Found something big

Home Forums Babel Image Archives Found something big

This topic contains 16 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Jack Teichrib 2 months, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
  • #8711 Reply


    Nobody will believe me, but I was flipping through random images on the slideshow and I saw this.

    It’s a face, in case you can’t see it.

    #8721 Reply


    The image number’s a bit long (~900,000 to 1,000,000 digits, I think) for you to be searching through images randomly. There’s no “random” button, and when the Universal Slideshow button is clicked, it loads an image with a comparatively very small number (~16 digits).

    It’s a pretty cool image, though, in any case.

    #9832 Reply

    Eston Raemundo

    i don’t know, the graph scramble matches the generated algorithm exactly, so the image could not have been put through a filter. i have to say, this one surprises me. i wont rule out the possibility of it being authentic.
    “Nobody will believe me,” you said.
    it seems that “When we deal with the forces of entropy and chance, and peer into the infinite unknown, we can do naught but have faith and believe.”

    like i said, the graph scramble. there are different ways the random pixels can come together according to the algorithm, and when the image numbers share similar patterns, the images share similar patterns. the problem with the algorithm, though, is that if you have a picture of a cow, the image of that cow with one pixel off is billions upon billions of image numbers away. similar pictures do not appear next to each other. images with similar proportions of colored pixels, however, often do appear in large regions. this image has a similar layout to the images for hundreds of slides in either direction, but is structured differently from images with shorter image numbers. as far as i know, this image appears to be authentic, however unlikely as it is.

    #10348 Reply


    And this ‘face’ is looking straight at “us” – a little offset to the right top part of the space, but almost perfectly and directly aligned to the viewer…

    … instead of being distorted, disproportioned, upended, flattened or skewed in any other way possible, that would most probably more often show up than an almost perfectly aligned, evenly proportioned, straight at us looking face (instead of any other pattern) that seems to follow the general rule of mamalian anatomy. I work as a 3D Character Artist (among other things regarding CG) and need to know about the general anatomical features of us humans and this is what I see: It has human like eyes, cheeks, a nasolabial kink; the upper lip is correctly parted in three lobes that ultimately make up the philitrum (which is that of a hominidae by the way, this doesn’t exist in this perfect proportioned way outside of our own taxonomic group of species), the vermilion borders are visible and distinct the tissue between the lips and the rest of the skin on the face. Oh, and: Yeah, it has a perfectly protruded lateral comisure at the outer edges of the mouth. What we see here is the face of a hominid – most probably the artistic depiction of a human ancestor with chimp like features but human-like eyes.

    Question: Of all the possible things that could be found, how likely is it to randomly find an image of a face that perfectly resembles the anatomical features of the mamalian genus of hominoidea?

    I said that two times now in another thread with a similiar insanly unlikely claim: This is extremely (no: it’s in fact astronomically-) unlikely and therefore most probably not found by random occasion.

    So in conclusion: You’re right, Stephen – I don’t believe you.


    #10360 Reply


    It is the face of a human. And it seems to be the face of a woman with puckered lips. I enhanced the actual pixels visible and it turns out except for the Eyes, the nose and the lips as well as parts of the chin, the rest of the original face has been erased (probably with large brushed erase tool of a program like photoshop) – this gave it a chimp-like appearance, but it is in fact the face of a human. I enhanced the pixels, this is what I did:

    – desaturated it to eqaulize the contrast
    – duplicated a layer and blured it a bit (gaussian, 12%) to equalize the grain
    – blended that layer over the desatured original image
    – duplicated once more with a stronger blur (gaussian 30%) and blended it (soft light) once again

    This is the result:


    So, this is the face of a human, that Stephen claims to have randomly found. This is a fake, because – once again – of all possible creatures and faces of other lifeforms (including artisticly created faces of any creature imaginable), he says he has found a human face…

    … it’s not true. He did not found this by random occasion – he’s (as far as I have seen in this forum) the second person, who says to have made this unlikely find in this forum.

    Question to Stephen: What do you expect to gain out of such infantil stunts? Attention? Satisfaction of some sort? No, seriously, Stephen – I wanna know.


    #12073 Reply


    Excuse me for being obtuse but if you advance the viewer one frame and then return to the previous and see the same image isn’t that by definition proving the image is actually ‘located’ in the library and therefore is not faked?

    #12074 Reply


    Disregard previous post – I obviously don’t what the controls do
    I assumed that one could step thru a series of addressed images and that once arriving at a particular location you would be assured of the uniqueness of the collection of pixels.
    But I see in the smily face post the poster circled the pertinent area in red and that modified image is ‘callable’ by advancing the viewer and returning.

    So as I said I don’t get what is happening with the viewer controls

    #12085 Reply


    the probability of getting this image out of the complete randomness is comparable to that Judith will kiss me ever in my lifetime.

    #14534 Reply


    @Malcolm: That would even be less likely: Finding the same image one frame further (or the other way around). The probability of finding the face of an actual human is incredibly low. And this would be at least the second person to claim of having randomly found an image of a human – of all possible and impossible beings that could be found instead and should outnumber the possibility of finding a human (or something that resembles a living being at all).

    It’s a lie, specifically because it’s near impossible to find a human with the first image that resembles anything at all – and twice within the same year by two different people on the forum. So yeah – they were just incredibly ‘lucky’ I guess 😉

    #28501 Reply

    Josiah Welch

    I like potatoes

    #28956 Reply


    response to Triatan

    even if the chance is low, there is still a chance. which means that there is a chance that 2 people have found something resembling a human face, so don’t jump to the conclusion that this is fake.

    #28957 Reply


    response to Josiah Welch


    #29204 Reply


    Hello, new here…but how could it be a fake if the OPs link IS the library? Like one person said before…if you click either direction, no matter how many times, then come back to that frame it’s still there in the library. It’s not like they posted a screen grab that we can’t access. J/S.

    #29211 Reply


    @Michael Being called “fake” around here refers to using the Image Search functionality, which lets you upload a picture to be found in the Library, and then pretending to have found it using the regular Universal Slideshow function and letting the images scroll by.

    #34161 Reply

    Jack Teichrib

    Anyone can do this. Screenshot the colorful pixelated image and add whatever layers you want on paint or any image editing software. Click search and it will direct you to where this image already existed in the library slideshow. Save the link post to forum and add “you won’t believe me but I found” to the post.
    Though it is not impossible to find a face at random it is great magnitudes of order more likely that the OP is lying.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
Reply To: Found something big
Your information: