, FDNY, ATF, FAA, NY State Police, private insurance companies, and private investigators all tell the same story with the same facts. Al Qaeda hijacks four commercial jets and flew them into the WTC complex, Shanksville PA, and the Pentagon. That's it.

You claim only one criminal conviction for 9-11, yet there are five. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three others pled guilty, and fully admitted their work in planning the attacks (for which they are proud).

As far as WTC-7 goes, most of the actual experts you've chosen to argue with here on this board have differing opinions about the exact causes, and failures that created the collapse. You should read those threads and learn something. But none of them think is was a controlled demolition. But like every other hack conspiracy theorist on this subject, you ignore the fact that WTC-7 took 20 minutes to collapse, and focus on the final plunge as if it was the entire event. Forget the fact that the NYPD Bomb Squad was right there when it happened (you'd think they'd notice). Either way, you're not very good at this,

You are incorrect. There are not 5, the 4 that you are speaking about. Were military tribunals tried in a military court. That is not a judicial court of the United States of America. I'm sorry, you are wrong. You are not correct. It is factually inaccurate.

 

[ahhell]

What you brought to our attention was your mystification over an induced image artifact that is trivially explained as your misuse of a tool you don't seem to understand.


No.

You've made an observation predicated on your ignorant misuse of technology that you then insinuate to be some kind of anomaly. Then you've jumped to a conclusion that you think explains that allegedly anomalous observation in terms of a narrative that you seem content to hide for now. And all this is done without the slightest scintilla of controlled testing—or even a demonstrable understanding of what you're doing.


You've been shown genuine interest. But all you can seem to manage is a snarky dismissal of questions intended to engage your claims in good faith.

Yes, that last bit. From what I can tell, Nt1 has created anomalies is images that I suppose could be due to manipulation by shadowing forces or could just as easily be created by nt1's only manipulations. Anyone that questions that is met by...snark. I'm not especially convinced that nt1 has found anything worthy of more investigation. This is especially true because nt1 has not suggested a falsifiable claim. What can we debunk. Yes, those images appear to have been manipulated and they appear to have artifacts as a result. Well, we know for a fact that nt1 has manipulated them. Anything else....I don't know.

 

[JayUtah]

Ill show you a direct download.

It doesn't matter what you're "directly" downloading if you can't discover the pertinent effects that occurred before the image got to the place you're downloading it from.

A screenshot. And a screenshot of a video camera filming a newspaper it is printed on.

There are at least three sources of aliasing and color gamut problems in this chain of provenance.

Yes. For forensic legal evidence you should have a raw original source.

Also for science. Part of the scientific method—Step 3 in your list—requires you to control the experiment. You cannot do that with convenience sources.

I can show the same halo through separate and different generations of iteration.

Your halos are fully artifacts arising from your misuse of the luminance map.

So no. It does not invalidate cause for concern.

There is no cause for concern. We know what's causing the artifacts you're observing in your adjusted images.

It is an alpha halo hidden in the photo. Exposed by bending light.

Gibberish.

Look if you are comfortable and happy with everything just respond with. "Nothing's wrong. No need to examine anything. Please stop."

But that would be inappropriately conclusory. Instead, people are telling you what's wrong with your reasoning and method.

Or say what it is, you do think needs examining. Ill do that for you too.

What needs examining is the premise behind your method for applying luminance maps that are absolutely guaranteed to produce the "anomalies" you are trying to say are evidence of image tampering. You seem to think these manipulations somehow magically reveal hidden information in the image. Instead they are removing important information which leaves you with undifferentiated bands and aliased features.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Am i a country or judicial system? Am i the one that should be investigating a crime properly?

Are you paid to do this?

What a hilarious question.

Well, I wasn't actually asking you, and it's a thing called "humour", which you may have heard of.
Given your apparent inability to answer direct questions, it's all that's left.