Has anyone asked through email for LMH to reveal the scanner settings and model of the scanner she used to copy the images? And also what program she used after the scan in and the settings used to export the final image we were given? This would help here tremendously.
Re: Are there lighting issues with Ty? « Reply #61 on Aug 11, 2008, 2:48am »
Is it known what type camera - digital or film was suppodesly used? I've read the letter sent to Linda from Ty and mention is of printed photos. Was she sent images on regular photo paper which could be from a digital or film camera? This would explain the borderless image scan edge. That hi res image may have grain visible supporting a scan of a photo made from a film camera. After thinking about it a bit more, there are several possibilities: the photo print was lightened by the processor regardless of source, the original source modified, scanner settings or adjustments made after scanning. Too many variables!
Re: Are there lighting issues with Ty? « Reply #63 on Aug 11, 2008, 3:36am »
so much for the chain of custody and integrity of evidence. LMH Here are the twelve printed photographs I received in the mail and scanned in Photoshop, sized to 72dpi, 7 inches wide and added very slight enhancement in a few for more clarity. The aerial object is rotating through the sequence of images. Linda,
TY Enclosed you'll find the photographs I mentioned in the email, which were taken some time early afternoon on the 5th. These were all the shots we were able to get of the "mothership", as I have taken to calling it, during a sighting that lasted probably around a minute or so. Now for the story!
I cant wait to hear it again Ty..
At least we know its just rotating and not jumping around as some thought. that is noteworthy.
« Last Edit: Aug 11, 2008, 3:43am by enlightenedseeker »
Jeddyhi Member of Distinction Serpo Forum Co-Founder member is offline
Joined: Nov 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 4,365 Location: Ohio, USA Karma: 184
Re: Are there lighting issues with Ty? « Reply #66 on Aug 11, 2008, 12:27pm »
Found this to be odd. I was playing around again with 'Image J' and was washing out photos (slowing turning them white). I did this with a Ty photo and I noticed that the drone completely disappeared into the white sky while trees still remained detectable. When comparing the darkest shadows in the trees to the darkest shadows on the drone, the drone appears lighter, lacking the contrast seen in the trees. Is it because of this lighter contrast that the drone disappears first?
Here is the regular photo. Notice how dark the shadow in the trees are compared to the darkest shadowing on the drone.
Here is the white out. Watch the drone disappear before the trees.
As a control test, I also tried it with Rajpic0016. The pic that recent research has showed to have two separate light sources causing wrong shadows. While the photo may have two separate light sources, the light sources appear to be evenly matched in intensity. The artificial light shining on the drone closely matches the real light shining on the pole. It may be coming from a different angle but nonetheless gives the drone a nice matching contrast that matches the pole. This is why the Raj pic looks more realistic than Ty's at first glance. As I whited out the photo, everything was effected at the same rate. The drone phased out at the same rate as the pole.
To test my theory of the BB drone not matching the photos contrast and natural lighting and therefore whiting out of the picture first, I contrasted and darkened only the drone to properly match the rest of the photo. Here is a gif showing the normal drone and then after I contrasted it so the drone would have shadows as dark as the trees.
I then performed the white out test again using the pic with the darker drone. The drone and the trees faded out uniformly this time.
Summary: Is this evidence of faulty lighting in the original Ty photo? A dull, lighter drone lacking contrast and disappearing first because the lighting is not properly matched in intensity?
No response beyond a pronouncement, no evidence or proof at all, and yet he still expects us to accept this based on NOTHING??
Yet it looks like there are people who STILL take Lev's bulls**t seriously... Sad...
Hahahahahaha
Other than when Lev goes on the attack...he is good for some good laughs.
The dark side is strong with him
He is not stupid though...could be the hoaxer displaying dumbed down work, but I doubt it
Thanks for the laughs!
I have to confess, for the DRT, it is an odd duck scenario. One would think that the possibility of the hoaxer theory would be on someone’s mind there… since they are scientific and exhaustive.
Then last year Lev admitted to doing it… then retracted the admission, apparently this was unknown to the DRT.
There was the debate with Tomi, where all of the investigative powers of the DRT and herself could not determine the Thumper Drone was made by Lev (even though he posted his admissions in 2007… and members here posted them again for her to see). She still defended Lev to the hilt… but later Lev admitted to it again, this was posted on the DRT site; ( http://droneteam.com/drt/index.php?topic=86.0 ). I never got a retraction from Tomi. But what is really weird, now that Lev is a known hoaxer of drones to the DRT (and has misled them)…he seems to be a De Facto expert on the DRT (one would think that would be an eye opener).
The folks there seem to take Lev’s word for things without any evidence to support it… which can be mistaken for misdirection by outsiders (there is nothing wrong with these photos… there is nothing to see here).
Lev must be in hoaxer heaven on the DRT (ah… in a manner of speaking).
Wow you really need to be so friggin mean bro? seriously? Man you won't even try to get along.
Yes, I am really that friggin mean, bro, and watch some Olympic games.
If I can just use this exchange as an example... Sometimes people take what others say too seriously. Resentments build.. We have no dull conversation here with the exchange of POV from extreme sides. But let's try to respect everyones beliefs a bit ok? If you have to fight to the death for the lighting issues.. lets not turn it into a war ok?? If everyone can just pull a little bit harder together.. respecting that DRT too is trying to find the answers, not concluding the case as others have. Enjoy it, support it, and keep arguing. We all share a similiar interest..
Other than when Lev goes on the attack...he is good for some good laughs.
The dark side is strong with him
He is not stupid though...could be the hoaxer displaying dumbed down work, but I doubt it
Thanks for the laughs!
I have to confess, for the DRT, it is an odd duck scenario. One would think that the possibility of the hoaxer theory would be on someone’s mind there… since they are scientific and exhaustive.
Then last year Lev admitted to doing it… then retracted the admission, apparently this was unknown to the DRT.
There was the debate with Tomi, where all of the investigative powers of the DRT and herself could not determine the Thumper Drone was made by Lev (even though he posted his admissions in 2007… and members here posted them again for her to see). She still defended Lev to the hilt… but later Lev admitted to it again, this was posted on the DRT site; ( http://droneteam.com/drt/index.php?topic=86.0 ). I never got a retraction from Tomi. But what is really weird, now that Lev is a known hoaxer of drones to the DRT (and has misled them)…he seems to be a De Facto expert on the DRT (one would think that would be an eye opener).
The folks there seem to take Lev’s word for things without any evidence to support it… which can be mistaken for misdirection by outsiders (there is nothing wrong with these photos… there is nothing to see here).
Lev must be in hoaxer heaven on the DRT (ah… in a manner of speaking).
Found this to be odd. I was playing around again with 'Image J' and was washing out photos (slowing turning them white). I did this with a Ty photo and I noticed that the drone completely disappeared into the white sky while trees still remained detectable. When comparing the darkest shadows in the trees to the darkest shadows on the drone, the drone appears lighter, lacking the contrast seen in the trees. Is it because of this lighter contrast that the drone disappears first?
Here is the regular photo. Notice how dark the shadow in the trees are compared to the darkest shadowing on the drone.
Here is the white out. Watch the drone disappear before the trees.
I also tried it with Rajpic0016. The one that recent research has showed to have two separate light sources causing wrong shadows. While the photo may have two separate light sources, the light sources appear to be evenly matched in intensity. The artificial light shining on the drone closely matches the real light shining on the pole. It may be coming from a different angle but nonetheless gives the drone a nice matching contrast that matches the pole. This is why the Raj pic looks more realistic than Ty's at first glance. As I whited out the photo, everything was effected at the same rate. The drone phased out as the pole phased out.
To test my theory of the BB drone not matching the photos contrast and natural lighting and therefore whiting out of the picture first, I actually contrasted and darkened just the drone to properly match the rest of the photo. Here is a gif showing the normal drone and then after I contrasted it to match the photo.
I then performed the white out test again using the pic with the darker drone. The drone and the trees faded out uniformly this time.
Summary: Is this evidence of faulty lighting in the original Ty photo? A dull, lighter drone lacking contrast and disappearing first because the lighting is not properly matched in intensity?
Looks like you beat me to posting the contrast sample Jedd...I had posted this early..
I have not fully looked at it yet but right off the bat I can see that it looks like someone played with the Contrast/Brightness of the drone to enhance it....That is if this is the Hi-Res version of the low-res one.... One other thing I do wonder about is what is the orange spot below and to the right of the drone...
There was the debate with Tomi, where all of the investigative powers of the DRT and herself could not determine the Thumper Drone was made by Lev
Marvin, I can have my own opinions too, my opinions are not DRT's opinion. Everyone in DRT but me was sure that Lev did that picture. I took a contrary position.. My less critical approach was because of its compositon being so different from Lev's usual work. I asked Lev for proof, he provided early models of the thumper object. OK. So kill me why don't ya.. because I just want to sure sometimes...
Believe me.. others thought I was a bit thick too I'm sure
Oh, now that was hilarious! Looking back at it.. That was soo funny And imagine our surprise when we realised all those people there thought we were crazy
I have not fully looked at it yet but right off the bat I can see that it looks like someone played with the Contrast/Brightness of the drone to enhance it....That is if this is the Hi-Res version of the low-res one.... One other thing I do wonder about is what is the orange spot below and to the right of the drone...
What is odd is if someone altered contrast/brightness, they did it to the drone only...not the entire photograph! Why do that? It would surely give the photos a "tampered with" look.
OMF Books and DVD's - CLICK HERE
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/sendtopic.png "[Send Topic To Friend]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author![[avatar]](http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii218/murnut/surfround.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged
![[avatar]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/avatars/dog.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j311/jeddyhi/iss_sts119.jpg "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/9374/dronebigbasinty060507llfp5.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7978/dronebigbasinty060507llvj7.gif "[image]")
![[image]](http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/3393/pict0016resizedtm8.gif "[image]")
![[image]](http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1870/dronebigbasintydroneconmp7.gif "[image]")
![[image]](http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/5929/testcs0.gif "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/hover.gif "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://i588.photobucket.com/albums/ss322/instantmartians1/MarvinObservation.gif "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://i24.tinypic.com/2lvjxx0.gif "[avatar]")
If everyone can just pull a little bit harder together.. respecting that DRT too is trying to find the answers, not concluding the case as others have. Enjoy it, support it, and keep arguing. We all share a similiar interest..![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/www_sm.png "[homepage]")
![[image]](http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9710/dronebigbasintylldroneczc7.gif "[image]")
My less critical approach was because of its compositon being so different from Lev's usual work. I asked Lev for proof, he provided early models of the thumper object. OK. So kill me why don't ya.. because I just want to sure sometimes... 
And imagine our surprise when we realised all those people there thought we were crazy 
