• 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

P.J. Denyer said:
...he didn't base his arguement on it, rather he laid out exactly what the tool does & how it's being misused, he even showed the maths.
Click to expand...
There was a question earlier about what consistutes an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is fallacious only when the purported expertise is unconnected to the question at hand.

If the expertise is proffered, say, in contrast to a question of logic or objectively testable evidence, in support of a question of specialized knowledge in an unrelated field, or a reasonably differentiable opinion, it's a fallacy.

"I'm an image analyst, and I'm telling you that your reasoning is circular."​
"I'm an image analyst, and I'm telling you that the Twin Towers never existed."​
"I'm an image analyst, and I'm telling you that your dentist is doing a poor job."​
"I'm an image analyst, and I'm telling you the death penalty is morally wrong."​
​
Otherwise it's properly probative, and often especially probative.

"I'm an image analyst, and I'm telling you that your image analysis is wrong."​
​
This is a bit dissatisfying since it does smack of condescension and denialism. Similarlly

"I'm an image analyst, and I'm telling you that your image analysis is not convincing,"​
​
can be variously received. An expert may be considered better able to judge the objective credibility of an argument based on ostensibly expert understanding where a lay person may be ambivalent. But expert opinion is a poor substitute for more objectively examined evidence.

An expert is presumed to be one because of his ability to explain things that pertain to his expertise. Therefore the best application of expert testimony is to explain in detail what's wrong with some argument:

"I'm an image analyst, and here are the reasons why your attempt to analyze that image are wrong."​
​
Now it might take an expert to understand and rebut that criticism. But the important point is that this is not a fallacious appeal to authority. It's a legitimate appeal to authority and the reason why expertise exists and is desirable. @nt1 admits he is not an expert in image analysis, but he contends that qualified experts using better tools would simply arrive at the same conclusions as he, by the same means. He seems unable to cope with the notion that his approach is fractally wrong.
 
JayUtah said:
Actually he did apply it to two of them.

He applied it to the beach image with the industrial complex in the background. He pronounced the image genuine and untampered, despite that his signature "halos" were clearly seen around the beach strollers in the distance.

He applied it to the image of the pond surrounded by trees and pronounced it also negative for tampering. I corrected his procedure by applying his method to an enlargement and was able to produce halos.
Click to expand...
And he claimed somewhat randomly that the tractor image was fake in toto.

{eta: with a caveat on each pic analysis that his findings were not conclusive, but a result of 10 minutes not doing what he agreed to do. Nice little backdoor.}

I'm curious if @Andy_Ross is going to give us the results, since nt1 has definitively shied away from the challenge.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
And he claimed somewhat randomly that the tractor image was fake in toto.
Click to expand...
He did, but I don't recall that it was on the basis of evidence developed by his luminance mapping. He offered the opinion based vaguely on "lighting," with the understanding that the image was monochrome.

Thermal said:
{eta: with a caveat on each pic analysis that his findings were not conclusive, but a result of 10 minutes not doing what he agreed to do. Nice little backdoor.}
Click to expand...
Indeed, that's a red flag. He can be very sure when the image is from 9/11 or when it's some image he found from who knows where. When other people provide the images and represent that they know which of them are tampered with, the ability of his method to detect tampering disappears almost entirely.

Thermal said:
I'm curious if @Andy_Ross is going to give us the results, since nt1 has definitively shied away from the challenge.
Click to expand...
It's his test. I respect his need to conduct it according to the protocol he deems probative. I think it's a good test and I want @nt1 to take it honestly.
 

Thermal said:
And the thousands of daily NYC tourists with their cameras and handheld camcorders didn't catch a single image of any of this, of course.
Click to expand...
And not all the witnesses to the plane impacts and the resulting chaos were on the streets. I seem to recall eyewitness accounts and even videos from people who were up in other office and apartment buildings- how did the conspiracy herd them? As usual with CTs like this, you end up with one that's already so all-powerful they had no reason to do any of the things they did to get power- AFAICT, they corralled the crowds, controlled the witnesses, and confiscated the videos so they could install a system that would make people take their shoes off before getting on planes.
 
Last edited:
nt1 didn't take the test. But does it follow that he therefore FAILED the test? I think not! Indeed!*

Similarly, if he had eaten the test, he would not by the same logic have failed it. Autism researchers long ago established this principle, or certainly should have. Indeed! **


* I can't make this @×%☆° phone spell Harrumph! with the correct phlegmy sounds.
** Couldn't again.
 
Last edited:
sackett said:
nt1 didn't take the test. But does it follow that he therefore FAILED the test? I think not! Indeed!*

Similarly, if he had eaten the test, he would not by the same logic have failed it. Autism researchers long ago established this principle, or certainly should have. Indeed! **


* I can't make this @×%☆° phone spell Harrumph! with the correct phlegmy sounds.
** Couldn't again.
Click to expand...
I didn't get a 'harrumph' outta that guy!
 
sackett said:
nt1 didn't take the test. But does it follow that he therefore FAILED the test? I think not! Indeed!*
Click to expand...
Not strictly, but the effect is the same. If you want a medical license but don't want to take the test, you don't get a medical license. The effect is the same as if you took the test and failed it: no medical license. Here the desired outcome was a validation of his method according to a controlled test. He didn't take the test, so he doesn't get the validation.
 
1000025695.jpg
I recieved a warning about screen shots of full conversations. I am displaying "im sorry i can't continue" after it agreed with two in a row. It happens all the time.
 
1000025718.jpg1000025717.jpg1000025721.jpg
Its happening right now.

Everyday. I understand being upset. But being unreasonable for personal comfort helps nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom