@Lou

Quote:

I could link forever

None of them appears to do a depth of analysis to determine image manipulation. Color changes are done to illustrate differences, such as nebula you might see some red/blue images that are white in real life. This doesn't mean NASA photoshopped the Death Star out.

How is manipulation found? There's quite a few ways. Cameras have the same lens and detector. They're going to create images with consistent pixel sizes or missing pixels if one is burned out. Do all the various Mars images have the same pattern from the same camera? Areas of the image that are manipulated will show a different pixelization pattern. If you haven't been keeping up with PS3 vs 360 wars you'll find various people zooming into the output to detect true 1080p or upscaled images, for example. A method similar can be used, but appears to not be.

And again - personal 'confessional' is at best a duplicate postulate. One doesn't get to say fairies are real because Elsie Wright claims she saw them. Instead we must demonstrate that Wright's confession isn't a conscious or unconscious lie.

For example - I remember playing the Ouija with my brother. He believed it to be real, was scared of the spectres and confessed to Mom about the danger he was in. Of course, it wasn't real, I moved the planchette. And further independent evidence came in by NONE of the 'predictions' coming true. He's still alive, married, and has kids - all things the Ouija said wouldn't happen because he'd die first. --- Another case of an Eye-Witness not realizing what they witnessed and making the wrong judgement. But, hey magicians and illusionists have preyed on and played to dups for centuries.

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Mar-2012 at 12:37 PM.

@BrianK

So you admit they manipulate color but failed to prove their good intent yourself.

As for the rest its just a typical "I don't believe anyone who worked there" answer...aka deny deny deny....

http://gizmodo.com/5896283/jupiter-venus-and-the-moon-will-menage-a-trois-tonight

I actually saw this last night. From my angle, Venus and Jupiter were vertically aligned. Jupiter and Venus were exceptionally bright...and large...

In other news, http://news.yahoo.com/magnitude-6-3-earthquake-shakes-tokyo-112318282.html ...

@Lou

Quote:

So you admit they manipulate color but failed to prove their good intent yourself.

Astronomers have fully admitted to color enhancements depending on what the nature is being shown. http://hubblesite.org/gallery/behind_the_pictures/meaning_of_color/eagle.php

What's the color of the sun on earth vs mars vs space?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30252_3-57339848-246/nasas-latest-stunning-images-of-sun-photos/

Lou where we are now is where we typically are with your CRAP. You make a conjecture and assume it true. You haven't provided the detailed validated image analysis to show this true. Someone claiming it's true shows us you can repeat a conjecture.

Quote:

As for the rest its just a typical "I don't believe anyone who worked there" answer...aka deny deny deny....

Or as Lou says - uncollaborated personal testamony is as good as anything else.

@Lou

Quote:

Quote: Edited huh? Do you realize there are various forensic methods to determine if the photo has been manipulated? Do you know of any look into the underlying structure? Or... Again do you have any EVIDENCE for your charge? Yes. http://www.rense.com/general57/nasa.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2qaZFC2PtM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4PkNPCEnJM http://www.ufovideo.net/MARS.htm http://www.projectmaji.com/index.html/_/articles/nasa/proof-nasa-photoshops-images-r18 I could link forever...

I have absolutely no doubt that you could, but why don't you post some actual evidence instead?
All you are doing with these posts is showing that you are not alone in your folly. I could go to my local church and ask the faithful "Does your deity exist?" and get a unanimous positive response. It doesn't matter how many times the wrong answer is repeated, it doesn't magically become right as a consequence of wishful thinking. The fact that there are a lot of people gaining some form of psycological comfort from their own personal totems is all very well, but it does not have any bearing on mathematically demonstrable facts, and as yet you have produced no demonstrable facts, merely baseless allegations.

If you still cannot accept that "faces" can be seen where no face actually exists, take a look at this picture.

Quote:

As for the rest its just a typical "I don't believe anyone who worked there" answer...aka deny deny deny....

Yes Lou, I had noticed you using this particular tactic to try to discredit data sources. Have you forgotten posting this comment? Quote:

N.A.S.A. Never A Straight Answer

I remember this comment as though it was only made yesterday.

Quote:

http://gizmodo.com/5896283/jupiter-venus-and-the-moon-will-menage-a-trois-tonight I actually saw this last night. From my angle, Venus and Jupiter were vertically aligned. Jupiter and Venus were exceptionally bright...and large... In other news, http://news.yahoo.com/magnitude-6-3-earthquake-shakes-tokyo-112318282.html ...

We already explained this to you when you claimed that the dirty snowball Elenin was causing earthquakes, but perhaps you forgot. Due to the fact that the gravitational effect of these planets is reduced as the inverse of their distance squared, a jet full of businessmen circling over Tokyo at the time waiting to land has more gravitational pull than Jupiter and Venus combined. On the plus side these two planets do at least have a greater mass than the comet Elenin had.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

@Lou said Quote: http://gizmodo.com/5896283/jupiter-venus-and-the-moon-will-menage-a-trois-tonight I actually saw this last night. From my angle, Venus and Jupiter were vertically aligned. Jupiter and Venus were exceptionally bright...and large... In other news, http://news.yahoo.com/magnitude-6-3-earthquake-shakes-tokyo-112318282.html ... @Nimrod We already explained this to you when you claimed that the dirty snowball Elenin was causing earthquakes, but perhaps you forgot. Due to the fact that the gravitational effect of these planets is reduced as the inverse of their distance squared, a jet full of businessmen circling over Tokyo at the time waiting to land has more gravitational pull than Jupiter and Venus combined. On the plus side these two planets do at least have a greater mass than the comet Elenin had.

Some of the research is pointing to Global Warming being a cause to earthquakes For example, as glaciers melt the localized mass on the crust is reduced. That frozen water now turns to liquid water which raises the oceans. Overall the mass may be retained on the earth as a whole but the pressures on a particular region may be changed. May they be changed significantly to cause earthquakes? If something is already near a tipping point it might be just enough to push it over the edge. It's certainly something that science is looking into.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: So you admit they manipulate color but failed to prove their good intent yourself. Astronomers have fully admitted to color enhancements depending on what the nature is being shown. http://hubblesite.org/gallery/behind_the_pictures/meaning_of_color/eagle.php What's the color of the sun on earth vs mars vs space? http://news.cnet.com/8301-30252_3-57339848-246/nasas-latest-stunning-images-of-sun-photos/ Lou where we are now is where we typically are with your CRAP. You make a conjecture and assume it true. You haven't provided the detailed validated image analysis to show this true. Someone claiming it's true shows us you can repeat a conjecture. Quote: As for the rest its just a typical "I don't believe anyone who worked there" answer...aka deny deny deny.... Or as Lou says - uncollaborated personal testamony is as good as anything else.

Typical...

http://ufoevidence.org/topics/physicaltracecases.htm

@Lou

Quote:

Typical... http://ufoevidence.org/topics/physicaltracecases.htm

I don't understand your response. I read a few pages and find nothing that proves NASA has manipulated photos to have a higher resolution than the cameras they sent post Viking? So how is this supporting your preposterious claim of all images since Viking are of lower quality?

@Lou

Wow. 6.3? Total power about the same as the Hiroshima AND Nagasaki nuclear bombs COMBINED?

You know, with an average of 134 quakes of magnitude 6.0-6.9 per year, you'll be reporting a freaking LOT of earthquakes unless you start filtering out the bigger sizes.

The other day I heard someone on the radio discuss an earthquake in Norway, which was somewhere between 3 and 3.5 (can't remember). Well, a barrel of oil has the chemical energy equivalent of roughly a 3.3 magnitude quake, so that's hardly interesting, is it?

Last edited by olegil on 28-Mar-2012 at 08:23 AM.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@Lou

Quote:

Typical... http://ufoevidence.org/topics/physicaltracecases.htm

Fairy Sightings
Proof of Leprechauns
Just cuz it's on the internet doesn't make it real.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Mar-2012 at 04:08 PM.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou Wow. 6.3? Total power about the same as the Hiroshima AND Nagasaki nuclear bombs COMBINED? You know, with an average of 134 quakes of magnitude 6.0-6.9 per year, you'll be reporting a freaking LOT of earthquakes unless you start filtering out the bigger sizes. The other day I heard someone on the radio discuss an earthquake in Norway, which was somewhere between 3 and 3.5 (can't remember). Well, a barrel of oil has the chemical energy equivalent of roughly a 3.3 magnitude quake, so that's hardly interesting, is it?

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/08/23/earthquake-felt-in-southern-new-england/
I was in northern Rhode Island when this one hit and considering the vertigo I experienced during it, I find your trivalizing of earthquakes insulting to everyone who has suffered from them. Do barrels of oil cause vertigo? A barrel of oil blows up and messes up what, an acre? Try that across thousands of square miles. Good comparison...not.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Typical... http://ufoevidence.org/topics/physicaltracecases.htm Fairy Sightings Proof of Leprechauns Just cuz it's on the internet doesn't make it real.

You are impossible.
You say there's never any physical evidence of ufos and I provide it and all you can do is joke. In the end, the joke is on you and your version of reality I suppose.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: As for the rest its just a typical "I don't believe anyone who worked there" answer...aka deny deny deny.... Yes Lou, I had noticed you using this particular tactic to try to discredit data sources. Have you forgotten posting this comment?

Are you crying again about being smacked in the face with your own tactics?

@Lou

Quote:

Are you crying again about being smacked in the face with your own tactics?

As far as I am aware, I am not the shining wit that is claiming that all information coming out of NASA is, by definition, a lie, nor do I make a habit of making baseless and scurrilous accusations against people who are not in a position to defend themselves.
All that I have done is to show you for the hypocrite that you are, with your interminable whining that you are the victim of some global conspiracy. What makes you think that you are so special that people from all around the world will get together and concoct some sort of lie just to make you look like a fool, and why should we bother when you are doing such a brilliant job of it yourself.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

You say there's never any physical evidence of ufos and I provide it and all you can do is joke

Are you crying again about being smacked in the face with your own tactics?

You seem to not understand there's evidence of fairies with as much validity as the evidence you present of UFOs. There's multiple photographs. There's personal testamonies. There are writings throught the ages. Fairies even create their own 'crop' circles. So while aliens we have someone that traveled thousands, or more light years, to move rocks and squish wheat. Fairies they plant and grow crop as in mushroom circles which they harvest for food and spells. IMO the usefulness of the crop circle makes more sense for fairies than aliens destroying food sources. Also, fairies create lights which dart about at speeds unheard of to man. Again - found in many writings and personal eye-witness accounts. And hey you told us all eye-witness accounts are evidences we should accept. So why are you now going against your own standards?

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You say there's never any physical evidence of ufos and I provide it and all you can do is joke Are you crying again about being smacked in the face with your own tactics? You seem to not understand there's evidence of fairies with as much validity as the evidence you present of UFOs. There's multiple photographs. There's personal testamonies. There are writings throught the ages. Fairies even create their own 'crop' circles. So while aliens we have someone that traveled thousands, or more light years, to move rocks and squish wheat. Fairies they plant and grow crop as in mushroom circles which they harvest for food and spells. IMO the usefulness of the crop circle makes more sense for fairies than aliens destroying food sources. Also, fairies create lights which dart about at speeds unheard of to man. Again - found in many writings and personal eye-witness accounts. And hey you told us all eye-witness accounts are evidences we should accept. So why are you now going against your own standards?

yesterday's fairies, today's greys
yesterday's dragons, today rockets...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Are you crying again about being smacked in the face with your own tactics? As far as I am aware, I am not the shining wit that is claiming that all information coming out of NASA is, by definition, a lie, nor do I make a habit of making baseless and scurrilous accusations against people who are not in a position to defend themselves. All that I have done is to show you for the hypocrite that you are, with your interminable whining that you are the victim of some global conspiracy. What makes you think that you are so special that people from all around the world will get together and concoct some sort of lie just to make you look like a fool, and why should we bother when you are doing such a brilliant job of it yourself.

You've also done an admirable job of proving you have nothing better to do.

@ the deaf dumb and blind,
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre82r13e-us-sea-level-ice/

Wait...didn't Sitchin tells us that a long time ago?

@Lou

Quote:

yesterday's fairies, today's greys

Certainly if your meaning here is mythological explainations to best try and give reason to an unknown then you're spot on. Though note that is far, far different from truth or knowledge. Don't fill the void with an ever changing goal post. Admitting we 'don't know' is the first step in the journey into understanding. Admitting we 'don't know' is the light in the darkness that there's a genuinely exciting mystery to explore.

“... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” - Neil Degrasse Tyson

@Lou

A barrel of oil blown up at a distance of a few km through bedrock would cause as much vertigo as a quake of magnitude 3.3, which is to say absolutely none. It's just 6 gigajoules, after all.

Why you would drag a quake of magnitude 5.8 (around 25 terajoules, equivalent to about 5kT TNT (about half of Little Boy) transmitted through bedrock) into that comparison I do not know.

Next you'll be saying that being hit with plastic forks is dangerous because your grandmother was once run over by a bus carrying people to a picnic (allthough I recognise that the difference in kinetic energy between those would probably be more than 5000 times).

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.