| |
|
Article: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy )
Subject: Tholen Caught DOCTORING Hale-Bopp Images! - 2
Date: 18 Feb 1997 16:18:29 GMT
Check out what this web site has to say! A professional has caught Tholen in the act! Confirms something the Zetas have been saying all along! Lots of detailed images!
..........
http://www.pe.net/~minnie/drath.html
I am not the average citizen. I am an Artist well-versed in digital mediae, as the computer is used in almost all of my imagery, and have a rather intimate knowledge of rendering capabilities and tendancies. ... What I would like to address here are the two images labelled as "REAL" and "FRAUD," both showing very similar images of HB before a cluster of bright stars, more in the background. ... Both images were touted as being from the same source photo by the debunkers, on the following criterion:
[snip]
2] THE IMAGES ARE IDENTICAL.
This notion is flatly false as well. I have not uploaded the original images, as redundancy is memory-waste but these can be rechecked any time. To display this, I have made two overlays of the original picture that are VERY revealing. This I did by tinting the "REAL" image as red, and the "FRAUD" image as blue, then compositing the image to show their true relationships. The first image HBC-CMP0.GIF) simply shows a composite of one image laid directly over the second. Lo and behold, and what do you know? The images are shifted, as it were - THEY DO NOT MATCH IDENTICALLY. Almost all bodies are out of position for wherethey would be in identical images. This I noticed while netsurfing, but I made the composite to doublecheck and my suspicion was validated. Then came the second composite (HBC-CMP1.GIF) which I created to determine the relationship of the shifted objects. This I did by overlaying the red/blue images as I did before, but this time I centered the prominent objects as best I could - HB and the other prominent central stars. This revealed that there had been some scaling going on. Namely, the "REAL" image was vertically stretched (in relation to "FALSE") and just as well, "FALSE" was horizontally stretched, in relation to "REAL." I don't profess to know much about CCD imaging, but in my estimation, such variances in high-precision digital imagers would be common. This in itself would suggest that the images had two separate sources, but on the alternatives that images were carelessly scaled to resemble one another, or to hide certain telltale signs of digital doctoring. More, that the "REAL" image displayed a SLIGHTLY different area that the "FALSE," as it contains extra material not shown in the other. These signs may also suggest that the images were taken from separate locations, as once again, they were out of equal scale. A lot of inconsistancies for two supposedly identical pictures.
[snip]
D.A.Rath
[email protected]