• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Jimmy Church

Started by mikealden, January 27, 2014, 09:37:07 PM

zeebo

How can you "reject Schrodinger's cat"?  He's so cute.

[attachimg=1]

zeebo

Quote from: Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost on April 25, 2014, 09:44:44 PM
Gerry Todd says the Chrono-Visor is even better than vuhdeo.  Hoisting one with you, zeebo.  Cheers!

Haha yes thanks RGG.  I was afraid I might be hallucinating this one.  Thanks for confirming it's actually happening.  Cheers!  :D

McPhallus

Quote from: Mind Flayer Monk on April 24, 2014, 10:22:45 PM
The best part is when Basagio threatens to sue everyone that doesn't believe him.

Don't forget that he's running for President in 2016!  8)

zeebo

Quote from: McPhallus on April 25, 2014, 10:26:30 PM
Don't forget that he's running for President in 2016!  8)

According to his stories tonite he may already know that he wins.

Quote from: zeebo on April 25, 2014, 10:14:58 PM
Haha yes thanks RGG.  I was afraid I might be hallucinating this one.  Thanks for confirming it's actually happening.  Cheers!  :D

Just as I read this, they started talking about the drugs they gave the kids in the secret program.  Time Punks on Dope?

Cute hypothetical kitty!  That's how I always pictured Schrödinger's cat.  Glad it was alive when he opened his hypothetical box!  Cheers!

zeebo

Quote from: Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost on April 25, 2014, 10:49:41 PM
...Cute hypothetical kitty!  ..

He's only hypothetical if you open the box at the wrong time.   ;D

wr250

Quote from: zeebo on April 25, 2014, 08:46:14 PM
This Basiago interview is so far delivering as expected.  Wild stuff.  I'm gonna have another beer to help suspend my disbelief - this one's just too much fun to risk being sober.
one of my favorite topics:  time travel. that was a wild interview, hope he is on again soon.

far better than that "other late night host" and his 3x5 cards. i mean really, kaku tells you (the other late night host) telepathy was just proved scientifically, and you (the other late night host) just move on the the next 3x5 card ?

zeebo

Quote from: wr250 on April 27, 2014, 06:31:29 PM
...far better than that "other late night host" and his 3x5 cards. ...

I remember that other guy had a different physicist on, who mentioned something mind-blowing about a recent discovery implying the true universe is much much bigger than the observable universe.  Ol' 3x5 without even giving it a moment's contemplation or obvious follow-up question, just bumbles onto the next irrelevant card. Sigh.


McPhallus

Quote from: wr250 on April 30, 2014, 08:06:49 PM
tomorrow jimmy has RCH on

Tonight, it's David Nocock!  His channeling of "Ra" has to be heard to be believed.

cweb

Speaking of Hoagland, I finally did a little catch-up and caught astroguy's appearance on FTB. Great stuff, sir!

As someone who has worked in digital video and is familiar with compression artifacts, I really appreciated you bringing this up in regards to Hoagland's images. I remember looking at the "pillars" and going "wtf, those are just 'jaggies!'" (At least that's what we called them.) Adding to the frustration, if you look at the images in Dark Mission, many of them are printed poorly at subpar resolution on the plain old paper-- which doesn't help Richard's argument in the slightest.

astroguy

Thanks, cweb.  I think what I find a bit frustrating is that RCH does the same four things, it's nothing new: Lots of conspiracy, some numerology, pareidolia, and image artifacts = some ancient artifacts.

astroguy

To that effect, I wrote this e-mail to Jimmy, and I'll post it here since we're all friends :) and in the spirit of open communication and discourse ... kinda the thing that real scientists do.


Hi Jimmy,

I saw you're going to have RCH on tonight to talk about the Chang'e stuff he's done.  If I might humbly recommend two things:

1. If he knows what sensor noise and bias is, and if so, why he thinks that's not what he's looking at.  All his images of "shimmering glass towers" or whatnot were done by taking pixel values of just a few and increasing their brightness a huge amount.  It's noise - just like with the "teeth" in the original Face on Mars pictures.  The reason they're all rectangular in his Chang'e images is that the camera has square pixels and he's looking at rows and columns that are slightly more sensitive than other ones.  Since different ones in the red, green, and blue are VERY slightly different sensitivities than the rows/columns in the other colors, that's why you get his multi-colored stuff (that and JPG artifacts).  Yes, more expensive sensors can REDUCE the noise, but you will always get some there, it's a basic law of physics.

I've attached three images [2 here due to forum restrictions] showing this effect on a sensor that has good, even illumination.  The moon properly exposed, the moon with his magic "Equalize" button pressed (look at all those multi-colored grids! -> geometry!), and it converted to grey [grey not included in this forum post].  Now imagine the right side of my sensor was slightly more sensitive, crop it to just a limb of the moon, and you get the EXACT SAME THING that Richard is claiming are glass towers, only it's not, it's just sensor noise and some scattered light (remember, the moon is dusty!! the camera lens is going to have some dust on it).

2. If he opts to talk about my criticisms of his work, or if you ask about it, I request that you hold him to being very specific about his answers.  If he's not specific, I can't respond, and that's how science is done, we go back-and-forth.  I stated that the majority of what he does is to not understand proper image analysis, reading features that are noise as something important, or practicing numerology when it's silly (such as his 19.5° stuff, or other things).  I request that you ask him how he's NOT doing those things.

And, FYI, since I give it 50/50 odds of him saying it ... I'm not a NASA shill, I'm not on their paycheck, I CERTAINLY don't make any money doing my blog or podcast or this kind of thing (ergo I'm not a "professional skeptic," I'm your run-of-the-mill scientist) whereas Hoagland and Bara *do* make money on their stuff, and the Brookings Report is a silly document from 50 years ago that no one cares about today except for him.  What I state is my opinion (yes) of his WORK, not his person (no ad hominems), but it's based on actual evidence, not on using known optical, digital, and analog artifacts that are produced by known processes and saying instead they are evidence of intelligent aliens.

Thank you for your time,
Stuart

eddie dean

Wow astro, you found proof of the plaid force-feild, possibly even a missile defence system,  around the moon! JK
I hope RCH doesn't think this image is a representation of real objects in space. Well, except maybe the moon!
It wouldn't  surprise me thought.
[attachimg=1]

[attachimg=2]

astroguy

The image is proof of something alright.  And, as for JPG artifacting, here's what the saved B&W greyscale image looks like after actually saving and then doing the equalize.  And the equalize of the color image AFTER it's been saved as JPG.  Looks different from the original ... BECAUSE OF JPG ARTIFACTS!

wr250

Quote from: astroguy on May 01, 2014, 12:24:52 PM
The image is proof of something alright.  And, as for JPG artifacting, here's what the saved B&W greyscale image looks like after actually saving and then doing the equalize.  And the equalize of the color image AFTER it's been saved as JPG.  Looks different from the original ... BECAUSE OF JPG ARTIFACTS!

i saw some artifacts in the 1st image in the quote above, so i zoomed in. way in . and found this:
[attach=1]

eddie dean

Quote from: wr250 on May 01, 2014, 12:44:11 PM
i saw some artifacts in the 1st image in the quote above, so i zoomed in. way in . and found this:
[attach=1]

Haha! Noory's head on the moon!
proof of an alien race!
Quick! call RCH!

cweb

Quote from: eddie dean on May 01, 2014, 12:12:54 PM
Wow astro, you found proof of the plaid force-feild, possibly even a missile defence system,  around the moon! JK
I hope RCH doesn't think this image is a representation of real objects in space. Well, except maybe the moon!
It wouldn't  surprise me thought.
[attachimg=1]

[attachimg=2]
Um, that's actually a picture of how the moon looks from Scotland, duh...  :D

I regret missing last night's live show. Can't wait til it gets posted.

I remember being asked by friends/family "hey, you did video stuff. so, what should I look for in a [still] camera? more megapixels is good, right?" Well... Maybe? If you have proper exposure and you're comparing two like sensors? But if your sensor is really noisy, they aren't going to be much help.

That scene in Blade Runner where Deckard keeps enhancing the image makes me laugh. You can't take a pic from miles away and just wish these new pixels into existence. And when you zoom in to a compressed image, it's worse! Because you're magnifying the errors!

astroguy

Quote from: cweb on May 02, 2014, 10:03:01 AMI remember being asked by friends/family "hey, you did video stuff. so, what should I look for in a [still] camera? more megapixels is good, right?" Well... Maybe? If you have proper exposure and you're comparing two like sensors? But if your sensor is really noisy, they aren't going to be much help.

These days, I tell people FEWER megapixels is better (assuming we're still talking about >10 Mpx).  At least when comparing one sensor size to another.  In that case, fewer pixels = more area per pixel = more light per pixel = less random noise!

astroguy

Not to hijack this thread, but I did listen to all of Jimmy's interview last night of RCH.  I don't have a response prepared to that specific interview (don't plan on it, no reason to), but I have written an extensive blog post refuting his Chang'e 3 image "analysis:"  Is Camera Noise Evidence for Ancient Advanced Civilization on the Moon?

I'll say what I said when Jimmy interviewed me:  I want there to be other life out there.  I would love to find evidence of it some day.  I would want to be the one to do so.  But this kind of crappy "evidence" is bollocks and just brings ridicule to legitimate research in the area.  I would hazard to say that it brings ridicule even from many people "on the other side of the fence" than I who believe the stuff exists to begin with and are looking for convincing evidence of it.  Hoagland's stuff is ... not.

cweb

Quote from: astroguy on May 02, 2014, 10:11:37 AM
These days, I tell people FEWER megapixels is better (assuming we're still talking about >10 Mpx).  At least when comparing one sensor size to another.  In that case, fewer pixels = more area per pixel = more light per pixel = less random noise!
Absolutely! And I still think it's important to read reviews and do research on the quality of the sensor in the camera.

Inspired by the moon shots, I've attached what happens when I block out all light from my phone camera, take a snapshot, and "exposure +10" it in Photoshop. Another example of digital sensor "error" when you overenhance! (Image size is scaled down, because I think we get the idea.)

zeebo

Just listened to Jimmy's recent interview with one of my fave science guests, Seth Shostak of SETI, and I quite enjoyed it.  Nice to hear this kind of engaging, respectful, and natural conversation.

Jimmy had some good, interesting questions (e.g. I liked his semi-technical questions about directional radio broadcasts.)  Also some worthwhile questions were sent in by email and discussed.  Good show.


Jackstar

Quote from: astroguy on May 02, 2014, 10:14:34 AM
I'll say what I said when Jimmy interviewed me:  I want there to be other life out there.  I would love to find evidence of it some day.  I would want to be the one to do so.

I'm confused. This seems like a lot of wishes to grant. Are you saying that you think we're not alone, but you're pretending to be alone, because you don't have peer-reviewed evidence? I'm not calling you out here, but I wanted to point out that there's a lot of variables based on perspective in your statement.



ziznak

Quote from: astroguy on May 01, 2014, 09:13:04 AM
Thanks, cweb.  I think what I find a bit frustrating is that RCH does the same four things, it's nothing new: Lots of conspiracy, some numerology, pareidolia, and image artifacts = some ancient artifacts.
im counting more than 4 homie

I like the show but why the hell does jimmy feel the need to put emphases on the day of the week.

It's the Thursday edition x5. The repeated throughout.

Ok jimmy but I am listening days later on youtube with probably half of your audience. I dont care why day it was when you recorded it. The date would be more helpful which oddly enough is mentioned at the start of the show and that's it.

I am being overly harsh. It is a fine show and bell fans should check it out.

dan7800

I listen to random shows on youtube as well. A few things:

- FWIW, I like the short news snippets. Even when listening later on, it takes you back in time. 
- NO RCH or numbers lady, or crap guests like that. I would rather not have any guests at all.
- Keep up the good work and keep growing.

Morgus

Quote from: nooryisawesome on May 09, 2014, 12:14:49 AM
I like the show but why the hell does jimmy feel the need to put emphases on the day of the week.

It's the Thursday edition x5. The repeated throughout.

Ok jimmy but I am listening days later on youtube with probably half of your audience. I dont care why day it was when you recorded it. The date would be more helpful which oddly enough is mentioned at the start of the show and that's it.

I am being overly harsh. It is a fine show and bell fans should check it out.

Jimmy must have read your comment, and last night he emphasized its the Friday show extra and even mentioned bellgab when he did it... :D

Quote from: Morgus on May 10, 2014, 02:41:45 AM
Jimmy must have read your comment, and last night he emphasized its the Friday show extra and even mentioned bellgab when he did it... :D

LOL he did the same thing when I bitched about him doing on this date birthdays and deaths.
He said I'll learn to love it.

Also FYI jimmy has ,1,100+ subscribers on you tube it's really starting to grow! Way to go Jimmy.

He is hands down the better than c2c.

zeebo

Quote from: nooryisawesome on May 10, 2014, 10:59:53 PM
... He is hands down the better than c2c.

The show I mentioned earlier was more fun and interesting than any non-Knapp c2c show I've heard in a long while.

Morgus

I wish Keith Rowland would post the morning/afternoon schedule for the Dark Matter stream feed.
It appears he replays a lot of the nightly shows during those hours including Fade To Black, once starting 2-3am and also starting about 11am the next day?

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod