The Other Side of Midnight - Richard C. Hoagland - Live Chat Thread

[albrecht]

I wasn't near a computer so I missed out on the "pictures" of the "radio with pictures" but checked some of them out today and even with their enhancements I cannot see what they see. Granted I'm not used to looking at this kind of stuff but how they went from those photos to the rendered drawing of the ancient "arcologies" is beyond me. Love his shows though!

[astroguy]

Mainstream science explanation of what they're seeing:  (1) You take a picture with some contrasty-features (e.g., complicated terrain as opposed to a snowdrift).  (2) You increase the size by maybe a factor of 2-5x.  (3) You increase the contrast, maybe sharpen a bit.

So now what you're looking at in terms of "structure" is computer-created artifacts from your processing process.  This is why 99% of all these "anomalies" that you get pointed to in spacecraft imagery by people online are blurry!  They've increased the size from the original and are reading into the computer-generated artifacts from THEIR processing.

The main computer-created parts coming from increasing the size (so whatever interpolation code the software uses) and the sharpening.

Think of the increase in size this way:  You have a block of 2x2 pixels.  You want to increase the size by a factor of 2 to get 4x4.  That's 16 pixels versus your original 4.  Where do the extra 12 come from?  The computer creates them based on an algorithm using those original 4.  But you have just invented now 75% of the information in that image.

Sharpening is more complicated, with different algorithms doing different things, including things like blurring the image, subtracting that blur from the original, seeing what features remain and increasing the contrast of those, adding the blur back ... it's complicated.

This is why mainstream scientists will never blow images up like that, and even very rarely will they look at pixel-scale features.  Usually we reduce the size even by 2x rather than increase it by 2x, or we just don't tend to trust anything smaller than a few (original) pixels in size.

[albrecht]

Mainstream science explanation of what they're seeing:  (1) You take a picture with some contrasty-features (e.g., complicated terrain as opposed to a snowdrift).  (2) You increase the size by maybe a factor of 2-5x.  (3) You increase the contrast, maybe sharpen a bit.

So now what you're looking at in terms of "structure" is computer-created artifacts from your processing process.  This is why 99% of all these "anomalies" that you get pointed to in spacecraft imagery by people online are blurry!  They've increased the size from the original and are reading into the computer-generated artifacts from THEIR processing.

The main computer-created parts coming from increasing the size (so whatever interpolation code the software uses) and the sharpening.

Think of the increase in size this way:  You have a block of 2x2 pixels.  You want to increase the size by a factor of 2 to get 4x4.  That's 16 pixels versus your original 4.  Where do the extra 12 come from?  The computer creates them based on an algorithm using those original 4.  But you have just invented now 75% of the information in that image.

Sharpening is more complicated, with different algorithms doing different things, including things like blurring the image, subtracting that blur from the original, seeing what features remain and increasing the contrast of those, adding the blur back ... it's complicated.

This is why mainstream scientists will never blow images up like that, and even very rarely will they look at pixel-scale features.  Usually we reduce the size even by 2x rather than increase it by 2x, or we just don't tend to trust anything smaller than a few (original) pixels in size.

Thanks, yeah, I can see that would be a problem with a digital image (or a benefit, I guess, if you are coming up with odd theories.) What about on an actual photograph (non-digital but like we used to use in cameras, slides etc?) If one looks at that through a magnifying glass (or the photograph print is blown up during processing?) Does that also experience some type of "loss or blurring? (no pixels or algorithms being used there?)

[bateman]

Yeah. I heard Dark City driving home tonight. Right on!! Friday is fucktacular on DMRN!!!

This is an exxcellent compliment. 

P.S. How in the hell were this many pages generated in the last day?!

[astroguy]

Thanks, yeah, I can see that would be a problem with a digital image (or a benefit, I guess, if you are coming up with odd theories.) What about on an actual photograph (non-digital but like we used to use in cameras, slides etc?) If one looks at that through a magnifying glass (or the photograph print is blown up during processing?) Does that also experience some type of "loss or blurring? (no pixels or algorithms being used there?)

I know much less about this process since I only work with digital.  What I do know is:

- Unless you're talking about Apollo for astronomical objects, it's STILL a "digital" process where images were developed on the craft and then scanned and relayed back to Earth.  So you still have an analog process but with discrete resolution elements.

- With Apollo, you are NEVER working from the originals.  You are always dealing with, at best, 3rd generation.  Stuff happens, even if you're working in a clean room.

- Once all of that's considered, there are still properties of the film to consider:  There's film grain, non-linear film sensitivity (expose it to 10x more light, you WON'T get 10x the brightness recorded, unlike with CCDs), non-even film sensitivity (sensitivity across the film itself is not uniform), and you can't do things like flat-field to correct for non-even optics.

So beyond all that, yeah, you should be able to just take a photo and a magnifying glass and see stuff.  

[albrecht]

I know much less about this process since I only work with digital.  What I do know is:

- Unless you're talking about Apollo for astronomical objects, it's STILL a "digital" process where images were developed on the craft and then scanned and relayed back to Earth.  So you still have an analog process but with discrete resolution elements.

- With Apollo, you are NEVER working from the originals.  You are always dealing with, at best, 3rd generation.  Stuff happens, even if you're working in a clean room.

- Once all of that's considered, there are still properties of the film to consider:  There's film grain, non-linear film sensitivity (expose it to 10x more light, you WON'T get 10x the brightness recorded, unlike with CCDs), non-even film sensitivity (sensitivity across the film itself is not uniform), and you can't do things like flat-field to correct for non-even optics.

So beyond all that, yeah, you should be able to just take a photo and a magnifying glass and see stuff.

Ha, yeah, I just recall seeing the military guys looking at aerial recon photos with magnifying glasses for bunkers, troop movements, rocket programs, etc. I would think (not a scientist here) that one could take ACTUAL photograph through a telescope of a place like the moon so get non (at least non-digitally) distorted photos; though I think RCH says our atmosphere and "dust" would still cause the glass-domes to be hidden )

[astroguy]

Even with that there are lots of things that can cause the photo to NOT represent reality exactly.  The lists I've given in my last two posts should give you a small taste of that.  This is also why I tend to get ... "frustrated" ... by anomaly hunters because generally speaking, they do not understand the immense amount of work that goes into (what we call) "reducing" the data to try to get it to a state that best represents what you would see without any anomalies that are introduced by the detector, the optics, the way it was taken, etc., and even after that, understanding what anomalies that are introduced by that reduction process look like so you don't misinterpret them as an actual surface feature.  And even scientists are not immune to this.

[albrecht]

Even with that there are lots of things that can cause the photo to NOT represent reality exactly.  The lists I've given in my last two posts should give you a small taste of that.  This is also why I tend to get ... "frustrated" ... by anomaly hunters because generally speaking, they do not understand the immense amount of work that goes into (what we call) "reducing" the data to try to get it to a state that best represents what you would see without any anomalies that are introduced by the detector, the optics, the way it was taken, etc., and even after that, understanding what anomalies that are introduced by that reduction process look like so you don't misinterpret them as an actual surface feature.  And even scientists are not immune to this.

Good post. Interesting, not being a scientist or photographer I only have second-hand opinions but I wondered why scientists (and the pseudo-scientists) seem to be using jpgs, instead of TIFF or some less lossy format? I even have heard, not sure how true, that opening and closing and resaving a jpg degrades them over time? Or that using that format on your camera at the time of exposure causes more defects/degradation versus other formats? I wonder has Bara, etc ever come back and apologized for misidentifying a "defect" by accident? That itself would raise questions with me...scientists, doctors, etc often make mistakes because nobody is perfect and images, scans, data, etc aren't perfect.

[expat]

I wonder has Bara, etc ever come back and apologized for misidentifying a "defect" by accident?

This is the closest Bara ever got to admitting errors:
http://dorkmission.blogspot.com/2015/02/review-of-mike-bara-on-coast-to-coast.html

[astroguy]

why scientists (and the pseudo-scientists) seem to be using jpgs, instead of TIFF or some less lossy format?

Scientists will only use a lossy format if nothing else is available or if they care about features so large that lossy doesn't matter (e.g., if I download a JPG2000 of a HiRISE image of Mars, it's still lossy-compressed, but it runs up to 1GB in size and is 25cm/px and I usually care about multi-meter-sized objects.  So who cares if there's a bit of compression?  With the Pluto stuff, they were lossy early on so we could get them down from the craft faster.  With Mars Express, they simply don't have the bandwidth available to send back the pictures lossless and keep up with the speed of pictures they're taking, leading to cities in Hale crater claims.  But otherwise, WE use the lossless versions, but then when you put an image out in a press release, not everyone can read .IMG or .PDS or .FIT(S) files and the internet can't, especially, so we put them out as pretty pictures in JPG which is fine.  What's not fine is then when the anomalists take those images and do what I said at the top of this page of this thread.

I even have heard, not sure how true, that opening and closing and resaving a jpg degrades them over time?

I think so, but I'm not entirely sure.  Think of it this way:  You have a compressed image, you open it, the software interprets that compression and displays it some way.  Then you re-save it and instead of compressing based on the original image, it compresses based on the new, compressed image, removing more and more detail each time.

Or that using that format on your camera at the time of exposure causes more defects/degradation versus other formats?

What format?  I always shoot RAW and this is one of the reasons.

I wonder has Bara, etc ever come back and apologized for misidentifying a "defect" by accident? That itself would raise questions with me...scientists, doctors, etc often make mistakes because nobody is perfect and images, scans, data, etc aren't perfect.

I have never seen any of them do that, despite when it's pointed out to them.  If you have an example, anywhere, let me know.

[indigoo]

how about the grand daddy of them all..Stan Lee lol

Haha actually, as much as I respect what he's done for the industry, he's nothing compared to those three IMO. Alan Moore especially. Old man Yelling at Clouds, but that man is a profound writer.

[NoMoreNoory]

Having listened to Hoaxland's embarrassing first few shows (Keith? Keith! Every time I tell it to do this it does that) I had avoided TOSOM but was persuaded to return by the positive things being said here.
And.....same old delusional bullshit. Do these people actually believe any of the crap they're spouting, or is it just a niche position taken and defended? I never can tell.
Thanks to astroguy for perfect explanation of the deception being practiced here. An insult to science, NASA and my intelligence. He'd have been kicked from pillar to post if he'd come up with this on Coast, and quite rightly so.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Having listened to Hoaxland's embarrassing first few shows (Keith? Keith! Every time I tell it to do this it does that) I had avoided TOSOM but was persuaded to return by the positive things being said here.
And.....same old delusional bullshit. Do these people actually believe any of the crap they're spouting, or is it just a niche position taken and defended? I never can tell.
Thanks to astroguy for perfect explanation of the deception being practiced here. An insult to science, NASA and my intelligence. He'd have been kicked from pillar to post if he'd come up with this on Coast, and quite rightly so.

Friday's show was not what he typically does.  His interviews are usually quite good.  He holds back most of his delusional ideas for the odd show like the one you heard (he always throws a smattering in, but usually just as a quick personal observation).  If you've read my posts you know I was among his greatest detractors on here.

[albrecht]

Having listened to Hoaxland's embarrassing first few shows (Keith? Keith! Every time I tell it to do this it does that) I had avoided TOSOM but was persuaded to return by the positive things being said here.
And.....same old delusional bullshit. Do these people actually believe any of the crap they're spouting, or is it just a niche position taken and defended? I never can tell.
Thanks to astroguy for perfect explanation of the deception being practiced here. An insult to science, NASA and my intelligence. He'd have been kicked from pillar to post if he'd come up with this on Coast, and quite rightly so.

Some of the shows he is on that old-school RCH bent but his other shows are really, really good. He is funny, self-deprecating, surprisingly well-rounded in conversations with regard to other stuff, the technical problems are hilarious, and is engaging with his guests and callers. Really surprising and I love the show. His show with Peter Levenda stands out. (Listen to him when he was on with Norry or even Ian and compare with the RCH show.) And it is sort of endearing, in a way, when a subject ends up going into/agreeing with his "model" and 19.5/torsion and SciFi ideas from the 40 or 50s (if not before of glass houses etc.) If he believes his stuff and "model," I'm of the bent who says 'who cares?' I don't listen to nighttime radio for education, but for entertainment. Cavet Emptor and he is not receiving public funds and not really harming anyone? Heck his fun attitude might even encourage some kid to study real science simply to debunk him or "look up" instead of at a smartphone game. I might disagree with his politics, his "models" of science, etc but I enjoy him as a host and raconteur with guests/callers.

[SciFiAuthor]

Having listened to Hoaxland's embarrassing first few shows (Keith? Keith! Every time I tell it to do this it does that) I had avoided TOSOM but was persuaded to return by the positive things being said here.
And.....same old delusional bullshit. Do these people actually believe any of the crap they're spouting, or is it just a niche position taken and defended? I never can tell.
Thanks to astroguy for perfect explanation of the deception being practiced here. An insult to science, NASA and my intelligence. He'd have been kicked from pillar to post if he'd come up with this on Coast, and quite rightly so.

Give it a few shows. I too have no interest in Hoagland's theories other than to debunk his badly dated futurism but it's really odd, Hoagland somehow can flip a mental switch and turn into Charlie Rose and do really fantastic interviews with guests. Occasionally he transforms into the werehoag and tosses in some Mars stuff, but most of the time he's witty, knowledgeable and personable. It's very weird, especially since I expected to hate the show when it first started, but the guy is an excellent talk show host when he wants to be.

[K_Dubb]

...his badly dated futurism

I always imagine this said in that tone women reserve for speaking behind their hands.

[trostol]

Haha actually, as much as I respect what he's done for the industry, he's nothing compared to those three IMO. Alan Moore especially. Old man Yelling at Clouds, but that man is a profound writer.

i am not sure Stan Lee is even awake at the hour of RCH's show lol

[NoMoreNoory]

I hear you all. I'll give him a whirl. I should say, though, that I heard some of last Wed/Thurs show because I over-recorded Art's show. He played some God-awful 50s pastiche song (My Little Grey?) which could be his UFO Phil. He then talked to someone about a George Pal festival at the Egyptian which would be great if you're in LA, chatted about each other's wives and trailed the Ceres show at length. I switched off.

[Auslandia]

Rch what the fuck are you doing with all these new images?  I was starting to like the show but now you've jumped the shark... Again

[Anthony Barnett]

I cannot wait for Tuesday morning 06.00 with Art Bell and the 09.00 The Hoagie 'yippee'  BRAAPS Guys n Gals in advance.

[SnapT]

Could we get Marc Zicree of SPACE COMMAND on an upcoming show?

He'd be a good guest.

[SciFiAuthor]

Looks like tonight is an extension interview of Dave Distler. He was really good last time around.

[SaucyRossy]

Looks like tonight is an extension interview of Dave Distler. He was really good last time around.

Yeah and going to open lines and let people ask questions about it etc.

[chefist]

Rch what the fuck are you doing with all these new images?  I was starting to like the show but now you've jumped the shark... Again

I nominated you for best avatar...

[SciFiAuthor]

Yeah and going to open lines and let people ask questions about it etc.

I like it, extension interviews with the best guests. Might want to check the Art Bell thread, we formed up a Hoagland cult and Art formed his own cult in response and it became a big mess and ultimately mutated into a nuclear threat to Florida.

[SaucyRossy]

I like it, extension interviews with the best guests. Might want to check the Art Bell thread, we formed up a Hoagland cult and Art formed his own cult in response and it became a big mess and ultimately mutated into a nuclear threat to Florida.

What......seriously?

[SciFiAuthor]

What......seriously?

Yeah, Hoagslam and the Dark Matter Radio Network Cult. Sadly the Hoaglims are divided and have broken into many different sects over differences in aftershave choice.

[SaucyRossy]

Culting up. Hahahaha

[Mild Bill]

Yeah, Hoagslam and the Dark Matter Radio Network Cult. Sadly the Hoaglims are divided and have broken into many different sects over differences in aftershave choice.

Reformed Hoagism does have the relic of the true Holy Hair!! Aftershave is a false cult!

[SciFiAuthor]

Reformed Hoaglism does have the relic of the true Holy Hair!!

In orthodox Hoagslam sir, we do not venerate objects other than the accutron. Nor do we accept the authority of "Pope" Whitley.