NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed | |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/11/2010 01:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 868423 Canada 06/11/2010 01:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 757124 United States 06/11/2010 01:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/11/2010 03:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just wondering. What experience do you have in this field and do you have any training in analyzing these images? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 757124I have general exposure to SOHO and experience in photo manipulation. The issues are mutal exclusion of properties, however, not specific tech issues, mostly. As you will see. |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/11/2010 03:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | read later op. looks like EPIC WIN work you have done. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 868423;) Yah. Mutual exclusion factors, from image to image and part to part, mostly. If it had been some weird warp it would show as such ... etc. You'll see. 10-Q! :) Now ... off to bed. :) :banana2: |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 999651 Egypt 06/11/2010 03:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/11/2010 04:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just wondering. What experience do you have in this field and do you have any training in analyzing these images? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 757124The issues I found MOSTLY don't have much to do with SOHO images specifically, though I do describe what the extent of the image should be and what roughly happens in compression. If you want one SINGLE thing: Venus & sky should have no "information" to its left (except a tibit: what it would have had naturally, before putative "compression data" problems). The image is supposed to only be a circle. ... so ... How is there MORE information available to flesh out so smoothly the sky and Venus' light bloom ("left wing spread") as Venus "moves to the right" in a "compressed cut", so to speak? There's no distortion in Venus or the sky that's noticeable. So it was moved but SHOWED MORE INFORMATION TO ITS LEFT which SOHO doesn't actually CAPTURE: the circle is full frame and no more: how does Venus & sky get NEW and smooth info there as it "moves" to the right unnaturally? That much is a simple knowledge about the images. They're full frame. :) Oh, by the way, a LOT of exposure -- pun intended -- to those who analyze fakes. And how they fail and how they succeed -- in politically sensitive areas (which some call "nonsense") and in general from my schooling. People who work to expose POSSIBLE fakes cannot ALWAYS show conclusively if something was faked, by the way. Other times, they are downright wrong for soem reason. And other times, holy cow, they do show conclusiveness, EVEN WHEN OTHERS SAY IT ISN'T. If those "others" are presenting straw men, or ad hominems picking on inconclusive aspects instead of the conclusive work -- their debunking is flawed, not the original analysis. Of course. I have noticed a tendency that those who wish to debunk people who show fakery in images -- when it's politically not "correct" to think there's fakery -- have an emotional bias EVEN WHEN THE DEBUNKERS ARE RIGHT AND THERE IS NO FAKERY! YUP! Some people like to feel they win if something is NOT true. But sometimes we win by recognizing what IS true even if it's UGLY! LOL! Because of that I have also learned to listen to all sides but have also learned some things about comparisons and philosophical reasoning about -- well -- anything, if there's mutual exclusion or self-contradiction! Sometimes optics or mutual exclusion principles are conclusive ... but sure, sometimes they're just "astronomically" (ha ha) incredibly unlikely (especially over multiple images with certain types of effects shown), so it's beyond a reasonable doubt but NOT absolutely certain technically speaking ... And sometimes it's far less certain in a given case if isolated, but likely the hint of fakery is real because it's also part of some realtime known already deceitful circumstance, such as an intelligence op anyway ... And sometimes it's very inconclusive in one instance but others it's with are very certain or near certain, so it's likely with the other images. In this case, I think it's near conclusive. But that does take some familiarity with the reasons. Each thing HANGS TOGETHER in figuring it out. And the totality of the image set also plays a part i determining the likelihood of the middle one's having been changed deliberately. ............................. So, I have great experience thinking about these things. I have been maligned for many things along the way, but I do know how to compare and ask good questions of images. :) And in this case, I think -- for SOME reason -- these images are a set of manipulations, 3 middle ones within 5. BUT IT'S PARTLY KNOWABLE BECAUSE WE HAVE 1 & 5, not just from within the main doctored image #3. However, there are mutual exclusion issues there, too, i.e., from WITHIN the image/ So it all hangs together as a highly likely hypothesis that it was manipulated -- from the carefully compared evidence. Why, however, it was done, I've no idea I'm married to yet. :) |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/11/2010 04:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | (Re. last sentence.) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999651I meant we might find SOME other images are being created/manipulated -- not all, one hopes. Finally one got it ! You mean ... ? That I woke up? Oh I've been awake to the other stuff for a while. But I'd never seen conclusive/near-conclusive comparative work that shows the SOHO images have to be fake, or pretty well have to be. The idea that Venus "moved" is not enough; under some conditions it could -- but then other aspects of strangeness would also be present and yet others WOULD NOT! With the fill-in to the left, and the sky comparisons over several images and inside the onw, that it's highly likely (maybe fully conclusively knowable) that this was not "image problems" --- :) .............. Or do you mean you finally got it? Best wishes. |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/11/2010 04:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | But I'd never seen conclusive/near-conclusive comparative work that shows the SOHO images have to be fake, or pretty well have to be. Quoting: mclarek 986233Again, sorry. Didn't mean "ALL" when I said "the SOHO images. Meant any among that type of image. But honestly, with such doctoring, what do we know of other image overlays and so on they could be doing? Yikes. Anyway ... 'Night. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 999706 Germany 06/11/2010 04:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Nyhee7 User ID: 986228 United States 06/11/2010 04:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 5 stars, good work My past dealings with NASA Soho picture changing.... Thread: Did NASA forget to photoshop the image of Nibiru again? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 868423 Canada 06/11/2010 08:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 999886 Italy 06/11/2010 09:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | To mclarek [link to groups.yahoo.com] I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly. I found many others fake evidence. |
nomind User ID: 904314 Canada 06/11/2010 09:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Most images from NASA are 'manipulated'. Of course they are. Perfect examples of this are many distant nebula pictures. They are all nice and colorful and pretty.. but that is manipulated.. because the sources are not visible light images. So in order to make it viewable to the general public, colors are added/shifted, etc. As for stuff coming off of soho.. do you think someone is sitting there 24/7 staring at the thing to ensure nothing "odd" comes through in order to manipulate the imagery before transferred to the public site? This is an incredibly large amount of work... As for stuff like the moon landing and such... could there be some fakery in the imagery? Perhaps.. But hey, anyone with a telescope can point it up there, and if it's strong enough.. see details. They made a big deal about how the footprints would stay there.. well there we are. Let's get one of those asian nations with a space program to go proof that for us, or hire ourselves a high power telescope to analyze the 'landing spot' for ourselves... yes? My Interesting Karma messages: - "You are an idiot. This post proves it." -"GLP MEMBERS BEWARE!!! THIS IS A GOVERNMENT SHILL." - Most moranic one given to me: When you type ".." you need to put three dots instead of two. Thread: Nibiru, or how to appear like you know what you are talking about |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 969583 United States 06/11/2010 11:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just wondering. What experience do you have in this field and do you have any training in analyzing these images? Quoting: mclarek 986233I have general exposure to SOHO and experience in photo manipulation. . Bullshit. You NOTHING about SOHO. Everything you know you found out from Astronut in the last two days. |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/12/2010 03:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just wondering. What experience do you have in this field and do you have any training in analyzing these images? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583I have general exposure to SOHO and experience in photo manipulation. . Bullshit. You NOTHING about SOHO. Everything you know you found out from Astronut in the last two days. No, that's bullshit. I asked why the movement -- if they could explain it. They couldn't. He didn't even understand from the video that there was a "compression error" line, which I saw in there already. I didn't think Venus "just moved". As to "learning from him" about SOHO -- no. I did a presentation to my family about SOHO several months back on the basics of the images. At that time, I hadn't looked so closely as to compare the particular problems, however, and only tentatively suggested there were anomalies. If it was "compression" then MISSING DATA would be to Venus's left. And top of Venus vs. bottom of Venus would not lose all major stars AND be different. If they missed all data in that section, honesty would suggest they should leave it blank. Or only recover what they could and leave a clear line all along. But no; it's misleadingly nice-looking, but impossible. So ... why? What was inconvenient on the left AND the right? And why the other images missing one key star? Eh? Good luck. |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/12/2010 03:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | very very interesting op. so the conclusion is they have been tampering! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 868423Well, I think so. Or filling in but then honesty should suggest LEAVING DATA BLANK where there is none: but Venus's left and sky around it is filed in seamlessly. So -- what are they covering for in this image ... near Venus AND on the right side of the Sun?? Hm. Dunno. |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/12/2010 03:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | To mclarek Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999886[link to groups.yahoo.com] I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly. I found many others fake evidence. Stars in THIS image or OTHERS? -- I suspect you mean others. I have a feeling people are not comparing all images closely in general, so any manipulation (or intentional fakery, shall we say) can be fairly sloppy if key elements remain mostly okay. Here, for Venus, I think they had to make it obvious, to distract from the bottom half's being wrong too and the right side. ............ Your link: Have to ask to be a member to see it. I will try to become one ... but in the meantime, can you post it here, I mean, the basic text and/or image links? THANKS Would love to see work on this, in case you're right. Very strange. |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/12/2010 03:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Most images from NASA are 'manipulated'. Of course they are. Quoting: nomindPerfect examples of this are many distant nebula pictures. They are all nice and colorful and pretty.. but that is manipulated.. because the sources are not visible light images. So in order to make it viewable to the general public, colors are added/shifted, etc. As for stuff coming off of soho.. do you think someone is sitting there 24/7 staring at the thing to ensure nothing "odd" comes through in order to manipulate the imagery before transferred to the public site? This is an incredibly large amount of work... As for stuff like the moon landing and such... could there be some fakery in the imagery? Perhaps.. But hey, anyone with a telescope can point it up there, and if it's strong enough.. see details. They made a big deal about how the footprints would stay there.. well there we are. Let's get one of those asian nations with a space program to go proof that for us, or hire ourselves a high power telescope to analyze the 'landing spot' for ourselves... yes? Hi. This is kind of contradictory: you are suggesting "all" images are manipulated and then suggest some aren't. :) However, sure impressions could be altered in the nebula pictures timply to make them look better -- yes -- and reprocessing for data problems could also be done quite innocently. But in this case, if data had been lost, why fill it in? (Left of Venus would be missing, if there was a mere shift over in data in Venus area.) Some things are better honestly presented: try to recover data but don't create it. As to having people poring over the images: maybe; maybe not. It is very possible they try to go over images for anything truly anomalous, though. What could have been anomalous here? I don't know. Finally: re. Apollo: no, no-one here can see close-up detail on the Moon area for the landings: too small for us, tiny tiny details. And all images of the Moon show NO CLOSEUPS of the landing sites. So, there's a loophole on that one. |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/12/2010 03:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Most images from NASA are 'manipulated'. Of course they are. Quoting: NomindHi. This is kind of contradictory: you are suggesting "all" images are manipulated and then suggest some aren't. :) Sorry, Nomind. You didn't say "all". You said "most". Oops. Tired tonight. 3:46 a.m. :) But anyway, we are talking of things we would not term "manipulation" in a suspicious sense versus things which MIGHT be attempts to block real data from coming through. I am not saying it IS the latter here, but if manipulated to LOOK like data compression when it seems NOT to be, then why, but to hide something? Anyway, I hope more work is done on this and other images, to see if data compression can be ruled out completely ... I think I have (unfortunately, if so) but we'll see. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 969583 United States 06/12/2010 05:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/12/2010 05:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As to "learning from him" about SOHO -- no. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583As of a couple of days ago you didn't even know how to open a .fts file. No, I do not. I don't use them. I use links to the SOHO site provided, and screen captures. I look at the results and never was looking for fakery or not, before. Hence, I know what the images can and can't look like. And I also know how to think about MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE PRINCIPLES and COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. That is what's at stake here, not file types for the images. General problems and mutual comparisons and image impossibilities: no change in Venus and sky to left in any way (smooth transition and normal shape) but FILLED IN DATA from the original capture which would leave a blank filled to the right. .fts or Nasa link to get the image is a straw man issue. |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/12/2010 02:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | To mclarek Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999886[link to groups.yahoo.com] I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly. I found many others fake evidence. Hi -- I have seen your image. If you used the star chart correctly and it was accurate ... You are bloody right. The Sun can be off centre in a SOHO image (from satellite adjustments), I think. But the stars should all move accordingly. You have shown different stars in different locations relative to the star chart but IN DIFFERENT RELATIVE DIRECTIONS, so it can't be the stars are different here than in the star chart only because of the point of view shift -- of the satellite's location vs. Earth (which is where the star chart would be centred). Can you provide the link to the star chart you used? THANKS!!!! Thank you. |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/12/2010 02:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | To mclarek Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999886[link to groups.yahoo.com] I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly. I found many others fake evidence. AC, I have looked through several pics and --- you're bloody right! May I ask what this one means: it's not visual; it's a chart of interference. [link to groups.yahoo.com] (You don't always leave comments in writing and sometimes I don't know why you've posted the pic.) Thank you --- and may I put them into a photobucket album to link to them outside of the group you posted to? That way people don't have to join the group to see them. I can not use your real name at credit for them, just the link if you like. |
se447 User ID: 1001139 Germany 06/12/2010 02:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/12/2010 03:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | To mclarek Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999886[link to groups.yahoo.com] I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly. I found many others fake evidence. I am very curious about this one: you say there's nothing in the SOHO image you posted here but what was SUPPOSED to be there? [link to groups.yahoo.com] (My work was comparative but not specific to a star chart for the day. For all I knew all the stars could be off in all images, but things were identifiably comparatively off and missing in 15:18, and a bit in #2 & #4 as well). ...................... Also, I don't know what you were doing here (it's not a SOHO image): [link to groups.yahoo.com] and here -- you have photographed Jupiter or Venus or both? -- or are you saying that Jupiter shouldn't be near the sun there and venus is a ways away, so you are asking what it is? Or are you saying it IS Jupiter?: [link to ads.bluelithium.com] ....................... By the way, where is Jupiter in these images you posted? You ask if it's Jupiter "flashing", but where is Jupiter in the pic at all? [link to groups.yahoo.com] ....................... Aside: I have the No Nibiru video which was scrubbed because the object (or whatever?) actually went behind the clouds too. That is the video you mention here [link to groups.yahoo.com] I did wonder to myself if a flare would have the same effect if the Sun were partly behind the clouds -- would the flare also have breaks in it, for where the clouds block the source light? I think they would. Having said that ... it was scrubbed. So one wonders. |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/12/2010 03:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | <Finally, some proof! Excellent work OP! Thank you! You should see the bloody proofs the fellow from Italy (see above) has -- they are on a site which is a group so you have to sign up for it. I am hoping he'll let me put them in my photobucket to link to here. They are the kind of multiple proof we need to cme to conclusions. |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/12/2010 03:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | To mclarek Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999886[link to groups.yahoo.com] I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly. I found many others fake evidence. Dear friend, Here [link to groups.yahoo.com] you point out there's nothing in the star map for the big object. Is your comparative map the one you posted here? [link to groups.yahoo.com] |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/12/2010 03:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | To mclarek Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999886[link to groups.yahoo.com] I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly. I found many others fake evidence. Hey: wow. Left, right, up, down, these stars are in wild array. I am beginning to suspect they are using previous years' backgrounds. It would be the easy way to glean roughly correct star pictures. Then add in a planet in the right place and presto. But then, why have ANY with anomalies of planets? Is that to make the WHOLE THING'S fakery unnoticed, so people think it's just a planet weirdness here and there? I know that's speculative, but it is possible they background stars from other years. It would be EASIER. [link to groups.yahoo.com] |
mclarek (OP) User ID: 986233 Canada 06/12/2010 03:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | To mclarek Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999886[link to groups.yahoo.com] I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly. I found many others fake evidence. Finally, I have gone through all your images. I wanted to mention you gave no date for the SOHO image at [link to groups.yahoo.com] |