Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The ending

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by OH!! View Post

    Here is a recreation. Note the vanishing point and both coins do not touch each other because geometry tells they cannot.
    Click image for larger version  Name:	recreation.jpg Views:	41 Size:	354.1 KB ID:	188959

    Below is 100% untouched with no focusing properties
    Click image for larger version  Name:	unfocused.jpg Views:	39 Size:	55.8 KB ID:	188960
    Nice choice of words, no focusing properties, but Photoshop by default is known to blur enlarged photos. Thus the 100% untouched isn't accurate as Voxpops also noted above:

    Originally posted by voxpops View Post

    I've just looked at the areas in the chest photo, zoomed in but without "tidying" them up. I'm afraid that the image that OH!! has shown has likely been interpolated. This, as has been pointed out, inserts pixels based on an algorithm. It's a very useful technique for upscaling images, but it means the computer is "guessing" what it needs to insert. What you are looking at here are retouched images - not the original. I find this disingenuous but others may have a different opinion.
    On the left is the zoomed in image from the photo on Dal's blog after telling Photoshop not to use bicubic (the default which is best for smooth gradients) and instead using nearest neighbor (preserve hard edges):

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Enlarged without blur version Oh.png Views:	11 Size:	191.5 KB ID:	188983

    On the left, the more accurately zoomed in, but could never be called untouched as Voxpops noted, image actually really seems to show that without that interpolation I can see how the coin above is whole. Another point though is that this is pretty common and is the same exact type of image artifact OH!! recently deleted a thread about that after admitting that he was wrong. I forget who posted that image but if you did you should re-post it here.

    kpro, I would highly recommend taking a pile of coins and doing an experiment with your kids. See if using a phone camera (try more than one type if you have it) can create similar artifacts and share the results on here. In order to be closer to the finder image do not use a tripod (I doubt the finder hauled one to that spot) and have different people take the picture (camera shake).
    Last edited by Zero; 08-18-2020, 11:14 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Goldilocks View Post

      "To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker." Frederick Douglass
      There is no free speech as you think of it on a private internet forum. Let me remind everyone of the 1st amendment

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
      All you have to do is read the first five words, "Congress shall make no law". The administrator of this forum is not Congress, so they can do anything they want with what you post here.

      Comment


      • #48
        Zero: good comparison example between nearest neighbor interpolation and bicubic interpolation. Whenever interpolation is performed, it means information is used from neighboring pixels to establish slopes (bilinear interpolation) or parabolic curves (bicubic) to smoothly oversample an image. For images with sharp gradients (edges), interpolation will smear those edges. This is a desirable feature when the original image lacks sharp edges (e.g. a person's face), but artifacts can be introduced with high-contrast images with sharp spatial gradients.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Zapster View Post
          Zero: good comparison example between nearest neighbor interpolation and bicubic interpolation. Whenever interpolation is performed, it means information is used from neighboring pixels to establish slopes (bilinear interpolation) or parabolic curves (bicubic) to smoothly oversample an image. For images with sharp gradients (edges), interpolation will smear those edges. This is a desirable feature when the original image lacks sharp edges (e.g. a person's face), but artifacts can be introduced with high-contrast images with sharp spatial gradients.
          Yeah, I quite agree....

          Comment


          • #50
            If you blow OH!!'s mysterious coin up you are in reality taking it out of context. Look at the coins I've pointed out with red arrows. They all have an angle on them that faces the light source. Consequently they have the brightest shine. Since OH!!'s small coin in the bottom has a brighter glint that any of the other coins in the immediate area, it causes two optical things to happen.
            Click image for larger version

Name:	Treasure on the ground Arrows.png
Views:	142
Size:	3.41 MB
ID:	189138

            First, it makes the coin appear to project out toward the viewer more than it should. It makes the coin look as though it's close to the edge of the other coins when in fact it is not. It is further down in the pile than what it appears.

            Second, the glint of light causes the coin to appear to be flatter than what it really is. The hard light flattens the curvature of the coin out. This causes the coin to look like it is a bigger coin than what it really is.

            The truth is we don't know with any certainty what this coin is. This little piece of the edge gives us almost no information about what kind of coin this is.

            Take a look at the numbered arrows below. Arrow #1 shows the controversial coin. Arrow #2 show some other piece of gold that has caught the light and it appears to rise up past the coin above it. Even arrow #3 shows the edges of these coins appearing to meet the top of the coin about it.
            Click image for larger version

Name:	Treasure on the ground GLINT.png
Views:	138
Size:	158.8 KB
ID:	189139

            As I have said all along, this a relatively poor photo that cannot give us any conclusions and there is no amount of photoshopping that will "help" us see it better!
            Attached Files
            Post-it note

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Leon Kowalski View Post
              If you blow OH!!'s mysterious coin up you are in reality taking it out of context. Look at the coins I've pointed out with red arrows. They all have an angle on them that faces the light source. Consequently they have the brightest shine. Since OH!!'s small coin in the bottom has a brighter glint that any of the other coins in the immediate area, it causes two optical things to happen.
              Click image for larger version  Name:	Treasure on the ground Arrows.png Views:	2 Size:	3.41 MB ID:	189138

              First, it makes the coin appear to project out toward the viewer more than it should. It makes the coin look as though it's close to the edge of the other coins when in fact it is not. It is further down in the pile than what it appears.

              Second, the glint of light causes the coin to appear to be flatter than what it really is. The hard light flattens the curvature of the coin out. This causes the coin to look like it is a bigger coin than what it really is.

              The truth is we don't know with any certainty what this coin is. This little piece of the edge gives us almost no information about what kind of coin this is.

              Take a look at the numbered arrows below. Arrow #1 shows the controversial coin. Arrow #2 show some other piece of gold that has caught the light and it appears to rise up past the coin above it. Even arrow #3 shows the edges of these coins appearing to meet the top of the coin about it.
              Click image for larger version  Name:	Treasure on the ground GLINT.png Views:	2 Size:	158.8 KB ID:	189139

              As I have said all along, this a relatively poor photo that cannot give us any conclusions and there is no amount of photoshopping that will "help" us see it better!
              Leon, thank you for your calm and rational analysis. It really doesn't help us understand what is actually going on to have photos distorted and pronounced "fake" in order to support a predetermined point of view. "Forensic analysis" requires detachment and an open mind. It also requires the application of logic. If, for example, the chest photographer needed to add or move a coin, you have to ask yourself why do it electronically and not simply rearrange by hand?

              That is not to say there haven't been strange things going on throughout the chase, but in order to attempt to determine what's been occurring we need to focus on the things that really make no logical sense, not try to build a case where there's little to support the foundations.

              One other thing: if you believe Fenn when he says he doesn't know how to use Photoshop, then it makes more sense to think deeply about what has been occurring in, say, the elephant/gorilla photo. Fixating on one method that has been denied by someone we've placed our trust in would mean that there is literally nothing that we can trust about the chase. Some have already gone down that road. I prefer to use what I've learned from taking part in the chase to open up to other, less obvious possibilities. There's always the rather mundane possibility that a play on words simply means that an alternative app to Photoshop has been employed, but my personal chase has been so strange that I no longer automatically discount possibilities that lie far out on the edge.
              Last edited by voxpops; 08-19-2020, 02:50 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by voxpops View Post

                Leon, thank you for your calm and rational analysis. It really doesn't help us understand what is actually going on to have photos distorted and pronounced "fake" in order to support a predetermined point of view. "Forensic analysis" requires detachment and an open mind. It also requires the application of logic. If, for example, the chest photographer needed to add or move a coin, you have to ask yourself why do it electronically and not simply rearrange by hand?

                That is not to say there haven't been strange things going on throughout the chase, but in order to attempt to determine what's been occurring we need to focus on the things that really make no logical sense, not try to build a case where there's little to support the foundations.

                One other thing: if you believe Fenn when he says he doesn't know how to use Photoshop, then it makes more sense to think deeply about what has been occurring in, say, the elephant/gorilla photo. Fixating on one method that has been denied by someone we've placed our trust in would mean that there is literally nothing that we can trust about the chase. Some have already gone down that road. I prefer to use what I've learned from taking part in the chase to open up to other, less obvious possibilities. There's always the rather mundane possibility that a play on words simply means that an alternative app to Photoshop has been employed, but my personal chase has been so strange that I no longer automatically discount possibilities that lie far out on the edge.
                Yes, and there is no vanishing point.
                Explain this one. You cannot use one area as an example and try to explain it away. It is the big picture that holds the manipulation. Like the nugget fused to the coin. The "LIB" on the coin below the nugget with the red, that is the same size as the other coins that is so easily visible to read. The tiny, tiny six lined bag, the copycat gold pieces in the bag. The frog eye is all twisted. I could go on and on, but it is all in my thread. We all know that the mirrors on the other photo have been manipulated, so the big picture tells a good story. And yes, an alternate app has been used and it is called "Affinity" as I have proved in my Part II video.
                Click image for larger version  Name:	2520a.jpg Views:	0 Size:	5.07 MB ID:	189154

                In this link: http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.ph...be26d8d.139629 click on metadata. It tells you that he has the new photoshop cc, Affinity, and what template he altered to make the "Stay at Home" sign. This is one of his last scrapbooks during the covid outbreak and it is his computer he uses as in all of his recent scrapbooks.
                Affinity is almost equal to photoshop but not quite as good. Very close though.
                Last edited by OH!!; 08-19-2020, 06:54 AM.
                What you deny or ignore, you DELAY. What you accept and face, you CONQUER.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by OH!! View Post

                  Yes, and there is no vanishing point.
                  Explain this one. You cannot use one area as an example and try to explain it away. It is the big picture that holds the manipulation. Like the nugget fused to the coin. The "LIB" on the coin below the nugget with the red, that is the same size as the other coins is so easily visible to read. The tiny, tiny six lined bag, the copycat gold pieces in the bag. The frog eye is all twisted. I could go on and on, but it is all in my thread.
                  Yes, there are anomalies. Some may be to do with the aberrations caused by the limitations of digital photography, but we can't be certain. However, if you're going to use Photoshop to fool someone or to insert something that wasn't there before, what is the point of using it just to create these tiny anomalies? We have to look deeper. And that's been my point since these were published on Dal's (and I got kicked off that site for daring to suggest that all was not as it seemed ). Focusing exclusively on Photoshop is actually restricting our vision of the bigger picture.

                  By the way, one thing I like is the coin (2 to the left of the "rusty" gold coin) that reads "IX OD WE RUST."

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by voxpops View Post

                    Yes, there are anomalies. Some may be to do with the aberrations caused by the limitations of digital photography, but we can't be certain. However, if you're going to use Photoshop to fool someone or to insert something that wasn't there before, what is the point of using it just to create these tiny anomalies? We have to look deeper. And that's been my point since these were published on Dal's (and I got kicked off that site for daring to suggest that all was not as it seemed ). Focusing exclusively on Photoshop is actually restricting our vision of the bigger picture.

                    By the way, one thing I like is the coin (2 to the left of the "rusty" gold coin) that reads "IX OD WE RUST."
                    I am certain. I had to go thru the same learning process as everybody does when they learn Photoshop or Affinity, so when you see the same mistakes you've made in the past, it is an easy read.
                    In this link: http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.ph...be26d8d.139629 click on metadata. It tells you that he has the new photoshop cc, Affinity, and what template he altered to make the "Stay at Home" sign. This is one of his last scrapbooks during the covid outbreak and it is his computer he uses as in all of his recent scrapbooks.
                    Affinity is almost equal to photoshop but not quite as good. Very close though.
                    What you deny or ignore, you DELAY. What you accept and face, you CONQUER.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by OH!! View Post

                      I am certain.
                      If you are certain. Please tell me what possible motive there could be for Photoshopping in these anomalies (most of which need quite extreme magnification to even notice)?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        We can see perfectly thru the plastic coin & gold dust bottles. We can easily see thru the double plastic of the bags, yet plastic is not as clear as glass. We all know glass is clearer than plastic, yet the glass autobiography only has a purple camera hue over it. I will call it camera hue even though I know it's not. Camera hue is not strong enough to hide contents of see thru glass completely, yet all we see is granules. This hue tone in reverse is gold. (inverted) This is taught in a photoshop documentary. If you use a reverse digital color, all you have to do is invert what you are working with and it is a faster more complete way to project what you are aiming for.
                        Click image for larger version  Name:	grain.gif Views:	1 Size:	292.7 KB ID:	189159
                        Click image for larger version  Name:	hue.jpg Views:	1 Size:	308.8 KB ID:	189160
                        Last edited by OH!!; 08-19-2020, 07:21 AM.
                        What you deny or ignore, you DELAY. What you accept and face, you CONQUER.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by voxpops View Post

                          If you are certain. Please tell me what possible motive there could be for Photoshopping in these anomalies (most of which need quite extreme magnification to even notice)?
                          Even in extreme magnification, a professional goes unnoticed. There is no extreme magnification with the anomalies we see. The photo was given large enough for us to see them.
                          Everyone wants a motive and if I were to give a few motives I would only be mocked as always. Can you think of a few good motives?

                          Maybe it was a bet? A bet from the book store maybe? Maybe Forrest bet that he could scam for ten years and make millions just by using photoshop? Ha-ha. I'll catch hell for this one! (a make believe scenario)
                          I do not know the motive.
                          Last edited by OH!!; 08-19-2020, 07:37 AM.
                          What you deny or ignore, you DELAY. What you accept and face, you CONQUER.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            This is totally unscientific. I just opened a drawer and placed a glass jar in it with a sheet of paper inside, and then just put a pack of batteries next to it. The predominant color of the surrounding is yellow/brown to simulate the predominant color in the chest. I then took a Panasonic bridge camera and shot a still on auto-everything. Note how the white balance is slightly confused by the mix of color - even though there's a lot more reference white in my picture than there would have been in FF's jar. It turned the whites slightly blue.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by voxpops View Post
                              This is totally unscientific. I just opened a drawer and placed a glass jar in it with a sheet of paper inside, and then just put a pack of batteries next to it. The predominant color of the surrounding is yellow/brown to simulate the predominant color in the chest. I then took a Panasonic bridge camera and shot a still on auto-everything. Note how the white balance is slightly confused by the mix of color - even though there's a lot more reference white in my picture than there would have been in FF's jar. It turned the whites slightly blue.
                              Also note the blue hue of your battery against the gold backing. If you were to invert the battery pack, the cardboard would be--- nevermind, I will just invert it.
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	battery.JPG
Views:	85
Size:	62.7 KB
ID:	189167
                              What you deny or ignore, you DELAY. What you accept and face, you CONQUER.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                OH!! I'm not talking about the battery pack. Here's just the glass jar section. The only thing I've done is crop it out of the original.

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	P1000748-crop.jpg
Views:	170
Size:	441.3 KB
ID:	189172

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X