• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Claims of "Forensic Evidence for Real UFO"

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

goggsmackay said:
Had a gander and if that is an artificial object it is HUGE. Unless it is not on the lunar surface of course.
Click to expand...

He sure does seem to be able to pull an extraordinary amount of detail out of a very small portion of the original photograph and you are right, like most of these things it has to be gargantuan in scale. The resolution of "symbols" on the central hub seems just too much to be believed. I think the guy is a good guest candidate. We have a couple of professional photographers in the forum that I am aware of, there are probably more, that could ask him questions and provide some analysis of the process he is going through. I've watched his videos before and he says he is using some very specialized software which he mentions in various places. It seems more than your average joe using "emboss" in photoshop to pop things out at first glance.
 
He was emphatic no photoshop-type processing had taken place. Years ago I studied medical physics and I remember being taught how image processing works for things like mammograms etc. Really interesting and can I remember any of it? lol, not a jot.

As for being a guest - why not, but I have not had a look to see what else he might have done. This one thing would not be enough to warrant an appearance I'll wager but if he has enough under his belt then absolutely. I am very interested in Lunar anomalies.
 
I'm gonna call B.S. on this one. He is using "software" to "enhance" the image. This software does photoshop type things. This software is apparently used in microbiology. This could mean that it is preconfigured to "enhance" an image of a biological nature. Meaning that it assumes it is looking at mico sized object and tries to fill in certain detail. He never gives us the software name or we could simply do a fast tech review of the photo enhancement capabilities and functions.

So in my opinion, he is splitting heirs here. Just because he didn't use photoshop doesn't mean that he is not introducing artifacts not present while performing the "enhancement". In fact that is exactly what I think we are seeing here. I think the original image is of a particularly reflective confluence if crater walls. His enhancements are making much ado about nothing.
 
I'd like to see an enhancement of something similar that is known using the same software as a baseline. A simple Google Earth image of a 4 way intersection should suffice. Until then it just looks to me that he's enhancing some ray patterns in such a manner that it's giving the illusion of a 3D structure where none may exist.
 
ufology said:
I'd like to see an enhancement of something similar that is known using the same software as a baseline. A simple Google Earth image of a 4 way intersection should suffice. Until then it just looks to me that he's enhancing some ray patterns in such a manner that it's giving the illusion of a 3D structure where none may exist.
Click to expand...

I hope you do not mind Ufology but I asked the guy your question in the video comments as I think you have a very valid statement.
 
Back
Top