Thermal
August Member
With zig zag steps? All the cool masking lines have zig zag steps.
Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage
- Thread starter nt1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 9/11 9/11 evidence
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
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.Thermal
August Member
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:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
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.
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.
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.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
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.
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:
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 21,962
I didn't get a 'harrumph' outta that guy!
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 21,962
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
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.
Thermal
August Member
Love it! That tractor will soon be... *puts on sunglasses*... in need of repair.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Now I'm imagining an episode of Clarkson's Farm where Jeremy tries to put an ejection seat in the Lamborghini tractor. And he hires The Stig to test it.
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
The Stig's a BBC copyright, but I'm sure Hammond's available...
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
If anyone needed an ejection seat, it would be Hammond.
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
I'm not so sure, they don't work terribly well when the car's upside down..
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
No, but I think we might have got a flounce.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
There's always the F-104's answer to that.
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
Fire the car into the air & leave Hammond on the ground?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
In the interests of derailing my derail before we go too far off the rails, I'll just leave this herre.
Thermal
August Member
Folks. That is cause for concern. Its not cause for a group to ignore and focus on the member. Talk amongst yourselves. Go try it. Then come to your conclusions. Try it. I havent seen one person try it.
I have given instructions on how to do it and exactly what i use.
Its not conclusive. But it absolutely causes concern that it is not authentic and genuine. Jayutah is not the globes final authority on this subject.
Thermal
August Member
He is not, but he can show his work and mimic the mistakes you are making, and it is persuasive. There is no reason for anyone else to try it because we understand what it is doing, and how your understanding is ◊◊◊◊◊◊ six ways from Sunday on the matter.
If I ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up the use of this editor in the same way you are ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up, I would expect similar results. So let's say that already happened. There is no benefit to us repeating your mistakes.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
First, ChatGPT's answer is phrased as a conditional: if certain conditions hold, then your images would be poor evidence. It's up to you to demonstrate that those conditions hold—i.e., that the images have been altered. You have not shown any such thing. You've simply applied random luminance maps an attributed the distorted color to tampering.
Second, if you're asking ChatGPT adjudicate images for alteration, then it will certainly detect alteration. You're altering the images.
No. Your method produces nothing but false positives. Applying it to recent images does not prove they were altered.
You're the only one being unreasonable. It is unreasonable for you to expect others to overlook your mistakes and accept your claims regarding images as nevertheless valid.
The unrest in Los Angeles is cause for concern. Your insinuations that visual coverage of the events is being fabricated or altered are unimportant. They are based on claims that you should know by now have no basis in fact.
No, people are not obliged to ignore the errors in your methods and claims and focus instead on the implications you wish to instill. You are not detecting image tampering.
Because you are deliberately ignoring those who have tried it and who can thereby explain the errors you are making.
Irrelevant. You cannot display an informed understanding of how your tool works.
It is conclusively wrong. I have provided the evidence to support that determination.
Your fiddling around with the luminance channel has nothing to do with detecting image tampering.
It is cowardly and dishonest of you to impugn my findings when you are unwilling to engage them.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Axxman300
Philosopher
I have Photoshop, a robust photo processing program. There are a number of tricks I can use to inspect images for alteration. I don't use my phone. I, and people smarter than me on this subject use large screens to do that kind of work. The images from 9-11 you claim are fakes are in fact - real. This means your app doesn't work, or you are using it wrong, but don't care because is supports your silly theory.
How about showing Andy some respect and using you're miracle app on all the photos he provided?
Come on, nt1, tell us which 3 of Andy's photos were manipulated.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
...and do it by using the technique you have claimed to be using.
Come on orphia. Read my 6 replies to each photo.
"I seem to recall" is not on par with the level of expectation from other members on this subject. If i said "i seem to recall", i would recieve the same treatment i have recieved by applying more than "seeming".
Would you like an actual answer? It doesnt seem you do.
