Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[Jack by the hedge]

I need you to find an exact television channel in mexico. I need you to find the 11 hour recording of it on youtube.

You will be able to see this possibility you are currently skeptical of.

If you say something similar to "hey. I'm genuinely interested" i will bring you the link and explain what im asking you to look at while you watch it.

What if I say something similar to this:

You have not convinced me so far that you have anything of value to say about video trickery. If you think you're persuasive enough to make anyone invest their time in seeking out an eleven hour video in Spanish which you imply will contain a clue, then you are sadly mistaken. If you have evidence of something, show us.

The post you replied to asked what purpose pre-recorded videos would have if events didn't go to plan. That's what you said they were for. It makes no sense. Can you explain?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Name any photographer and i will show you at least one cause for concern. Wheter it be considered relevant to you, i cannot make that judgement. But i promise. if you send any photographers name i will show cause for concern about them being a genuine spontaneous photographer. Seriously.

Again. I am not saying anything more than i will be able to show something that gives reason to consider they arent an innocent janitor standing around.

If you suceed in finding one i will be happy. I dont want a big mystery. Wish there wasnt one.

Which photographs and videos did you use as a control for your procedures?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Hi andy. Are you sure? I remember that question. I believe i sent you a response. Id be happy to reply or explain anything better.

Can you show me the reply?
Or show us your controls

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Name any photographer and i will show you at least one cause for concern.

I'll stick with my original choice, Jules Naudet.

If you can tell us something that isn't just found by Googling "what do conspiracy theorists say to cast doubt on the Naudet video?" then maybe you'll be bringing something new.

 

[arthwollipot]

Hi art.

"And therefore"

I am assuming you mean i didnt make a point or you werent happy with my response. What can i do to better respond to this exact conversation between you and I?

Tell me and ill respond.

I want to know what it is you're trying to say. Sure, the images are manipulated. I'm going to give you that without question. So... what? What comes after establishing this conclusion? Who manipulated them? Why did they manipulate them? What is the un-manipulated image supposed to show?

You've spent a lot of time and resources establishing that the images have been manipulated. I grant you that premise. Therefore...? What?

 

[Myriad]

That is not comparable in any way to applying a photoshop app to reveal unnatural lighting.

Do you understand why my boss was wrong in the instance described? If so, can you state it briefly in your own words?

If you cannot, then you also cannot make plausible predictions regarding how an explosion in the background of a photograph "should" affect the illumination of nearer objects.

 

[nt1]

You think some of the video supposedly from 9/11 was pre-recorded?

And you suppose this was to allow any errors to be masked. How would that work?

I mean for example what if one of the planes missed its tower because those passengers had managed to storm the cockpit? What would be the point of having a pre-recorded video of the plane hitting the tower?

Anything which did not go to plan, such as the Shanksville crash, would be shown to have happened just as they did in every form of evidence except for these pre-recorded videos.

You could not release such videos and claim they were real if they contradicted radar, radio and phone calls, eyewitnesses, crash site debris and other authentic photos and videos.

Hi jack. I sent a few threads *responses* that were flagged for spam. I was trying to show you several screenshots as a process. My apologies. Take care

 

[nt1]

Do you understand why my boss was wrong in the instance described? If so, can you state it briefly in your own words?

If you cannot, then you also cannot make plausible predictions regarding how an explosion in the background of a photograph "should" affect the illumination of nearer objects.

Hi myraid. No thank you. And your right. I cant. Nor can you.

 

[JayUtah]

Hi myraid. No thank you. And you’re right. I cant. Nor can you.

What a knee-jerk answer. What makes you think he can’t? Some people actually do understand spatial relationships. Some people understand illumination and radiative view factors. Just because you don’t know what you’re talking about doesn’t mean no one does.

 

[GlennB]

What a knee-jerk answer. What makes you think he can’t? Some people actually do understand spatial relationships. Some people understand illumination and radiative view factors. Just because you don’t know what you’re talking about doesn’t mean no one does.

ftfy

 

[Steve]

The inevitable Dunning Kruger traits are starting to manifest.

 

[JayUtah]

The inevitable Dunning Kruger traits are starting to manifest.

Indeed. Who needs actual knowledge when there’s an app on your phone that just shows you the “unnatural light.” It’s super easy. Barely an inconvenience.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Hi jack. I sent a few threads *responses* that were flagged for spam. I was trying to show you several screenshots as a process. My apologies. Take care

Well I really didn't ask for a process. I asked what use would it be for the perpetrators to have pre-recorded bits of video to "mask errors"? Can you explain what you meant, just in your own words please?

What I mean is how could you mask an error? If something happened other than you intended, well that's just what happened and you can't change it by releasing a fake video of what you hoped would happen. The fake video would contradict all the other evidence. (Including any authentic video which happened to be recorded by any of thousands of eyewitnesses.)

Video cameras were not ubiquitous like they are now but the number of bits of video which have emerged show us that in a big city, particularly after people heard the news that something big was going on, plenty of people could grab a still camera or video camera and start recording what happened. Introducing faked contradictory video would be a dumb plan, don't you think?

 

[Myriad]

Hi myraid. No thank you. And your right. I cant. Nor can you.

Of course I can, which is why I was able to speak up in contradiction of my boss who had a handful of prestigious advanced degrees and millions in grant funding, to avoid a mistake which would have reduced the illuminance produced by the light wall as measured at a one meter distance, when the objective was to maximize it. As the research involved careful control and measurement of exposure to visible light, I (and other staff, but I was the one setting up and calibrating the equipment so despite my bosses' vast array of expertise the buck stopped at me when it came to implementation) had to be knowledgeable about such things as the subtle differences between e.g. illuminance, intensity, luminous flux, radiance, irradiance, and luminance. (No, I didn't repeat myself there.)

But the problem with painting the protective metal screen was simpler than all that. It relates to a basic concept that you might be familiar with: shadows. Whether the wire mesh is painted white or any other color, it still casts a black shadow opposite incident white light, so will still appear black to the eye (or to a camera or light meter) behind it facing the light source. Paint would add a layer (even if thin) to the metal, only making that shadow larger but no brighter.

That's the relevance of my story to your photo example that you couldn't see. Regardless of what you were doing with the curves, your suspicion of the black edge that stayed black amounts to you expecting the explosion in the background to brighten its own shadow cast by the nearer building. On that spatial scale (we're not talking about edge diffraction here) shadows don't work that way.

 

[Thermal]

Of course I can, which is why I was able to speak up in contradiction of my boss who had a handful of prestigious advanced degrees and millions in grant funding, to avoid a mistake which would have reduced the illuminance produced by the light wall as measured at a one meter distance, when the objective was to maximize it. As the research involved careful control and measurement of exposure to visible light, I (and other staff, but I was the one setting up and calibrating the equipment so despite my bosses' vast array of expertise the buck stopped at me when it came to implementation) had to be knowledgeable about such things as the subtle differences between e.g. illuminance, intensity, luminous flux, radiance, irradiance, and luminance. (No, I didn't repeat myself there.)

But the problem with painting the protective metal screen was simpler than all that. It relates to a basic concept that you might be familiar with: shadows. Whether the wire mesh is painted white or any other color, it still casts a black shadow opposite incident white light, so will still appear black to the eye (or to a camera or light meter) behind it facing the light source. Paint would add a layer (even if thin) to the metal, only making that shadow larger but no brighter.

That's the relevance of my story to your photo example that you couldn't see. Regardless of what you were doing with the curves, your suspicion of the black edge that stayed black amounts to you expecting the explosion in the background to brighten its own shadow cast by the nearer building. On that spatial scale (we're not talking about edge diffraction here) shadows don't work that way.

The flip of this was up on reddit about the same time you posted this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/blackmagicfuckery/comments/1kun9r5/this_structural_pole_is_inches_from_the_lens

Edited by jimbob: 

Some bad language in the replies so hidden

 

[Axxman300]

Name any photographer and i will show you at least one cause for concern. Wheter it be considered relevant to you, i cannot make that judgement. But i promise. if you send any photographers name i will show cause for concern about them being a genuine spontaneous photographer. Seriously.

Again. I am not saying anything more than i will be able to show something that gives reason to consider they arent an innocent janitor standing around.

If you suceed in finding one i will be happy. I dont want a big mystery. Wish there wasnt one.

So you just said you are not interested in the truth or the facts. This is not a case of ignorance with you, this is willful disregard for the facts in order to push some stupid political agenda using technologies you don't understand on any level. Shame on you.

The picture of the falling man was taken by AP photographer, Richard Drew. It is one in a series of 12 photographs of a chef from Windows on the World jumping to his death, as some 200 others did that day.

There are no problems with the photos and videos taken that day. The only problem is what's going on in your head.

 

[nt1]

So you just said you are not interested in the truth or the facts. This is not a case of ignorance with you, this is willful disregard for the facts in order to push some stupid political agenda using technologies you don't understand on any level. Shame on you.

The picture of the falling man was taken by AP photographer, Richard Drew. It is one in a series of 12 photographs of a chef from Windows on the World jumping to his death, as some 200 others did that day.

There are no problems with the photos and videos taken that day. The only problem is what's going on in your head.

Reason for attachments.

The photos show completely burnt out cars with no steam or smoldering smoke. There is no water in the streets. No mix of dust and water to make a mud or sludge.

And it is before 520pm. It would require the limits of science, physics, and reality.

Claim. IT IS NOT PHYSICALLY OR LOGISTICALLY POSSIBLE FOR THIS FOOTAGE TO BE FILMED BEFORE 520PM **and be genuine***AND MATCH THE DRY DUST FROM THE COLLAPSE OF TOWERS 1 AND 2, THE COMPLETE INCINERATION OF THE VEHICLES, THE LACK OF SMOLDERING SMOKE OR HEAT, THE ABSENCE OF WATER IN THE STREETS FROM EXTINGUISHING THE FIRE, AND THE TIME LINE OF EVENTS AND THIS REPORTER BEING ON SITE FILMING.

***Those cars were placed there burnt
*** it was pre recorded.
*** it was fabricated in another waya

**** If i find a dead body in the street its not my job to prove the case in court
*** if i hear about dead body in the street


Reply to response

I only read that you typed

You are not interested in truth or facts.

And i see your buddies with thumbs up.

I am very confident that is all the proof i need that

1. I could go back and find that is a quote out of context.

2. Im on to something

When im done watching terminator 2 ill come back and see what it is you are on about.

I just want you to know that you are acting like Miles Bennet Dyson.
Right.
¤How were you supoosed to know?
¤I need to be more constructive.

Since the point of covid was to deatroy the ability to critically think, but most of all sense of humor.

¤those are terminator 2 references and they are relevant because because 9/11 can easily be seen in fight club and whats coming is easily seen in terminator 2.

If you laugh and have no interest in that, you are the problem. If you arent bothered and dont believe that, i envy you. If you are confused, doubtful and scared to ask or understand, you are also the problem. If you are confused, doubtful, uncomfortable, reserving judgment, andnready to listen. You are the saving grace.

I will sit here and help. I hope you are enjoying your day

Mods. I dont spam. My apologies if multiple uploads of pictures appear to be so. I am calculated and always with reason.

I am not a troll or bot or doing this for fun or friends. Although, i always want to make two. Hi Raven.

The footage is fabricated.
The photographers can be called out.
The victims can be called out.
The same process that was not applied to 9/11
Is the same process that protects them
and it should.
Its whats right
Just
Justice

Look. You can huff puff and blow my house down. In what way is you applying judgment the same as me asking questions.

I only asked questions and asked for discussion. You respond with unwavering stubbornness and judgement. Not me.

Maybe someone will read this. Maybe they won't. There is one thing for sure.

There will always be ants, vultures, and cockroaches. They are as important as mammal mothers. Checks and balance.

Love you all

 

[kookbreaker]

What makes you think those cars were burnt?

They are certainly destroyed, but that is not a surprise from having the debris of the Twin Towers fall on them. But I don't see real proof of fire there and I've seen enough auto flambe to know it doesn't resemble that.

 

[Thermal]

Reason for attachments.

The photos show completely burnt out cars with no steam or smoldering smoke. There is no water in the streets. No mix of dust and water to make a mud or sludge.

And it is before 520pm. It would require the limits of science, physics, and reality.

Claim. IT IS NOT PHYSICALLY OR LOGISTICALLY POSSIBLE FOR THIS FOOTAGE TO BE FILMED BEFORE 520PM **and be genuine***AND MATCH THE DRY DUST FROM THE COLLAPSE OF TOWERS 1 AND 2, THE COMPLETE INCINERATION OF THE VEHICLES, THE LACK OF SMOLDERING SMOKE OR HEAT, THE ABSENCE OF WATER IN THE STREETS FROM EXTINGUISHING THE FIRE, AND THE TIME LINE OF EVENTS AND THIS REPORTER BEING ON SITE FILMING.

***Those cars were placed there burnt
*** it was pre recorded.
*** it was fabricated in another waya

**** If i find a dead body in the street its not my job to prove the case in court
*** if i hear about dead body in the street


Reply to response

I only read that you typed

You are not interested in truth or facts.

And i see your buddies with thumbs up.

I am very confident that is all the proof i need that

1. I could go back and find that is a quote out of context.

2. Im on to something

When im done watching terminator 2 ill come back and see what it is you are on about.

I just want you to know that you are acting like Miles Bennet Dyson.
Right.
¤How were you supoosed to know?
¤I need to be more constructive.

Since the point of covid was to deatroy the ability to critically think, but most of all sense of humor.

¤those are terminator 2 references and they are relevant because because 9/11 can easily be seen in fight club and whats coming is easily seen in terminator 2.

If you laugh and have no interest in that, you are the problem. If you arent bothered and dont believe that, i envy you. If you are confused, doubtful and scared to ask or understand, you are also the problem. If you are confused, doubtful, uncomfortable, reserving judgment, andnready to listen. You are the saving grace.

I will sit here and help. I hope you are enjoying your day

Mods. I dont spam. My apologies if multiple uploads of pictures appear to be so. I am calculated and always with reason.

I am not a troll or bot or doing this for fun or friends. Although, i always want to make two. Hi Raven.

The footage is fabricated.
The photographers can be called out.
The victims can be called out.
The same process that was not applied to 9/11
Is the same process that protects them
and it should.
Its whats right
Just
Justice

Look. You can huff puff and blow my house down. In what way is you applying judgment the same as me asking questions.

I only asked questions and asked for discussion. You respond with unwavering stubbornness and judgement. Not me.

Maybe someone will read this. Maybe they won't. There is one thing for sure.

There will always be ants, vultures, and cockroaches. They are as important as mammal mothers. Checks and balance.

Love you all

Regarding the pic with the cars:

There is obvious heavy dust on the ground surrounding the cars. They look to be to be stacked and packed like they were pushed out of their original locations, likely to make way for emergency vehicles whose access they were blocking. It's hard to tell because they are screenshots, which (at least on a mobile) unstable and unclear, hard to tell exactly when or where they were taken. You have a narrative in mind that is probably consistent with the pics you are showing, but on this end the dots aren't connecting. Its a picture of a few car shells.

 

[Thermal]

What makes you think those cars were burnt?

They are certainly destroyed, but that is not a surprise from having the debris of the Twin Towers fall on them. But I don't see real proof of fire there and I've seen enough auto flambe to know it doesn't resemble that.

The bus looks like it went roasty toasty, the cars not so much.