Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[P.J. Denyer]

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.

Gish gallops are super effective when honest people have to chase down references.

 

[Pixel42]

He never addresses JayUtah.

Surely he must realise that no one here is going to take him seriously if he simply ignores Jay's posts. We can see Jay taking him to the cleaners, even if he can't.

 

[Orphia Nay]

If someone were to provide you with 6 pictures, three they have tampered with and three they haven't, would you be able to tell us which three are untouched?

 

[JayUtah]

Surely he must realise that no one here is going to take him seriously if he simply ignores Jay's posts. We can see Jay taking him to the cleaners, even if he can't.

I don't think he's tremendously worried about people here taking him seriously. He's already styled himself as a martyr, and he already thinks everyone here is some kind of Kubrickian ape who is dumbly mystified by his genius.

 

[Thermal]

One ear is mine. One ear is mine added back to the same photo. Notice. Halo. Edge. White line. This is what you see when a photo is composited

Dude... it seems you photoshopped your head in the dark background ear pic too. Do you see the halo around your hairline?

And in the light background 'unaltered' photo, even with the bright white background for camouflage, the halo is still visible at the lower earlobe. And higher up, too

 

[ahhell]

I don't think he's tremendously worried about people here taking him seriously. He's already styled himself as a martyr, and he already thinks everyone here is some kind of Kubrickian ape who is dumbly mystified by his genius.

It is interesting that his response is basically accusing every one of the thing he is doing, basically being dismiss and snarky about things they can't understand or refute.

Which, to be fair there has been plenty of snark warranted and otherwise. I do wish we (me included) would be less snarky because I do find the occasional exercise like this fun and interesting. The snark just tends to push the counter opinionated folks away.

 

[ahhell]

Delete double post.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It is interesting that his response is basically accusing every one of the thing he is doing, basically being dismiss and snarky about things they can't understand or refute.

Which, to be fair there has been plenty of snark warranted and otherwise. I do wish we (me included) would be less snarky because I do find the occasional exercise like this fun and interesting. The snark just tends to push the counter opinionated folks away.

They can be fun and interesting if the person making the claims is willing to honestly engage, when new members plunge in with an immediate attitude of martyred superiority, ignore genuinely qualified contributers and rely on a combination of AI, dismissal and fringe resets, snarky is one of the few avenues left open.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

That does not answer the question. Do you have any figures for cancellation rates, that would show there is, as you claim, some kind of anomaly here?

 

[theprestige]

That does not answer the question. Do you have any figures for cancellation rates, that would show there is, as you claim, some kind of anomaly here?

Have you tried taking a screenshot of the investigation, opening it in a free image editor, and swoggling the parameters until you see a halo?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

nt1:
Are you ever going to come back to your comments about the 911 Commission and the NIST report? You claimed they were in some way deficient, but you never got round to supplying any details. What's missing in these reports, in your view?
Also, I will ask again: Can you please lay out your claim? What do you imagine was the purpose of all this dicking around with videos?

1. What do you think happened on 9/11?
2. Who did it?
3. How did they do it?
4. Why did they do it?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Have you tried taking a screenshot of the investigation, opening it in a free image editor, and swoggling the parameters until you see a halo?

Oh, I feel so stupid now! The answer was staring me in the face! It's so obvious now you point it out. Then I can post multiple screenshots of my beswoggled images, and state how they prove the thing I'm trying to prove which is, you know, the thing, and you're all too closed-minded to accept the thing, because meanies!

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Forgive my ignorance, but is nt1 basically doing the equivalent of "If I photoshop Batman into these pictures, then these pictures mysteriously have Batman in them"?

 

[Thermal]

nt1:
Are you ever going to come back to your comments about the 911 Commission and the NIST report? You claimed they were in some way deficient, but you never got round to supplying any details. What's missing in these reports, in your view?
Also, I will ask again: Can you please lay out your claim? What do you imagine was the purpose of all this dicking around with videos?

1. What do you think happened on 9/11?
2. Who did it?
3. How did they do it?
4. Why did they do it?

In an abundance of fairness, he said right from the jump that he only claimed to identify oddities and inconsistencies that are voluminous enough to lead to the question "was the investigation thorough enough?"

Yes, it's a little JAQy and he's hedging his bets, but he does not claim to have a serious counter narrative to The Official Story.

 

[theprestige]

In an abundance of fairness, he said right from the jump that he only claimed to identify oddities and inconsistencies that are voluminous enough to lead to the question "was the investigation thorough enough?"

Yes, it's a little JAQy and he's hedging his bets, but he does not claim to have a serious counter narrative to The Official Story.

"Debunkers hate this one weird trick!"

Actually it's true: The entire woo playbook is pretty hateful to rational thought.

 

[ahhell]

nt1:
Are you ever going to come back to your comments about the 911 Commission and the NIST report? You claimed they were in some way deficient, but you never got round to supplying any details. What's missing in these reports, in your view?
Also, I will ask again: Can you please lay out your claim? What do you imagine was the purpose of all this dicking around with videos?

1. What do you think happened on 9/11?
2. Who did it?
3. How did they do it?
4. Why did they do it?

I think in this case its fair not to have a claim. It would be fair to say, "Hey, I've found these things about the event to be weird and suspicious, what do you think?" I don't think that is actually what's going on, on account of @nt1's even responding to the reasonable criticisms and questions.

They can be fun and interesting if the person making the claims is willing to honestly engage, when new members plunge in with an immediate attitude of martyred superiority, ignore genuinely qualified contributers and rely on a combination of AI, dismissal and fringe resets, snarky is one of the few avenues left open.

Unfortunately, seems to be true. The issue here is that that's how this started. Vague questions about 9/11 that took days to even figure out what was being asked that included snark then eventually an actual thing that could be responded to.

IMHO, very humble, I'd like to see us give folks like nt1 more leash and room to be jerks than we give each other to encourage more dissent on subjects like this. To be clear, I'm as guilty as being a jerk as anyone.

ETA, also i do think with something that amounts to a vast conspiracy, you ought to have a reason why. I mean, I assume the motive is greed or lust for power but given the expense and effort involved and uncertainty of outcome? Strange gamble for the pentaverate to make.

ETA: @P.J. You are right, it would be more interesting and fun if he'd actually respond to questions instead of being dismissive or ignoring them. It makes me wonder if and when I do that? I hope, not often.

 

[JayUtah]

In an abundance of fairness, he said right from the jump that he only claimed to identify oddities and inconsistencies that are voluminous enough to lead to the question "was the investigation thorough enough?"

It's the standard conspiracy two-step.

Step 1 = reject the conventional narrative by one standard of proof.
Step 2 = suggest a merely "plausible" alternative by a much lower standard of proof, since rejecting the "impossible" permits you to consider the improbable.

Here, the conventional narrative is being rejected according to some arbitrary, one-size-fits-all criteria. How many anomalies is a true story allowed to have?

 

[theprestige]

In an abundance of fairness, he said right from the jump that he only claimed to identify oddities and inconsistencies that are voluminous enough to lead to the question "was the investigation thorough enough?"

Yes, it's a little JAQy and he's hedging his bets, but he does not claim to have a serious counter narrative to The Official Story.

In an abundance of fairness, he signaled his unfair intent from the start. Why on earth are you backing his anti-social and anti-reason choices?

Do you really think we're too stupid to tell the difference between a sincere confusion and a willful ignorance?

 

[ahhell]

In an abundance of fairness, he signaled his unfair intent from the start. Why on earth are you backing his anti-social and anti-reason choices?

Do you really think we're too stupid to tell the difference between a sincere confusion and a willful ignorance?

Regardless, I think it worthwhile to treat the both the same, at least to a point. I think we are past that point but maybe if we'd been nicer, we'd have gotten more out of the exercise?

ETA: He has at least brought up two 9/11 truther ideas I hadn't come across before. So, that's interesting?

 

[theprestige]

Regardless, I think it worthwhile to treat the both the same, at least to a point. I think we are past that point but maybe if we'd been nicer, we'd have gotten more out of the exercise?

Everyone who's been nicer has only encouraged the antisocial and willful ignorance.