Found something big
This topic contains 8 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by Triatan 10 months, 4 weeks ago.
September 14, 2016 at 5:02 am #8711
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.September 14, 2016 at 12:23 pm #8721
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.November 15, 2016 at 1:36 pm #9832
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.December 10, 2016 at 10:29 pm #10348
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.
TristanDecember 11, 2016 at 9:33 am #10360
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.
TristanJanuary 21, 2017 at 4:44 pm #12073
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?January 21, 2017 at 5:05 pm #12074
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 controlsJanuary 21, 2017 at 9:44 pm #12085
the probability of getting this image out of the complete randomness is comparable to that Judith will kiss me ever in my lifetime.April 2, 2017 at 6:28 pm #14534
@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 😉