Project Spacejumper

[1967sander]

Okay is not exactly what I expected but I will take a huge step back.

Perhaps it is indeed better to start with something less unknown. The super resolution technology is mine and not NASA's. The NASA HD channel is a direct link to ESA, which I monitor 24/7. ALL spacewalks are streamed live and I record them. Also ESA uploads all EVA in full as well as HD video of other missions. That is my source.
I will try to show some less revealing material and explain exactly what I did. I know that some you are experts in the pixel world and no one has to tell me that software creates artifacts. I also know that some strange anomalies are not the result of  pixel behaviour and I will, when the forum is ready, show these.

My background is: Radar, chemistry, informatics, heavy industry, mining, medical (brain disorders), law enforcement technology (image forensics), heavy industry.

[robomont]

Dont freak out 1967.we love heated debates.stand your ground for now.deuem is a determined fellow.the truth will come out.lol.and thankyou for the hard work.your among friends.

[Flux]

Well I'm interested in this thread and Robo is right there are a lot of times when subjects in threads can get a bit heated but thats a part of investigating a subject 

Well done on the hard work. I'm also looking over your other thread about Mosting Crater 

[Sinny]

Why?

As has since been pointed out, the OP's lacking basic info and details from the start..
I feel weird when when I can predict the joutcome of a discussion....
Bar humbug.

[ArMaP]

Okay is not exactly what I expected but I will take a huge step back.

Expect the unexpected.

Perhaps it is indeed better to start with something less unknown.

Known or unknown doesn't matter, as long as you explain how you did it and what you used.

The super resolution technology is mine and not NASA's.

I supposed that, although yours, it works in the same way as other super resolution methods, using several images to try to create a new one with higher resolution.

The NASA HD channel is a direct link to ESA, which I monitor 24/7.

Thanks for that information, I din't know that ESA transmits the NASA channel with the spacewalks.

I also know that some strange anomalies are not the result of  pixel behaviour and I will, when the forum is ready, show these.

I can wait.

My background is: Radar, chemistry, informatics, heavy industry, mining, medical (brain disorders), law enforcement technology (image forensics), heavy industry.

In this case only the image forensics is relevant, could you be more specific? Thanks in advance.

[deuem]

For myself, I am not freaking out. I would like to be shown some known objects and what happens to them. Say an ant to start with. Something that all readers can relate to and work up to the jumpers. You have a nice resume and I hope you can understand why I am asking this. I feel like I started at the end of the book and my stupidity is filling in the missing links. I am very glad that another processor has joind the ranks and wish you well.

Deuem

[zorgon]

Okay is not exactly what I expected but I will take a huge step back.

DAMN THE SKEPTICS FULL SPEED AHEAD

If we had listened to the skeptics way back when we started John's Moon Thread at ATS we would never have created Pegasus

Stick to your guns, state your case and don't worry about the experts They all think they know but no one is really sure or they would't be here Well almost

Take ArMaP for instance... uber skeptic but nice guy... Why is he here? Because we have found at LEAST 4 images that have him stumped   In fact I am thinking of making a feature thread on that

[ArMaP]

If we had listened to the skeptics way back when we started John's Moon Thread at ATS we would never have created Pegasus

I think we should listen to everybody but not shape our actions because of what other people say.

Take ArMaP for instance... uber skeptic but nice guy... Why is he here? Because we have found at LEAST 4 images that have him stumped

Not just that, one of the reasons I am here (and everywhere I can ) is because I want to know about things (many things), and if we look in just one direction we are most likely to miss the truth.

In fact I am thinking of making a feature thread on that

That's an idea.

[deuem]

I have now watched the 4 vids you posted and I like this one. In the side by side comparision it shows a much larger field than shown. Maybe the dirrectional field you're talking about.

It is very difficult to get good clean stills from the video, you place the cursor over the objects all the time. If you can place some more photos with your before and after I would like to take a go at a couple of them to see what I can get.

I like critters.

[1967sander]

I have now watched the 4 vids you posted and I like this one. In the side by side comparision it shows a much larger field than shown. Maybe the dirrectional field you're talking about.

It is very difficult to get good clean stills from the video, you place the cursor over the objects all the time. If you can place some more photos with your before and after I would like to take a go at a couple of them to see what I can get.

I like critters.

Send me a PM with a mail address and I will send you the videos and a couple of the originals I started with by WEtransfer . Here is the BLUE JUMPER to start with.  The Blue Jumper is visible as a blue flash top right corner. The second enhancement increased resolution and micro-contrast - 1 setting only - no other enhancements. Third is a part cut from image 2.  The rest made with Lucis Pro. 3 settings resulting in 3 different levels of contrast. Have fun ... and please let some explain how this possible ... because I cannot explain this with artifact, interpolation, pixelshift, or whatever other explanation. This totally impossible but it there.

The big blue "boxes" are amplified Moire lines which resulted color artifacts crated by the software (Lucis) but what is between these boxes is something else. I tried to remove them all with fourier but to no avail.

[1967sander]

Here is the "trunk". I use other type of software so I guess my results will be different from yours.

[deuem]

I would like to process the original you started with with no changes. Then you can see if anything I do in any way backs up your work or shows us what it might be. I go after the energy patterns that are produced by light. Reflective or internal or both or none. it is my feeling that any object that is alive must use energy to move otherwise it shows dead to me. Alive or Dead are some key words I use.

Reflective light shows up bla and produces smaller rings that seldom grow outside of the size of the object or are all bounced in one direction where as internal light produces rings many times the size of the object like a light bulb. UFOs seem to have over 90 sets of rings and lights in the 30 to 50 range. Heat produces a flame style set of rings. And the Sun produces very large ring sets that can be picked up anywhere the light hits.

Space junk produces nothing unless it is right in the sun and we gat a reflection. Your blue UFO object on the ISS photo prodused a wandering effect, like a smudge of light, while in the circled area I sent to you, there seems to be a UFO hiding in there with a field of 70 to 90 rings. UFOs in space produce less rings because there is no air, so the nobel gasses are not there to be fired up. Everything in space has to take several steps back on the light issue because of the lack of earths gasses.

Yes there seems to be many critters in space, full of them.

Deuem

[deuem]

I am guessing here and need you to fill in some blanks.

It seems to me so far that in your work and mine we are actually going in different directions.
If I process a photo after you are done, all of the energy seems to be removed and left with the skeleton.

That's Ok. Maybe it will help figure out what parts inside the object are producing the energy fields.
Time will tell on that one. The critters need to eat and expend energy like all of us do. Like you mentioned deep sea creatures also show signs of light to see food and others. They need to mate and find ech other at times to reproduce more critters. This would be hard to do if they had no colors or light in space.

Thinking of birds, males have all the colors while females are very plain. Why not with critters. To another female critter it might look very sexy and show good genes. So I would expect some of the same looking critters to be bland and some very colorful for that reason.

deuem

[1967sander]

Man this is cool! 

Finally someone that exactly thinks as I do. I see space as an ocean. A deepsea full of living creatures, big ones and small ones, that communicate with light in total darkness. The "flash" I have been describing is what I believe to be a sort of pulse detonation engine. The critters as you call them are of bio-mechanical nature and possibly nano-technology. They have volume but hardly any mass. Perhaps the explanation that we can see right into theu innerparts as hull/skin are transparent, allowing us to see the flash. The "fish"or "eel-like" ones, all have the same structure, head, skeleton and the rear part look similar. Perhaps longer or wider but in the end the look the same. I was really lucky to catch this one blue critter in both sideview and topview. Are they intelligent? I do not know. Could be that they simply evolved outside our atmosphere but do not have ability to communicate with other species. On the other hand, what is intelligence? If it means not to destroy the environment you live in, than humans are not intelligent. I am really looking forward to your results.

Have a nice Sunday,

Sander

[Elvis Hendrix]

I agree, I think of space now just like an ocean. with many, probably endless different species.
in every conceivable form. Life will always find a way.