Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[nt1]

Are you going to show us the results of applying your methods to the six example pictures I posted in the thread?

Andy. Yes. Those got buried. Ill go find them.

 

[nt1]

You don't understand the technology, and you are not interested in understanding this technology. Jay and others have explained how it works, and how it doesn't show what you claim it shows. You have come here to claim 9-11 was some kind of staged incident, and you've chosen (poorly) some crappy photo app to prove your foolishness.

You've ignored Andy's photos, which would go a long way to proving your point if you can demonstrate with of his pictures have been altered using your app in the way you're claiming it works. The fact you continue to ignore Andy suggests that your app can't figure it out, and it blows your claims out of the water.

You then claim that those who investigated 9-11, all 15,000+ of them, should have spent more time on the internet instead of Ground Zero, and the Pentagon where the physical evidence was recovered. That's just dumb.

I disagree. I do not recognize one person as an authority on a subject. I disagree with your opinions. Thank you for your replies.

 

[jimbob]

do not quote long parts from conversations with LLMs like chatgpt - either in text or screenshots.

Paraphrase them, provide summaries, and only short quotes


This includes you @nt1

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob

 

[nt1]

Tractor displays lack of complete natural shadows around wheels. The item on the ground. Displays different lighting from items in the same vicinity.

I could not find a reverse search. This is a composite image. Tractor added. Fabric added.

This is not conclusive nor authoritative. It is a 10 minute study and research to satisfy the request.

Next 5

 

[nt1]

This reacts the most genuine out of all of them. No exact match on reverse image search.

Compared to the others this displays the most natural lighting.

This is not conclusive nor authoritative. It is a 10 minute study and research to satisfy the request

 

[nt1]

This is the most widely used. Found an exact match.

Displays possible basic filters.

Its a genuine photo for the subject matter

This is not conclusive nor authoritative. It is a 10 minute study and research to satisfy the request

 

[P.J. Denyer]

2 Points

1) Anyone knowing the answers please do not comment until all six images have been evaluated. Andy has already disclosed how many images have been altered so a running score will distort the odds.

2) The aim of this exercise is to evaluate your image technique that you claim shows halos around alterations, not to find out if you can manually spot inconsistencies or reverse look up an image & play spot-the-difference.

 

[nt1]

Famous photo location. Displays basic filters applied. For the subject matter, this is a genuine photo.

That means. I can find and exact angle. Verify the reality of the landscape and its just land and sea.

Not 15 BILLION dollars in victims funds that will continue to pay out until 2090

 

[P.J. Denyer]

@Andy_Ross: How many of these photos are publicly accessible in their original form?

 

[nt1]

I would say the one i supplied is more genuine. Less filters. Gradient in sky looks more natural. But....

Both are genuine photos considering subject matter. Exact angle of photo can be confirmed

This is not conclusive nor authoritative. It is a 10 minute study and research to satisfy the request

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

This is not conclusive nor authoritative. It is a 10 minute study and research to satisfy the request.

Take all the time you need to be as sure as you can. You don't need to be positive, just as sure as you can be using your technique.

And the fact that you found an image somewhere on the web has nothing to do with whether it is altered or not. Please use your technique with the photo manipulation software and show the results.

 

[nt1]

This one is an example out of all of them that looks genuine and i would continue researching for filters and compositing. The boat. The white railing in the bottom right corner.

But

For the subject matter. Its a genuine photo. The exact angle can be found. Possibly a boat added. Doubtful. Lighting filter added. Most likely.

But the guys in the boat didnt:

Pass the patriot act or lead a 20 year war in Afghanistan with three presidential administrations. Oh wait. Four.

Four U.S. Presidents, seven Secretaries of State, eight Secretaries of Defense, ten ambassadors, and $2.3 trillion of American tax dollars.

 

[nt1]

Final answer the trees and lake were most genuine after a luma curve evaluation.

Tractor was most suspect. But its black and white. I still played along.

House, coast, steel mill, and boat. Matching or near matching alternative examples. Minimal filters or composites added.

Subject matter not held to equal scrutiny as the event with 19 arabs with box cutters that. did? do it. alone?

 

[nt1]

Hello. I attempt to answer. That with each reply.

The tractor wasnt found. The tree and lake wasnt found.

The house is easily found and used for 10 plus years. Identical copy found.

The Cleveland steel mill was found at the same angle. Did not find exact match with the people on shore

Boat. Exact copy not found. Exact angle found.

Cliffs and coast. Exact angle found. Possibly same photo with a different filter.

@Andy_Ross: How many of these photos are publicly accessible in their original form?

 

[nt1]

Take all the time you need to be as sure as you can. You don't need to be positive, just as sure as you can be using your technique.

And the fact that you found an image somewhere on the web has nothing to do with whether it is altered or not. Please use your technique with the photo manipulation software and show the results.

Hi Jim

That is simply a disclaimer that my opinion is not some authoritative declaration.

I gave my honest opinion after a genuine attempt. I showed research and opinion.


Thanks jim. You've been quite nice with your replies. Its much appreciated.

 

[nt1]

2 Points

1) Anyone knowing the answers please do not comment until all six images have been evaluated. Andy has already disclosed how many images have been altered so a running score will distort the odds.

2) The aim of this exercise is to evaluate your image technique that you claim shows halos around alterations, not to find out if you can manually spot inconsistencies or reverse look up an image & play spot-the-difference.

Hello.

This is not an exercise. I am not working out or trying out. I have no interest in being accepted or verified.

I would enjoy certain things more than my current experience. But thats just a personal opinion.

But please. Understand.

I am not performing an exercise for you. I am putting in a genuine attempt and work to satisfy a request made on a public forum about a discussion.

The groups opinion on the reaults of these will be considered. They will be evaluated. They will not be an authoritative grade and judgement on my personal study.

Thank you for asking the group to allow me to finish before the replies came in. I find that type of thought helpful for a group discussion.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So are you finished?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So how many of the six photos did your filtering technique reveal to be tampered with and how many were not?

If we could dispense with other methods you tried, like reverse image search, that would make for a fairer way to assess whether your halo-detecting method reveals anything, don't you think?

 

[Andy_Ross]

We know they are real locations.
What I want is for you to apply your methods in the same way as you did to the pictures of your own you posted and with the same level of effort and rigour.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Why do I get the feeling that the entire point has been missed (or deliberately avoided).