Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[Orphia Nay]

If nt1 is replying to one thing, it should be to Andy Ross's post with the 6 photos.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

If nt1 is replying to one thing, it should be to Andy Ross's post with the 6 photos.

Absolutely! Here is a link to that post:
https://internationalskeptics.com/f...f-the-impact-or-collapse.375672/post-14584697

 

[nt1]

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?

It was the one chose to respond to first.

Then i went on a walk with my wife

Watched her make sand art

Made her dinner

Watched Naked Gun 2 1/2.

Then i came back to continue replying. Only to find your selfless concern for the topic above the apology you recieved. For that. You should be commended. Thank you. Genuinely. Thank you. You shine light on the world when you set aside insults and apologies for more important matters. You've done a great thing that few can understand, even aspire too. Even fewer, can do it. Thank you.

 

[nt1]

The importance of the event in retrospect is irrelevant

This is a bizarre opinion. Retrospect. After the fact. An investigation requires something to happen first. Everything is in retrospect of an investigation. And yes. It mattered enough for the FBI to investigate it. I am saying the total outcome requires any and all investigations to resume or start a new.

That's called "begging the question".

I did not make a definitive claim that required the phrase you used. You are incorrect.

Unless you can show

No. Madam. I did not make a difinitive claim such as "there were too many cancelations and its proof there was intention to cover up facts"

I am a civilian on a public site trying to discuss an event that's magnitude was not matched by the finality of its investigations on any level.

Ive been met with a laughable level of scrutiny when compared to the obvious unspoken opinion of the acceptable narrative.

You have yet to do so.

There is. A full. Fbi. Investigation. Into. This. Exact. Subject. They had. Some difficulties. Obtaining. Records. And statements. To the. Best. Of their abilities. They closed. The case. I said. It is. Of concern. That it be. Examined. On a public forum. Of others. With like minds and interests. For the interest. In truth.

BTW the quotes you attributed to me in your post #727 are not from any of my posts.

If i did that. It is. My operational error. When a user clicks reply. And does. Not reoly. Then. Replies to a second message. The previous quote will remain.

I apologize if i included a quote from a serperate message. I can declare that it woukd have been my user error. I apologize

Man... it is taxing of time and intereat to speak to this naturally created, through no design, team. You sre unrelenting and offer little hope of a positive outcome outside of the organically accepted narrative.

It is discouraging. Not for me. When considered that thisnis possibly a reflection of how personal opinion and discussion operates in society at the level of face to face interaction.

I really hope and wish for better. Each time i respond and look for replies.

"So do we" see how easy, and low effort that was? Do better.

 

[nt1]

Not in Denmark.

I wanted to reply to the same one you did.

In the US and thr UK. It changed massively after that day.

I flew before and during those first few years after the event.


The change was extreme.

 

[nt1]

"The FBI Files" is the title of an old Discovery Channel docudrama series. I've been assuming that's where nt1 has been telling us to look for corroboration.

Low effort from you. Very low effort.

Dead serious. Do you need me to bring you the link? I dont take the request as genuine when the level of expectation to be ready to perform like a scene from Law and Order. And you can't find this file available from a google search.

Clear.

Can you not find it? Do you want to? Will you review it in its entirety AND do personal research on the subject matter?

If the answers are yes. Yes. Yes. I will swnd you the link that has been availble so long that peoples substack posts pop up first.

 

[nt1]

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.

This makes me realize you most likely cant find that file. I apologize.

 

[nt1]

If nt1 is replying to one thing, it should be to Andy Ross's post with the 6 photos.

Could you be more direct with which post you are referencing?

You are being as helpful as you are saying im not.

I'll sift through and find the six picture post. At least you said 6 pictures. That way i can pick it out from the dozen other posts i made with pictures.

 

[Pixel42]

This is a bizarre opinion. Retrospect. After the fact. An investigation requires something to happen first. Everything is in retrospect of an investigation. And yes. It mattered enough for the FBI to investigate it. I am saying the total outcome requires any and all investigations to resume or start a new.

You argued that the mere fact that there were x number of cancellations and no shows required investigation. That is not the case. Only if it can first be shown that x is exceptional is an investigation of them warranted.

I did not make a definitive claim that required the phrase you used. You are incorrect.

You argued that you didn't need to look at past statistics of similar flights before insisting that the number of cancellations and no shows on this flight were large enough to warrant investigation purely because of what happened to it. That is textbook begging the question. You are assuming that the number is large enough to be investigated in order to conclude that an investigation should be done.

There is. A full. Fbi. Investigation. Into. This. Exact. Subject. They had. Some difficulties. Obtaining. Records. And statements. To the. Best. Of their abilities. They closed. The case. I said. It is. Of concern. That it be. Examined. On a public forum. Of others. With like minds and interests. For the interest. In truth.

If the FBI gathered and examined all possible data and closed the case then what more can be done by "a public forum"? Unless you have additional data, or evidence that the FBI ignored or misinterpreted the available data, there is nothing more to be said. Do you?

 

[Pixel42]

Could you be more direct with which post you are referencing?

You are being as helpful as you are saying im not.

I'll sift through and find the six picture post. At least you said 6 pictures. That way i can pick it out from the dozen other posts i made with pictures.

You've just been given the link.

Absolutely! Here is a link to that post:
https://internationalskeptics.com/f...f-the-impact-or-collapse.375672/post-14584697

 

[Andy_Ross]

Could you be more direct with which post you are referencing?

You are being as helpful as you are saying im not.

I'll sift through and find the six picture post. At least you said 6 pictures. That way i can pick it out from the dozen other posts i made with pictures.

Post number 700 in this thread

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...pact-or-collapse.375672/page-18#post-14584697

 

[Andy_Ross]

Could you be more direct with which post you are referencing?

You are being as helpful as you are saying im not.

I'll sift through and find the six picture post. At least you said 6 pictures. That way i can pick it out from the dozen other posts i made with pictures.

Post number 700

Ed Post in thread 'Applying luma curve to photos and footage'

Jun 1, 2025

Here are 6 pictures

Which ones have been tampered with.

• Andy_Ross

• 

 

[steenkh]

I'll sift through and find the six picture post. At least you said 6 pictures. That way i can pick it out from the dozen other posts i made with pictures.

Have you put Andy_Ross on ignore?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Have you put Andy_Ross on ignore?

I suspect that from the OP's point of view this thread is a single page private blog.

 

[JayUtah]

This is a bizarre opinion.

No, it's the correct one. When you evaluate potential motives and irrelevant anomaly, you have to do so from the perspective that the people involved did not know a significant event was about to occur.

And yes. It mattered enough for the FBI to investigate it.

The FBI's job was to determine if the events were the result of unlawful activity. There are many unlawful ways the events could have happened, and the FBI did not know in advance which if any it might have been. It's not unreasonable to start with the people directly involved with the flights and determine whether there are any suspicious patterns of activity. If they later conclude that there weren't, then it's not fruitful to take that question up again.

I am saying the total outcome requires any and all investigations to resume or start a new.

No. The criteria for reopening an investigation are not that some parts of it led nowhere.

I am a civilian on a public site trying to discuss an event that's magnitude was not matched by the finality of its investigations on any level.

You're an amateur pretending you know better than professionals.

Ive been met with a laughable level of scrutiny when compared to the obvious unspoken opinion of the acceptable narrative.

No, you've met with an especially lenient level of scrutiny. You're here entirely voluntarily. You've not been asked to reveal your identity. You've not been asked to substantiate the expertise by which you propose to judge the work of others. You've not been compelled to have your work tested by others in a way that determines its overall credibility in ways you can't control.

There are ordinary witnesses in court in petty matters who are subjected to a much greater degree of scrutiny than you have been. In short, quit whining.

There is. A full. Fbi. Investigation. Into. This. Exact. Subject. They had. Some difficulties. Obtaining. Records. And statements. To the. Best. Of their abilities. They closed. The case. I said. It is. Of concern. That it be. Examined. On a public forum. Of others. With like minds and interests. For the interest. In truth.

You're not better or smarter than they are, nor do you have better information. The determination that their investigation was improper, incomplete, or compromised is not yours to make.

Man... it is taxing of time and intereat to speak to this naturally created, through no design, team. You sre unrelenting and offer little hope of a positive outcome outside of the organically accepted narrative.

The mainstream narrative remains the most widely accepted because it is the one best supported by evidence. If you want to establish a different narrative to a greater degree of rigor, you first have to come up with a narrative. And then you have to supply evidence for it. And it has to withstand scrutiny by qualified people. You can offer none of that. You're just ignorantly casting doubt on the mainstream narrative.

 

[sackett]

"Cast thy doubt upon the waters, and it shall return unto thee nine and eleven fold."

IAN Ecclesiastes, but I think that's how it goes, at least over in Conspiristan.

 

[bknight]

I was going to post tat many have asked him to post a video and discuss it/disprove it or just flat out disagree with it. Also add the reason why for his determination. But you beat me to it, thanks, not that he will provide discussion.

 

[bknight]

Well where is your discussion?

 

[Thermal]

Well where is your discussion?

It's been over a week. I'm tired of asking.

He knows what he has to do to meet the minimum standard for being taken seriously on this forum. He refuses. Whatcha gonna do?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It's been over a week. I'm tired of asking.

He knows what he has to do to meet the minimum standard for being taken seriously on this forum. He refuses. Whatcha gonna do?

"Ghostbusters!"

No, wait.. That's "Who ya gonna call?"