Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

JayUtah said:
You weren't asked to determine the origin of the images. You were asked to apply your method to them to determine whether they had been composited, as you claimed it would do.


Most of your 9/11 images are enlargements of a larger image. The enlargement is an important part of the provenance of each image. You applied your method to the entire specimen image. Here's what happens when I apply your method to an enlargement of a portion of this image:


View attachment 61685

Halos around every branch! Can you explain why the halos show up in an enlargement but not in the original? Can you explain why the branches now suddenly display the stair-step pattern you claimed in the 9/11 images were indicative of "masking?"
Click to expand...
Reposted for the feature that dare not speak it's name.
 
nt1 said:
These are the words

"Which ones have been tampered with."

Mojo. Please take just a few minutes and reread.

Thank you
Click to expand...
Try looking at all the posts between that and your eventual response, which explained how you were supposed to do it, and think about the context in which the question was asked.
 
JayUtah said:
FYI in the new board software, quoting a post does not reveal its content in defiance of that feature.
Click to expand...
No, but it gives the option to reveal it, the original post is simply absent. I only have one poster on this board on 'that' list and I only even know that they've posted if someone quotes them. It's obvious that the OP is unable to address your criticisms of the tool they are missing, this way they at least know that you are still participating and have the option to try.
 
"Dis one. Dat one." Those are the answers required by the test protocol.

Hell, random guessing would be less dishonest than these scrambled eggs.
 
Nt1 can see JayUtah's posts. He is feeding them into his Chatty for analysis, and says Chatty is impressed with JayUtah's posts. Pretty sure we can dispense with the "Iggy Excuse" as bull ◊◊◊◊. Nt1 can see them, and the firm spanking they deliver.

And the Photo Curve editor itself says it does not reveal masking lines. So that's another one that can be summarily declared bull ◊◊◊◊.

The only remaining issue, as far as I know, are my tan line progressions, which are stagnant due to cloudiness and drizzle.
 
So we need a sure-fire filter for detecting if Thermal is using fake tan. Maybe a klaxon which goes off if it senses a particularly unnatural shade of orange.
 
Nt1, have you given your final answers, or would you.like to demonstrate your technique? That's all we care about. Your reverse image searching and deciding if shadows look natural are far below the level of skill you are being repeatedly requested to demonstrate. You say you have the tools. Let's put them to work and demonstrate.

Eta: so far, you claimed to have a method that reveals masking lines. The tool you use itself says it does not do so.

You gave agreed to use this tool on Andy_Ross' six pictures.

So far, you have revealed zero evidence of tampering in any of the 6 pics. Absolute zero.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Are you going to show us the results of applying your methods to the six example pictures I posted in the thread?
Click to expand...

nt1 said:
Andy. Yes. Those got buried. Ill go find them.
Click to expand...
Let me explain... no there is too much. Let me sum up:

You agreed, this morning, to apply the methods that have been in dispute to Andy's pictures to identify tampering. Instead, you gave a grade school level reverse image searching and vague talk about shadows and what you think about gradients and how natural you think they look.

Is this really all you've got?
 
Last edited:
nt1 said:
These are the words

"Which ones have been tampered with."
Click to expand...
You very well knew that it was your halo method that was to be tested. But apparently you have so little confidence in it that at first you ignored the challenge, and then later you tried to find out which ones had been tampered with than with your halo technique, probably because you knew that the halo technique would fail.

This is not good at all.
 
Thermal said:
Nt1 can see JayUtah's posts. He is feeding them into his Chatty for analysis, and says Chatty is impressed with JayUtah's posts. Pretty sure we can dispense with the "Iggy Excuse" as bull ◊◊◊◊. Nt1 can see them, and the firm spanking they deliver.

And the Photo Curve editor itself says it does not reveal masking lines. So that's another one that can be summarily declared bull ◊◊◊◊.

The only remaining issue, as far as I know, are my tan line progressions, which are stagnant due to cloudiness and drizzle.
Click to expand...


Indeed, he seems to think he can dismiss them as a call to authority, but anyone that reads them can see that it's the information within them that's devastating to his hypothesis, not the expertise of the writer, although Justin Kruger & David Dunning could be called to the stand.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
If you need to test your filter I think I might be able to find some official Whitehouse Press photos you can try it on.
Click to expand...
I've found Rust-O-Leum spray paint in "Insurrectionist Orange" to be a fair match. Also poignant to be applying it to my ass and balls.
 
Joking aside, it does annoy me when people march into a community which has been in existence since (if I recall correctly) before they were born announcing that they're actually too good to be there and everyone there will fail to meet their standards, and tries to redefine the accepted terms of discourse because they can't meet the standards (note, standards not volume) of evidence and discourse that are expected here. This is a welcoming place, but bring your ego & nothing to back it up and you'll make a fool of yourself pretty quickly.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
If you need to test your filter I think I might be able to find some official Whitehouse Press photos you can try it on.
Click to expand...
1000025558.jpg1000025551.jpg

Im good on that big homie. Thanks for the offer. Did you know chatgpt knows your account start date without websearching
P.J. Denyer said:
Joking aside, it does annoy me when people march into a community which has been in existence since (if I recall correctly) before they were born announcing that they're actually too good to be there and everyone there will fail to meet their standards, and tries to redefine the accepted terms of discourse because they can't meet the standards (note, standards not volume) of evidence and discourse that are expected here. This is a welcoming place, but bring your ego & nothing to back it up and you'll make a fool of yourself pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
Sorry big guy. I was an adult the day the patriot act was signed into law.

Sorry. Things annoy me too. Youre not alone. Im here for you.

Let me knownwhat would make you happy?

Dont say 9/11 id fabricated? Dont say it still is fabricated?

Fine. "Hey everybody. 9/11 is peachy. Go votenyes on the Big Beautiful Bill. Because the only way to stop big government isnwith a bigger government." I was goingnto say God Bless America, but that may not go down well. Shall i just end itnwith silence.

P.j. i like you. No matter what. If you are a genuine human, a bot, a person doing what they think is right, or a paid agent. You can be whatever you choose and i support it and I want you to be happy and free.

P.j. the footage. The photos. The court evidence. Is not scientifically sound. Your skepticism applied, is currently gaurding true skeptism of reality.

Again. That's ok. Its necessary. All of you are necessary. All of us are necessary. Its healthy. Exercise. A quick diet change. Are the same as a car crash or a long grueling disease. They are all necessary and will have a positive effect eventually. The universe was created on balance that leans towards life. Call it leans towards good. Otherwise. We are a system that cohld spiral and collapse. And if you are an atheist that believes in the big bang and this system is operating om a balance that leans towards a system of self preservation. Then worry. Because arent we at a 4 billion years without collapse? That could be any day. A chain reaction of stars colliding or a black hole creating that will end it all.

Point is. Your actions and choices are necessary and good. Regardless of their intentions and immediate effect. Because. This system is built on goodnand self preservation. So if you think you are harming or you thinknyou are hurting. Just know. You are helping.

Thanks p.j. for your replies. Im proud of you.
 
Lets move on.
-Claim: the footage. Photos. Stories. Everything. Was designed. Controlled. Controlled after. Controlled now. By design.
-2006 is a general year you csn give to ehn footage was released back to those ALLOWED and INVITED to film and attend the event.
-From 2001 to 2005 footage was swept. Deleted. NDA'S were signed.
-Youtube began in 2005. The controlled conspiracy theories and their characthers were created and controlled. All. If you know about them. They were placed.
-Footage was returned to most by 2006. They were free to distrubte and use them according to their NDA.
-The bystanders in the footage. Placed. Invited. Those that weren't were mixed in and guided out of a zone that was fully controlled and guided. The people you see in that footage are purposely placed and instructed. By different groups. For different reasons. With a single aligned set of instructions and rules.
-The way the event is created and controlled is the same way you build a pyramid.
-No one knew all three of these. Knew when, where, how. Even Bush. This csn be seen by his face. In the school. He knew they got one over on him.
-The alternative. The event, as you protect it, is complete damage control. Id did happen. It would require a extensive theory to pass that off. But to give it credence i eill tell you you can get port authority security cameras labeled 7:50am. That allows for a real attack that happened one hour before and they scrambled to control narrative. The reason would be the contractors protecting their money. Dont worry. I know your confused. I dont blame you. You dont and shouldnt put this type of time into studying public documents and facts.
-Anyway. Not one person is going to "win" any debate on 9/11 with me. Why? Because i only use public documents. Facts the public use. I subscribe to none. I make guesses, inferences, and suppositions. But they are based on things that are accessible by all. I also only use documents and facts that accepted.
-Dont worry. I have more. I have fun ones that fall outside of this deacriotion. I just donr broadcast them. Pushing guesses is like guarding guesses. You would understand.
-Footage is garbage. A couple hours learning what a luma curve does and doesnt do, is all you need to ask genuine questions.
-The greatest evidence, besides red handed evidence, is found in patterns. The best evidence there is something wrong with 9/11 is to ask questions in multiple platforms and recieve the same reaction and tactics.
-The accounts, on other platforms, to this day, are better evidence than the footage that 9/11 is a criminal conspiracy. Whether in part or full.
----
July 6th 1946
NY Gov. Dewey announces the first WTC committee.
----
July 6th 1946
George Walker Bush Jr. Is born.
The preaident and tower were born the same day.
---
1966 ground break.
But
1968. Tower 1 begins
1968. 911 emergency number begins.
The number was born the year the towers began.
---
1946 federal aviation act. Sets in action the ability to federally control the event.
---
1946. King Abdulaziz Air Base completed. 1945 the U.S. State Department and the Saudi Government agreed to develop the air field. The War Department financed construction.
Minoru Yamasaki designed the Dhahran International Airport terminal in 1959
But wait. The 40s? Did it start there?

"The strange saga began in the 1930s when a US oil conglomerate, Aramco, built a settlement at Dhahran in the desert near the little town of Khobar. Local workers did the construction, including a rather talented Yemeni bricklayer named Mohamed Bin Laden"

Saudi Bases and the Bin Ladens: A Love Story - Antiwar.com

What is Trump really up to? It’s almost unknowable. At the same time that the president was pulling (some) troops out of Northeast Syria, giving an antiwar speech, and then sending other troops back into Syria to "secure the oil," he also quietly sent another 1800 service members into Saudi…
original.antiwar.com original.antiwar.com

Recap. There is a public airport in Saudi Arabia. the Dhahran International Airport. It was built with US Govt money for the USAF. A civilian terminal later designed by the WTC architect. With the Bin Ladins previously connected to oil interests, as well as providing future financing for the airport.

In one airport. You have. The US military and govt. The Saudi govt. STANDARD OIL AMARCO interests. The Bin Ladens. The WTC architect.
----
Let me see if this is sinking in.

9/11 and this airport have these things in common. And are seperated by 60 to 80
years.

1946 and 2001
Airplanes
US govt and military
Saudi govt
The architect of WTC
Bin Laden family
Oil Money
---
Doesnt seem like enough reason to walk around with a tin foil hat arguing with people. What topic next?
 
arthwollipot said:
Since it's posted in clear text right on the page, why should that be surprising?
Click to expand...
What are you looking at? Im not being tough. I mean your avatar. Is it a pose or did you end up with only one photo? Someone walked in as you clicked. You looked away? Genuine question. Its a cool avatar photo. seriously. Its a cool avatar photo and you seem pretty cool. Thanks.
 
nt1 said:
Lets move on.
Click to expand...

Let's not. Not until you have addressed all the expert criticism you have received about the methodology you have used to supposedly identify photographic manipulation, and done the simple experiment to test it that was proposed in the way obviously intended.

nt1 said:
I make guesses, inferences, and suppositions. But they are based on things that are accessible by all.
Click to expand...

On this forum we prefer them to be based on verifiable evidence, regardless of its source, and logically sound argument rather than cherry picking and paranoia.

nt1 said:
We should start an "this annoys me thread".
Click to expand...

There are already several "Pet peeves" threads in the Community subforum. By all means add your own to them.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
I think you might be on to something.
Click to expand...
I hope im not over stepping. But sometimes the cute comments make me smile. Regardless of context or who says what. I just like to abandon ego or opinion sometimes and say "that is cute and funny". Thats not bad right? I just genuinely think some of the other members cute comments are sharp and witty and wanted to compliment them. Im being genuine. I really think your cute comments are sharp and witty. I dont judge if they are effective, right, helpful, intelligent, useful, spiteful, mean, paid for, encouraged, or anything like that. I just judge them on if they are cute and witty. Genuinely. I mean it. Im really proud and excited to be a part of it. Thanks for all the time and effort on the subject. I think you deserve a "thank you" and "pat on the back" for your hard work.
 
Mojo said:
Is it something to do with chess and pigeons?
Click to expand...
There's a scene in James Cameron's The Abyss where Bud says to Hippy "you think everything is a conspiracy," and Hippy responds, "everything is," in a sort of "of course!" tone of voice. That was kind of played for laughs there, but we can see here how it would play out in real life if someone honestly believed that. And it's true that nobody can win a debate with somebody who really does think that way- but it's not for the reason they think it is. Put another way- a CT worldview has its own gravity that grows stronger and more massive by all the matter it pulls into itself, to the point where arguing with it is fighting an event horizon.
 
nt1 said:
Lets move on.
Click to expand...
Quite a screed you got there. Since you've demonstrated your unwillingness to have your claims tested, don't expect many to follow you much further or take you seriously.

nt1 said:
Not one person is going to "win" any debate on 9/11 with me. Why? Because i only use public documents. Facts the public use. I subscribe to none. I make guesses, inferences, and suppositions. But they are based on things that are accessible by all. I also only use documents and facts that accepted.
Click to expand...
No one will prevail upon you in debate because you don't debate. As soon as someone shows you evidence of your errors that you can't address, you ignore them. You act as if you deserve to be taken as the smartest guy in the room, and it has become tedious.

Your approach is nothing new for a conspiracy theory. They all use "public documents," but interpret them strangely according to highly speculatively preconceptions. Then they try to say that their passing allusions to authoritative sources somehow translates to credibility for the fanciful fairy tales they built on top of them.

nt1 said:
-Footage is garbage. A couple hours learning what a luma curve does and doesnt do, is all you need to ask genuine questions.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. You played around with a toy image program whose behavior you only slightly understand. You made it do something startling to digital images and made up a story to explain what you saw in terms of your conspiracy theory. You were given the opportunity to demonstrate the strength of your method in a blind test, but you refused. Your bluff was called, and now everyone can see that you're not really interested in genuine questions. You're only interested in imagining how clever you must be.
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
There's a scene in James Cameron's The Abyss where Bud says to Hippy "you think everything is a conspiracy," and Hippy responds, "everything is," in a sort of "of course!" tone of voice. That was kind of played for laughs there, but we can see here how it would play out in real life if someone honestly believed that. And it's true that nobody can win a debate with somebody who really does think that way- but it's not for the reason they think it is. Put another way- a CT worldview has its own gravity that grows stronger and more massive by all the matter it pulls into itself, to the point where arguing with it is fighting an event horizon.
Click to expand...

Don't laugh, it's no CT, the pigeons are planning to overthrow the government. I heard them just this morning calling "Coup! Coup!".
 
nt1 said:
-The bystanders in the footage. Placed. Invited. Those that weren't were mixed in and guided out of a zone that was fully controlled and guided. The people you see in that footage are purposely placed and instructed. By different groups. For different reasons. With a single aligned set of instructions and rules.
Click to expand...

The bystanders in... Manhattan.
The workday population of lower Manhattan.
If thousands were "placed," there must also have been thousands who would normally have been there, but were kept out.

Should be easy to find a few hundred accounts at least. "The highway was closed off for some reason." "The train was canceled." "The bus took a different route." "Downtown streets were barricaded." Hours before the first plane crash, not after. Where can we read some?
 
nt1 said:
Lets move on.
Click to expand...
No, that's not how it works, as others have said. You presented a bold claim, and got your ass handed to you. Now you want to change the subject.

I love you baby. You know Thermal loves you. But you are destroying your own credibility. This is a forum where your feet get held to the fire, and if you retreat and try to change the subject when things go badly for you, you are announcing to everyone that you cannot defend your claims, and that further engagement is wasting time; you'll just keep doing the same thing, over and over. Then you'll go to another forum saying no one on the ISF could debate your points. Your first post in the Welcome Thread stated as much.

We need to take your current losing battle to conclusion first. You say you have a method of revealing tampering. The Photo Curves editor you rely on says it cannot. You agreed to demonstrate it on Andy_Ross' six pics. You have not done so.

So do you have any objection to be reminded that your claims do not stand to cursory scrutiny?
 
nt1 said:
We should start an "this annoys me thread". That would be fun. Who started this thread for me? Will you start that for me? Sometimes i get busy. If members would create new threads for each of my thouggts that would be an honor. Dead serious. Thank you.

I thinknit would be fun and a good team building exercise. Lets all announce what annoys ourselves.
Click to expand...
Several such threads are already rolling in Community, like Pet Peeves in Real Life and a bunch of others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom