-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage
- Thread starter nt1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 9/11 9/11 evidence
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,100
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Are you serious here? Based on nothing but "the importance of the event," any number of cancellations would be enough for suspicion? Do you really not understand how completely circular that is?
BTW, I happen to have seen and noted an FBI document that says that cancellations for all the flights were investigated and found to be insignificant both as to number and identity of those who cancelled. No, I'm not going to give you a link- I'm just going to assume that if you haven't already seen the report, you're either not really interested in seeking the truth or are just incompetent at finding it.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Yes, and we are particularly good at that. But it is not considered our responsibility here to chase down every random claim made. There are many discussions going on this forum (and the other places we frequent), and there simply aren't enough hours in the day to chase them all down. We've been over this before, and you agreed and said you understood that it was fair. Seems you forgot?
Oh jesus christ, instead of spending another dozen posts lecturing us about tone and sincerity, how about address the direct questions and challenges that are piling up? You're stalling, baby.
And if you cannot show the integrity and honesty to respond to direct questions and challenges, you are not qualified to be the coffee boy here.
That's where we are at, bro. We are all waiting for you, and have been waiting for days for you to respond to what you could have responded to in a minute. Drop the pearl clutching and thread-nannying and engage. Pretty please. With sugar on it.
Dude, what doesn't read as sincere, insisting something is easy to find but refusing to provide it. Oh, then finding something else, a substack page that agrees with you. If you can provide a link to the substack, why not these FBI files of yours? I found a document from the FBI that says aliens did 9/11, its so easy to find, if you can't you aren't qualified to respond to this post.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Yeah, welcome to 2001. Getting on a plane was not hugely different than getting on a bus. Online reservations were just kicking off. They only halfway cared who you were, just that the boarding pass was paid for. You didn't even need reservations or ID; you could buy blank passes at the gate (and friends could wait at the gate with you, no TSA at the time). I think it was Southwest or Spirit Airlines didn't even have paper boarding passes with names, they were giving generic plastic cards that got collected when you boarded. It is not remotely surprising that the records might only be partial for a routine flight in pre-TSA clearance days.
No point in any of that, I still haven't seen any evidence any of this is true. Which I might have missed because nt1 has a point in that there has been a lot of activity in this thread and its hard to keep up.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You haven't shown that the artifacts you're attributing to tampering are anything more than an effect produced by your manipulation. It has been shown how the mathematics of your method produces them.
You've provided two images you say are your own and whose provenance you can attest to. You say you have tampered with one and left the other alone. You purport that only one is revealed as tampered with via your method. However, the one you say was unaltered and should have produced a negative result is nonprobative because any "halo" that your method may have revealed is conflated with the high-luminosity effect produced in the background. This does not prove the validity of your method.
Your other attempts at experimental control simply use convenience photos you found online. If your method produces an effect, you declare the image to have been tampered with. If it does not, you declare it unaltered. This is circular reasoning and therefore not probative of the validity of the claims you make about your method.
@Andy_Ross has provided six photos, three of which are known to have been tampered with and the other three are known not to have been tampered with. Please apply your method to the photographs and show that the method produces a positive result on the tampered-with images and a negative result on the unaltered photos. Please show that your method can identify exactly in what way, if any, the image has been altered.
The provider of the images has said that one image is AI-generated while the other is a photographic image. But you seem to have determined that both are artificial. The photographic image is oversampled. We've already shown how your method has the effect of detecting edges in oversampled images. Unsurprisingly, it does so also here.
You claim there is no shadow associated with the dancer's foot and that this constitutes "unnatural" light that indicates a feature paste. This is naive. It's perfectly natural and expected for a cloudy day; all the lighting in the image is consistent with that condition. Further, one of your adjustments to the luminance reveals a faint shadow under the dancer's foot that is consistent with an ambient-occlusion type of shadow. Your expectations are not sophisticated enough to determine authenticity by eye.
If you're unwilling to discuss your claims and evidence to the same level of rigor as your critics, you stand a very small chance of convincing them.
Thermal
August Member
The point was that his argument that incomplete record keeping is suspicious is based on today's standards, which changed as a direct result of 9/11.
I dunno what to tell you. I was an adult that had flown a bit and remember it quite clearly.
I'd say very little constructive activity and a bunch of stalling, hemming and hawing, and changing the subject when things started going badly, then repeating and taking it from the top, Groundhog Day style.
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
A lot of this reminds me of the recent thread by a short lived member about Princess Diana's death where they wouldn't accept that their experience in early 2010’s USA wasn't a guide to video coverage of 1997 France, some people won't accept that the past is another country where people did things differently, or in that particular case even that other countries are other countries where people do things differently. There's been a couple of references to 'metadata' for example, which (aside from that I suspect the term is being misused) is not going to be applicable to VHS & film in the same way as digital files and in the case of transferred footage will be from the transferral or later not the originals, this may be another case of applying today's thinking to a quarter of a century ago.
Thermal
August Member
I remember flying to Disney World back then, and our reservations were made over the phone, paid for at the counter when we got there, and my whole crew was reserved as"Thermal+4". I never showed ID to anyone.
ETA: I gave my real last name, obv, not Thermal
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
We have to tread carefully here because ATVEF information such as time codes was available in 2001 for video streams and recordings. As you caution, claims involving metadata have to be evaluated individually, not categorically.
All true. To be clear, I really do think he just found some crank's website that made the claim and made the same vague references to FBI files and its all utter nonsense. I will believe that until he actually produces the files he claims are so easy to find. There's no point in engaging in any further discussion on the cancelation thing until there's actual evidence it happened. Then we can worry about whether it was abnormal for the time or even now. I also have scientific proof that I am correct, its all in easily accessible public files. If you can't find it, well, then you are too dumb to listen to. Nyah, nyah.......
ETA: Literally, his argument seems to be, "If you can't find the evidence that I'm correct, its because you are ignorant and I don't I don't have to listen or respond to you? WTF? I will retract all of that if somewhere previously in this thread, he linked to those actual government files he's so sure exists. Until then, no point in talking about a myth.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
@nt1: just a quick reminder, that you already agreed to:
This is the International Skeptics Forum. We discuss issues with a focus on skepticism and critical thinking.
This is not the International Investigative Forum. We don't do the truther bull ◊◊◊◊ of 'just do your own research" and drop everything and go on a scavenger hunt when a random claim is made. We will challenge claims and evidence on our own, when in disagreement, but the burden is on the claimant (YOU) to provide the evidence for his claim, just as we will provide cited and linked counter evidence as it arises.
Here's the format (again): you make a claim (or raise an issue as a discussion point, not necessarily your own claim; surrogate argumentation is fine, as long as it is cited). We then consider it, and often debate it, with posters presenting their own linked evidence.
You keep trying to skip your burden to send others on busy work. Knock it off. It's considered dishonest and evasive here.
You have agreed to this as fair and reasonable earlier, and said you would comply. Yet you continue to bob and weave.
If you want the "tone" you keep complaining about to change, engage honestly and quit ducking challenges. You won't be taken seriously till you do.
This is the International Skeptics Forum. We discuss issues with a focus on skepticism and critical thinking.
This is not the International Investigative Forum. We don't do the truther bull ◊◊◊◊ of 'just do your own research" and drop everything and go on a scavenger hunt when a random claim is made. We will challenge claims and evidence on our own, when in disagreement, but the burden is on the claimant (YOU) to provide the evidence for his claim, just as we will provide cited and linked counter evidence as it arises.
Here's the format (again): you make a claim (or raise an issue as a discussion point, not necessarily your own claim; surrogate argumentation is fine, as long as it is cited). We then consider it, and often debate it, with posters presenting their own linked evidence.
You keep trying to skip your burden to send others on busy work. Knock it off. It's considered dishonest and evasive here.
You have agreed to this as fair and reasonable earlier, and said you would comply. Yet you continue to bob and weave.
If you want the "tone" you keep complaining about to change, engage honestly and quit ducking challenges. You won't be taken seriously till you do.
Yep airplane travel did change a huge amount after your 9/11 incident.
Here's another example of pre-9/11 airline practices that people might find difficult to believe today. In the early 1990s I made the acquaintance of a person with a disability, who had a peculiar "hobby" for making spare cash. He had direct access to airline reservation systems (the same as a travel agent would use; I'm not sure how difficult that was, or is now, to obtain). Using this, he would book himself "short" flights between cities close together, but routed through many legs with stopovers all over the country thousands of miles apart. The airfare would be based on the distance between the origin and destination, but he would earn frequent flyer miles based on the actual length of the trip. He'd spend a long day or so flying the ticketed route, checking in for each leg and being somewhat coddled along the way because of his disability. That would earn him enough frequent flyer miles to get a free round trip ticket for some high-value trip which he would then sell for spare cash.
I never tried to sort out which parts of the scheme were strictly legal or strictly within airline policies at the time. I know for sure it wouldn't fly, so to speak, today or any time since 9/11, for a whole bunch of different reasons. And even if you could get away with it, spending that much time on planes would be too unpleasant to be worth it.
Not in Denmark. In those days I managed to be upgraded to silver frequent flyer status, but everything worked much like today, except you couldn’t book online.
The lax circumstances must have been on national flights only.
Hi
That was my fear. My greatest apologies madam. As i went to send the reply, i realized I didn't know that. In my only defensive the "sir" was a misguided attempt at humor, so i left it.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Of all the comments and points addressed to you, this is the one you choose to respond to?
For the record: I don't care about the unwarranted assumption you made about me, and I doubt anyone else does either. It's your unwarranted assumptions about everything from statistical significance to photographic manipulation that you need to either defend or reexamine.
ETA: How are you doing on the photos Andy Ross posted? Found any anomalies yet?
For the record: I don't care about the unwarranted assumption you made about me, and I doubt anyone else does either. It's your unwarranted assumptions about everything from statistical significance to photographic manipulation that you need to either defend or reexamine.
ETA: How are you doing on the photos Andy Ross posted? Found any anomalies yet?
Last edited: