Kopji said:I hope I'm not violating any rules by taking a moment to offer readers a chance to purchase a stylish Kopji-Inc(c) Tinfoil Hat (shown below). Be the talk of your neighborhood now.
These come in Small, Medium, or Large and can be embrodered with the religious symbol of your choice.
Please press here on your display [ ] to place an order.
(I will just know)
Did you look at other thousands of documents that search engines find on this subject, or did you just look at the two I specifically mentioned? Did you find a good JPEG technical discussion board, like I suggested you do?LightPiercingDarkness said:I looked at all the information you found.
In no place does it directly respond to the "faces" or the "three socket face pattern"...........This is a fact.
No, you do not. You think you do but you really, truly do not.I have a very clear understanding of "all" that you "think" you are trying to make me understand.
The faces are an artifact of the compression algorithm. The way I heard it explained is that the JPEG compression algorithm splits up a picture into little squares, determines the two most prevalent colors in each square, varies the saturation values of those two hues along the edges of the square, and sets the internal pixel values according to the values of the edges.After examining your information....I say....."so what". You've done no more then explain why there are bad pictures under certain formats. Did you ever stop to consider that it is the "bad" that is actually allowing the discovery? (which I do find ironic).
All sorts of patterns get formed by the JPEG compression algorithm. One that appears a lot looks to me like the periodic table. Another one starts almost white in one corner, very dark in the opposite corner, and slowly grades from one extreme to the other in neat rows. It is not unexpected that patterns would emerge, and that those patterns would not only be repeatable in theory, but actually repeated in reality.So again.........I say to all of you.............
"NEVER" ..........SINCE I'VE BEEN COMMING TO THIS FORUM.........HAS ANYONE LOGICALLY EXPLAINED THE FACES/3 SOCKET FACE PATTERNS..........."NEVER".
The JPEG compression algorithm can by no means considered "chaos". It is actually order of digital precision. Much like Conway's game of Life.WHEN WILL YOU GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEADS........
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""IF""""""""""""""""""""IT""""""""""""""""WAS NOT A REPEATED PATTERN"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
""""""""I'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''WOULD AGREE WITH YOU""""""""
DON'T ANY OF YOU UNDERSTAND?
THERE ARE NO PATTERNS IN CHAOS.
Yes. Of course. But the answer to this question is that the JPEG compression algorithm creates patterns that our brains interpret as faces. The answer to this question is not that the faces are demons.LightPiercingDarkness said:Does your brains not wonder why these faces contain expressions and facial features?
My brain has no evidence that this is true, so no, my brain does not wonder about why this is true.Does your brains not wonder why they hold their shapes when viewed on live video?
LightPiercingDarkness said:Has I said...
...you dont look for truth, you avoid it.
Even if it means trying to hurt others while you do it.
Lyndale
LightPiercingDarkness said:Your an amazing bunch.
There have always been 2 issues at hand since this thread has started.
8901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
8901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
8901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
8901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
890123456890123456890A123456890A123456890A1234568
890123456890123456890A123456890A123456890A1234568
890123456890123456890A12345680A12345680A1B2345680
890123456890123456890A12345680A12345680A1B2345680
8901234568901234568012345680123A45680123AB4568012
8901234567890123456901234569012A34569012AB3456901
8901234567890123456901234569012A34569012AB3456901
8901234567890123456901234569012AB34569012AB345690
8901234567890234567902345679023AB45679023AB456790
8901234567890234567890234A567890234A567890234A567
8901234567890234567890234A567890234A567890234A567
8901234567890234567890234A567890234A567890234A567
8901234567890234567890234A567890234A567890234A567
8901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
8901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
8901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
8901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
This grid contains four 3-D squares.
Making Random Dot Stereograms pg 55
Bob Hankinson, Alfonso Hermida - Que Publishing 1994
(cropped to fit JREF code box limits - k)
Charlie in Dayton said:Once again, this thread has degenerated from scientific discussion to a camp revival meeting. Scientific evidence of the existence of these faces has been presented, and we are all pretty much in agreement as to the fact that there's something there. The debate now is, what are they? We say computer artifacts. Lyndale says paranormal beings. We have presented our scientific proofs as to why we see faces in various scenarios. Lyndale trumpets that he's "refuted" our arguments numerous times.
paraphrased from www.dictionary.com:
refute: To disprove and overthrow by argument, evidence, or countervailing proof; to prove to be false or erroneous...
Key word in the above is proof. Injecting religion into the proceedings requires an act of faith. Faith is not proof. The opposition points have not been refuted.
Lyndale, just what evidence would it take to convince you that your views on this are in error? This is a critical question. What would you need to convince you?
GOD has apparently confirmed that Vicon is right about the year, here in this thread:Kopji: Vicon was a poster on [the dog forum] a few years ago with a very unique perspective on reality. I started out at first hating the guy, but ended up collecting all his evidence and postings on the end of the world, he'd carefully calculated to be year 2012.