Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[ahhell]

We seem to be dealing with another scatterbrained truther here. nt1 started on the investigations, then moved to pictures, and is now on cancelled flight reservations. Thus far, no coherent claim has been presented, nor has any convincing evidence been offered up to support these multiple vague insinuations. I don't see this changing any time soon.

I think he was on the pictures/video from the start, as he started with a cryptic, provide a picture request. Since nobody could tell exactly what he was looking for, it was a bit confusing.

That being said, the couple of 9/11 truthers i've known in real life were all about the jumping from one unrelated anomaly to the next. Explain the first and the move on to the next in a whole series of things they think seem weird. As noted by others, look at anything long enough and you'll find stuff that seems weird. One of the fellas I knew for real, I fairly easily explained his anomalies and but it ended with, but there are all these questions. The other I talked to a bit later and it was as though we'd never talked before because he started with the anomalies as before.

Anyrate, this as been interesting because these are anomalies I've never come across before.

 

[ahhell]

Is that not a distraction from the topic of the thread?

Maybe the Flight cancellation thing should be split for clarity.

My bet is that if it was even a thing, it was a single large group of Nat Geo employees that caused it. The FBI asked and nat geo said something along the lines of we were sending them all to do some reporting on some thing in LA and it got cancelled.

 

[Pixel42]

Maybe the Flight cancellation thing should be split for clarity.

My bet is that if it was even a thing, it was a single large group of Nat Geo employees that caused it. The FBI asked and nat geo said something along the lines of we were sending them all to do some reporting on some thing in LA and it got cancelled.

There were four flights though, weren't there? Were there a significantly larger number of cancellations/no shows than usual for all of them? If it was just that one flight, and that one multiple cancellation explains it, there's no need to investigate any further.

I'd still like to see actual figures for previous flights and for the 9/11 flights before giving any credence to the claim that there even is an anomaly.

 

[Thermal]

There were four flights though, weren't there? Were there a significantly larger number of cancellations/no shows than usual for all of them? If it was just that one flight, and that one multiple cancellation explains it, there's no need to investigate any further.

I'd still like to see actual figures for previous flights and for the 9/11 flights before giving any credence to the claim that there even is an anomaly.

Not just any flights, though. Early morning cross country flights. I recall reading (in a different context) that cancellations for a midday or redeye flights are fairly low. Early morning flights are the most often cancelled or missed. I also recall that flights to the LA area are the most often cancelled in the country, regardless of their origin airport. Strictly memory, so not solid evidence, but something to keep in mind when OP submits his evidence.for his claim about cancellation frequency rates.

 

[JayUtah]

There were four flights though, weren't there? Were there a significantly larger number of cancellations/no shows than usual for all of them? If it was just that one flight, and that one multiple cancellation explains it, there's no need to investigate any further.

I'd still like to see actual figures for previous flights and for the 9/11 flights before giving any credence to the claim that there even is an anomaly.

Indeed, this kind of evidence is always tremendously hard to develop. You can spend a huge amount of time developing a statistical model in which some pattern of cancellation is statistically significant, but you can rarely escape confirmation bias in determining why it happened. "That's because they had foreknowledge of the attacks," is an attractive but circular conclusion. Of course if you fail to find statistical significance in a correct model, then yes, the job is done. But statistical significance just begins a giant, almost-guaranteed-to-be-fruitless exercise in exhaustively determining and testing possible causes. Unless you can interview everyone who canceled a flight and vet their story, this avenue is rarely probative.

 

[nt1]

I think he was on the pictures/video from the start, as he started with a cryptic, provide a picture request. Since nobody could tell exactly what he was looking for, it was a bit confusing.

That being said, the couple of 9/11 truthers i've known in real life were all about the jumping from one unrelated anomaly to the next. Explain the first and the move on to the next in a whole series of things they think seem weird. As noted by others, look at anything long enough and you'll find stuff that seems weird. One of the fellas I knew for real, I fairly easily explained his anomalies and but it ended with, but there are all these questions. The other I talked to a bit later and it was as though we'd never talked before because he started with the anomalies as before.

Anyrate, this as been interesting because these are anomalies I've never come across before.

Hello team

A composite image can contain a halo edge around the artifact.

Some of the footage shows signs of this.

Photos and videos contain this evidence.


multiple signs of unnatural lighting and boundaries between objects that have been layered

 

[nt1]

OP submits his evidence.for his claim about cancellation frequency rates.

Its a easily found publicly accessible file.

It is an fbi investigation. Its not my claim or my evidence. Its an fbi investigation and file.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Hello team

A composite image can contain a halo edge around the artifact.

Some of the footage shows signs of this.

Hello nt1

Does any of the footage show signs of halos before you apply your filtering which creates halos, or does it only show up after you run it through your halo-creating filter?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Its a easily found publicly accessible file.

Is it also easy to provide a link to it?

 

[Thermal]

Its a easily found publicly accessible file.

That's not the issue. Most things can be found, and your fellow forumites are particularly good at it. But we are bouncing around to multiple threads and some of us are also working, and can't invest hours on all the different topics chasing down the information you are, at this point, deliberately withholding, apparently just to be a pain in the ass.

It is an fbi investigation. Its not my claim or my evidence. Its an fbi investigation and file.

Then there is no claim, and no discussion to be had. Anything else you'd like to talk about?

Eta: just a brief note on your screenshot. It's a handwritten scribbling of inconclusive value. Doesn't really mean anything. If it is from the FBI investigation (no real evidence of that), it doesn't say if it was a preliminary set of notes, or that higher than usual cancellations were noted, or anything much really.

 

[Axxman300]

Hello team

A composite image can contain a halo edge around the artifact.

Some of the footage shows signs of this.

Photos and videos contain this evidence.


multiple signs of unnatural lighting and boundaries between objects that have been layered

Cool, now tell us what the process was in 2001. And specifically the difference between still photos, movie film, digital video, and regular video.

Can't wait.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It doesn't appear that you are. I'm asking you very simple questions about the tools and techniques that you're using.

You say you're using "curve manipulation." But you don't seem to know what that is. You're actually manipulating conceptual channels in a color model. You have an RGB image. But you're actually manipulating the Y channel of a YUV color space using a curve that represents a mapping function. It's not inappropriate to ask if you understand the mathematical effect of the luminance map you've applied. For now we can leave aside difficult questions like whether your conversion from RGB to YUV uses perceptual weights or energy weights. And that's because the toy tool you appear to be using doesn't let you control that. But even in the simplest sense you don't seem to understand how to use the tool.

You say curve manipulation "bends" light. No it doesn't, but I'd be willing to entertain an explanation that is more specific about what you think that means. So I asked you for one, but you provided only name-calling and snark. I asked you what the purpose of a luminance map is and you said it reveals natural light versus unnatural light, presumably resulting from the digital image manipulation you insinuate has occurred in the 9/11 video. That's like asking someone what a fingerprint is and being told it's a thing that determines whether someone has robbed a bank. Your explanation lacks several crucial steps. Therefore I'm skeptical that you're ready for a tough, detailed discussion.

Your go-to luminance map is an inverted paraboloid function with its apex centered at the midpoint. Since you can't explain what that does or why you chose it, I'll educate you. The darkest portions of the original image will remain dark. The brightest portions of the original image will be reversed to dark. But more importantly, the midrange tones will be amplified and the difference between light midtones and dark midtowns on either side of the apex will be eliminated. You're not revealing anything; you're actually obscuring image data from the original image and replacing it with false luminous intensity.

Your other luminance maps are simply variations on a band-pass filter. You're preferentially amplifying selected midtones—not just a little bit, but to the point of eliminating most or all variation within your passed band.

Both of these strategies accomplish nothing more than crude edge detection. Congratulations, you found edges—crudely.


Don't be rude. You've stepped into my area of professional expertise. And as long as we're commenting on avatars—if yours is you, then I've been doing it longer than you've been alive.


No, I don't think I will. However, I'm out for the day. So that should give you time to compose your more detailed explanation.


That's the kind of answer we can reasonably expect from you. Oystein has demonstrated a correct understanding of the mathematical effect of the tools they use. So far, you cannot.


Then please do so. You've posted images accompanied by absurdly flailing luminance maps. You seem to think these images speak for themselves to establish the rigor and probative value of your technique. They do not.

You've also posted screen shots purporting to be bits of a dialogue with a consumer AI regarding image analysis. I have no interest in what conversations you're having in the background with a large language model. I'm interested only in whether you can explain and defend your method sufficiently to someone with expertise in the field.


No one is claiming you have. In fact luminance response curves have been part of photography from the very beginning. But you're claiming you can apply a luminance map in a way that reveals evidence of digital image manipulation. That's a novel claim, and it's reasonable to ask you to explain in detail how that works.

The maps you provided are merely variations on a band-pass filter. Since your filters tend to remove the distinction between adjacent intensities, it will create artifacts in the form of bands within which will appear little or no distinction.


Not the way you're misusing it. You're applying a luminance map in a way guaranteed to create a certain kind of artifact and then shouting Eureka! at the artifact.

Just because you own a chisel doesn't make you Michelangelo.


No, we're looking at you like you're using your chisel to stir your coffee while claiming to be an expert sculptor. People are incredulous not because they don't understand how image manipulation works or how luminance maps work, but because they're not convinced by your bluff and bluster.

Quoted for Fringe Reset. The "halos" have been explained by JayUtah in typically forensic detail. In a subsequent post he even, literally, did the maths.

 

[steenkh]

Quoted for Fringe Reset. The "halos" have been explained by JayUtah in typically forensic detail. In a subsequent post he even, literally, did the maths.

He never addresses JayUtah.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If I provide you with 6 pictures, three I have tampered with and three I haven't, would you be able to tell me which three are untouched?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

He never addresses JayUtah.

No, AAH provides a explanation why. But anyone new joining the thread should know this has been addressed by someone with actual professional expertise (I've spent some time as a professional photographer and spent enough time adjusting luminescence to try and save that otherwise perfect shot when the flash didn't fire or a cloud passed across the Sun etc to recognise it as an artifact but I couldn't have explained how it works like Jay did).

The saddest part is, if someone was really looking to understand the truth, the very people he's ignoring are a goldmine, taking Jay in particular, he's an actual expert witness in this field, and the the poster is getting the analysis and educational skills that Jay makes his living from for free (as admittedly are we all). That's not to say that that anything he says should be accepted ex-cathedra, but if you're going to argue with him in his area of professional expertise you need a way stronger understanding than the poster has shown thus far.

 

[JayUtah]

A composite image can contain a halo edge around the artifact.

So can a non-composited image. Your method does not distinguish altered images from unaltered images. You have not described how you think compositing results in the halo effect. On the contrary, it has been conclusively shown that the halos you are identifying as evidence of alteration are solely the product of the excessive luminance mapping you apply and nothing more.

Some of the footage shows signs of this.

Some of all kinds of footage shows this, because the effect is the result of midtone or transitional pixels forming the feature boundary. Your images are primarily oversampled enlargements guaranteed to exhibit this property.

Photos and videos contain this evidence.

You haven't shown how it's evidence of alteration. You've just declared it to be. The effect you observe is conclusively produced by the mathematical effects of your improper luminance maps. Your luminance map is acting as a crude edge detector.

It is unclear what you intend this video to prove. It describes various ways of extracting foreground elements for eventual compositing. It does not provide evidence that compositing by any of these methods produces the halo effect you say is evidence of alteration. It does not show how evidence of alteration can be discovered by gross manipulation of the luminance channel in the composited image. It does, however, show how the luminosity channel can be bifurcated to produce a matte (i.e., candidate for an alpha channel). This is an unrelated usage.

multiple signs of unnatural lighting and boundaries between objects that have been layered

None of your images contain layers.

 

[JayUtah]

Its a easily found publicly accessible file.

Irrelevant. If you found it—no matter where—you're on the hook to identify it to the people you're asking to address it. Further, when people understandably do not want to duplicate your homework efforts, it's childish and disingenuous of you to claim they are therefore less diligent than you.

It is an fbi investigation. Its not my claim or my evidence. Its an fbi investigation and file.

The FBI did not conclude that the 9/11 attacks were staged. If you are suggesting this evidence acts in favor of your claim, you must allow your critics to examine it in context and draw their own conclusions about what it says to that effect.

 

[JayUtah]

He never addresses JayUtah.

For the reasons explained, he does not see my posts whether directly or quoted. It is his choice not to respond to me. That does not, however, prevent me from commenting on his claims.

 

[ahhell]

Is it also easy to provide a link to it?

Well, I mean that's basically impossible. Much easier to grab a bunch of screen shots.

As I said before, the way he's provided evidence for that claim is indistinguishable from someone who's just making ◊◊◊◊ up or pulling images off of some crank's website, or I suppose someone that's actually gone to some .gov website and found the reports. I now have a pretty good notion of which of those options are more likely.

 

[ahhell]

There were four flights though, weren't there? Were there a significantly larger number of cancellations/no shows than usual for all of them? If it was just that one flight, and that one multiple cancellation explains it, there's no need to investigate any further.

I'd still like to see actual figures for previous flights and for the 9/11 flights before giving any credence to the claim that there even is an anomaly.

I absolutely agree but I'd first like to establish that's even worth doing, seems its impossible to provide a link to publicly available documents on a government website though.

ETA: Until @nt1 is willing to link to the actually documents he's taken pictures of, I fine assuming that there were fewer cancelations than average on those flights.