Miss me? (smiles)

[komencanto]

Here:
If you can´t see it you need to go to User CP, Edit Options and change the option:

Show image attachments and code in Posts

to a yes.

 

[LightPiercingDarkness]

One could just as easily assume that the demons themselves deleted the thread, because you revealed their faces to everyone.

That which is in the "best interest" of this foundation will be done and has been done.

Lyndale

 

[Rolfe]

Gosh, we're on page 9 now, Lyndale, and it's still the "last page". But page 5 isn't the "last page" any longer. How can that be? How much longer can this go on?

By the way, my browser displays these two pictures quite normally, and has done from the moment they were posted. Maybe the demons just don't want you to see them?

Get this. The smilies look like faces. You need very little detail indeed for your brain to interpret something as a face. Very little more detail changes the perceived expression a lot. (Damn, the system won't let me include as many as I wanted to.)

And all that without even moving. Get movement in, and it's remarkable how expressive they can be.

Now the point here is that these are just collections of lines. Very simple ones. There are no demons or any other consciousness behind them. Admittedly, all these were designed by people (deliberate, conscious design). But can't you realise that for collections of lines so simple, it's not that difficult for them to arise by chance? I'll bet you don't even have anything as clear as the basic smilie in your collection. Why should these fuzzy shapes have any more consciousness of their own than the smilies?

Edited to add: Good grief, I'm now reading the title of the THREAD as "Miss me? (smilies)"!!

Rolfe.

 

[LightPiercingDarkness]

I will be back either later today or tomorrow around noon.

Dont get all giddy to quick........I'll be back with a response to that picture..................promise.

You don't scare me.


Lyndale

 

[Powa]

Good grief, I'm now reading the title of the THREAD as "Miss me? (smilies)"!!

Well, with so many smilies in this thread that title would seem appropriate. <-- oh, here's one more.

 

[roger]

Gosh, we're on page 9 now, Lyndale, and it's still the "last page". But page 5 isn't the "last page" any longer. How can that be? How much longer can this go on?

Apparently not much longer, Rolfe. Look down at the bottom of this page. See that link labelled "Last Thread"? OMG! Apparently we can't post any new threads. Sigh. It was good while it lasted.

 

[Powa]

Look done at the bottom of this page. See that link labelled "Last Thread"? OMG! Apparently we can't post any new threads. Sigh. It was good while it lasted.

So the link labelled "Next Thread" is only good for, like, the afterlife? When we're dead I hope there will be no limits for our fora in the sky.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Lyndale, sorry for laughing at your "last page" post, but it did show a bit about your logic reasoning capability.

I want to bring you back to an earlier post of yours, where you explain how you compare a film photo with a digital photo of the same motief and find differences (face-like patterns in the digital photo): Could you explain again which conclusion you make from that observation, and why?

Hans

 

[Beleth]

Lets say in front of you is a table. On this table are 2 pictures.
One pictue is digital and one is not digital. Both pictues were takin in the same location of the same subject (the subject is doesnt matter). But when you look at each picture you notice only one difference. The digital picture has faces/aritifacts in it.

Do you know what the difference is? Actually nothing.

Actually something. What you have described is the very definition of a "visual artifact".

Say you were there when the pictures were taken. So now there are three records of the image in the photographs - one is recorded by a digital camera, one is recorded by a film camera, and one is recorded by your brain. Now, in two of those images, there are no faces. In one of those images, there is a face. So there are two, and only two, differences:
1) the recording device used
2) the existence of the face.

Since one of the images does not agree with the other two, it is reasonable to suspect that there is something not quite correct about that particular recording device. So you try it again, and again, and again. In each time, neither your brain nor the film camera record any faces, but the digital camera records a face. This confirms our suspicion that the digital camera's recording mechanism is flawed in some way. It introduces artifacts.

(I am not talking about the mechanics of the process)

??? Of course you are! You yourself said "One picture is digital and one is not digital"! That's nothing but the mechanics of the process!

Concerning the picture above with those smiley faces.
If I were to say to you....that those are not (smiley) faces...you would agrue with me that they were. Wouldn't you? Of course you would and do you know why you would?

Because Powa put them there himself?

Make a list and its that same list why I say those "other" faces are real also.

You will find that if you compared my reasons (with my faces) with your reasons (of why you think yours are smiley faces), you'll find the results Identical on a very High percentage.

Because you put them there yourself?

Remember that some of us are not debating that faces are visible in the pictures you have posted. But we are all debating that the faces are the slightest bit supernatural. I don't think you'll find that Powa is making any supernatural explanation to the existence of the smilies in his picture.

 

[komencanto]

I just noticed that LPD thinks he has refuted the argument that these are simply chance occurences because they happen repeatedly and consistently regardless of the situation.

That is no refutation at all, indeed, if our explaination is true, then we would expect that to happen.

Just a thought.

 

[uruk]

So, sue already. What's the hold up?
Sue! Are you chicken? You appear to be backing off. Are seriouse about this ? Why all the jacking around? Just do it. Shut us all up and Sue!!!

If you don't sue, then we win. If you don't sue it means that you really have no faith in what you believe.

One question though. You say that you are a christian. Then why are you so concerned about the money? I thought christians didn't go for the riches deal. You know, easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven.
Money is the root of all evil. Jesus trashing the money handlers.

 

[Dane]

==PROOF AGAINST THE DEMON FACES==

Right here, right now, I can give solid proof to you, Lyndale, that those demon faces that you see in digital jpeg pictures are figments of your imagination.

This will be short, because there really is not much to explain here. When you take a picture digitally, for example with a digital camera, you are capturing a pure image in front of you. It starts as a RAW of TIFF type format, in it's purest form, and is either kept as a RAW or TIFF file, or instantly converted to JPG, which is the format that you see the faces in.

When images are converted to a more compressed version, such as JPEG, there is an unavoidable loss of image quality, and a creation of something called "noise" in a photo. That is the grainy look that you see in most photos that have an imbalanced exposure, usually if there isn't enough light. In that noise is where those "faces" are seen.

NOW READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY.

When you first take a picture with a digital source, there IS no noise in the photo (sometimes only fragment losses of quality due to the impossibility of capturing a true identical representation of a scene). The noise is, in fact, a random creation that happens AFTER you take the photo and AFTER it has been compressed in JPEG format. This noise is created IN the computer, or when it is compressed in your digital camera during the compression process. What this means is that the noise was NOT captured in the original photo, but added LATER due to image compression. In other words, the faces are not in the photos, but in the compressed files, meaning that the "faces" are randomly generated in patches of noise, and not from the captured image itself!

Basically, this is indisputible. I have a background in digital imaging, and I know how this works. I am not trying to be arrogant, only matter-of-fact. Try this:

Take a photograph, preferably with a high-quality digital camera that will take good pictures without distortion, and take a picture of a neutral-lighted scene. Then put this image on your computer (which at this point should have almost no noticeable noise whatsoever). Open it in a good image-editting program, and select the option ADD NOISE, and see what happens. You will see a very similar phenomena to your other pictures. You will undoubtedly find several faces, and if you don't, add noise again and it will randomly make more distortion where you can find faces.

Now unless your argument is that the demons with faces actually control your camera and computer to digitally imput their expressions in your photographs, then now you will understand.

Does any of this make sense to you Lyndale? I know it won't unless you actually consider what I took time to write. And I know if you do, you will understand. It's a concept that I'm sure is hard to let go of, but will probably be a relief to you once you realize it is only a fictional idea!

Best Wishes,

Dane

 

[Rolfe]

Money is the root of all evil.

Accuracy check. The love of money is the root of all evil. Not-so-subtle difference here.

Edited to add: Dane, I admire your logic and your patience. You do realise you're wasting your time, don't you?

Rolfe.

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

If anyone's going to spotlife.com, ya better do it soon because it's closing down December 12th, according to its homepage...by the way, it's a webcam-streaming-video clearinghouse site, a bunch of thumbnails and links to webcam sites.

I am curious -- why is it that different people see different 'faces' in the pictures? If they were real (as opposed to a photo artifact), wouldn't everyone see the same thing at the same time?

I have to go look - I have some photographs I've scanned in, so I can compare the monitor picture with the film image. And I've had to use some really fast film on a few, so if there's the opportunity for film grain to stick its tongue out at me, this oughtta show it.

Your claims that the picture-taking processes of film and digital are similar show that you are ignorant of the processes involved. One is a chemical reaction, the other is an electromagnetic reaction. You need to go back to tech school on these matters.

Lyndale, if what you are claiming is real, then why are you wasting your time posting here? Get off your dead fundament, and file that lawsuit. Convincing us won't do a thing to forward your claims. The person(s) you have to convince are a judge/jury. Stop wasting your time here. Your 'beliefs' are insufficient in this matter. You must PROVE your claim.

And by the way...other people have said that they can see faces in your pictures too (some folks on this very forum, in this very thread, have agreed with you, that there's something that resembles a face there). So, the ability to see faces where there shouldn't be any is not paranormal. There went your claim to the million, on a couple of bases -- the ability is not paranormal, you have no abilities that are paranormal, and...oh yes...there is already a proven explanation of why people see faces under these conditions, and you haven't proven that why the faces are being seen in this instance is different than other occasions.

So. If you're going to sue, do it. Stop whining. Just go do it, let the procedure work itself out, and the chips will fall where they may.

 

[Pyrrho]

Lyndale is a troll, pure and simple. Everything that has been explained to him in this thread has been explained to him before, and more than once or twice.

He's a troll, he's yanking your chains, and his stupidity is not worth the attention.

 

[LightPiercingDarkness]

Can you feel the love?

Lol.

I read your posts Dane. The last one was more of your true colors then the one trying to express sympothy before. Either that or your psycho with multiple personalities. Either or I really dont care. Though I will give you some credit ...to the tune...you did try to do something (i think) to search further into this. Not much, but some.

I see some sit back and take an observation stand point and I see others step in like you to try and discredit me...which is fine, I have no problem with that. I think the lame name calling and digs are pretty ignorant, though.

We seem to be at a stand still. From your point of view and those like you...you will only continue to be "as you are" (smiles). Me, I will continue, regardless of your suggestions, that I am wacked or just plain stupid.

You can try and explain it "away", anyway you like. Please don't misunderstand me (lol), I have read very carefully "everything" you and the others have pointed out and have considered all that you have said and all that many others before you have said.

But if it "looks" like a face...has eyes and mouth like a face...has expressions like a face...has head structure like a face...has facial features like a face...ALL ON THE SAME FACE....DUH....ITS A FACE.

You know what one of the things, that I find most amazing about this also? Not just the faces but the ability of them to make you blind to the paragraph above this one. I use to wonder about those references in the Bible where it talked about someone being possesed and what was happening to them....I wondered why don't we see more of this today?...simple...the last thing they want from any of us...is to turn to God. By saying all that I just mentioned...I have to also wonder....if they can do that (then)...then what is it that they can do now, that seems so insignificant to us? Personally I think the control is still there...its just been fasioned more to a cloak and dagger routine.

Digital noise (lol)...uh? Whats making the sound? What is its source? Can the effect be intensified? What does it sound like?
Hey this is your word (digital noise), elabrate.

Also, Can you tell me why on live video, that I have recorded, that these images are ""holding their 3d image""? It would seem by your explanation they should'nt be able to do that....but they do...
and you can see their eyes and mouths opening and closing also.
According to your explanation.....this should be impossible.

I see a lot like to step up and bat in here...but so far...you've all struck out.

They are.

Lyndale

 

[CFLarsen]

Also, Can you tell me why on live video, that I have recorded, that these images are ""holding their 3d image""? It would seem by your explanation they should'nt be able to do that....but they do...
and you can see their eyes and mouths opening and closing also.
According to your explanation.....this should be impossible.

Let's see that video, then. Put up or shut up.

I see a lot like to step up and bat in here...but so far...you've all struck out.

I see a lot of talk, but no evidence...

 

[LightPiercingDarkness]

Lyndale is a troll, pure and simple. Everything that has been explained to him in this thread has been explained to him before, and more than once or twice.

He's a troll, he's yanking your chains, and his stupidity is not worth the attention.

Apparently its worth yours.



Lyndale

 

[LightPiercingDarkness]

Let's see that video, then. Put up or shut up.



I see a lot of talk, but no evidence...

If you find a gold mine, do you tell everyone where it is? Or, do you go get all the gold out first, then tell everyone?

I've shown a nuget and one day I'll show the rest....when I am ready. My time, not yours and I know your going to come back with some dig......I expect no less...especially from you.

Many times in my life ...I've seen circumstances where I've heard or seen on tv something remarkable and thought to myself..boy wish I was there and saw it first hand...or thought to myself "awh someone will cover it up and we'll never know the truth or the whole story about it....and now I am at that end of the fense and I am trying to show people because of those feelings in the past ...and dam me...uh?

 

[CFLarsen]

If you find a gold mine, do you tell everyone where it is? Or, do you go get all the gold out first, then tell everyone?

I've shown a nuget and one day I'll show the rest....when I am ready. My time, not yours and I know your going to come back with some dig......I expect no less...especially from you.

Hey, if you don't want to show evidence, then stop referring to it.

I don't see how a video snippet could possibly destroy these dreams of gold nuggets you have. Perhaps you could explain?

Many times in my life ...I've seen circumstances where I've heard or seen on tv something remarkable and thought to myself..boy wish I was there and saw it first hand...or thought to myself "awh someone will cover it up and we'll never know the truth or the whole story about it....and now I am at that end of the fense and I am trying to show people because of those feelings in the past ...and dam me...uh?

Not at all. We just don't believe you, that's all. You say you have evidence, you just don't want to show it.