Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 03-28-2002, 09:31 PM

From the site itself:
"After filtering and processing the digitized images of the eyes to eliminate "noise" and enhance them,"

In plain English, DOCTORING THEM. That's what it is, call a spade a spade. He filtered out what he didn't want to get that image. I could do the SAME THING to show Cthulhu eating babies. That doesn't mean Cthulhu was eating babies at the whole miracle thing.
Also, the story itself, insofar as the images appearing in the eyes are concerned, is nonsensical. She made an image appear on the cloak, right? Then...wouldn't she be looking AT the cloak instead of from it? Damn that logic entering into this whole thing

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 03-28-2002, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
I agree with being skeptical about the sighting; Catholicism was a very recent import back then, and there would not have been much predisposition to have a vision of the Virgin Mary, as opposed to some Aztec deity.

Another thing that may have helped the Church was a big smallpox epidemic that the Conquistadors had brought; it might have seemed that they had had a more powerful god that made them immune.

Also, it is interesting to think about what would have happened if Cortes had been defeated; I suspect that the Aztecs would have had a big victory barbecue -- of Cortes and his troops.

The Aztecs would still have become weakened by a smallpox epidemic, but their neighbors would catch it and in turn become weakened. But as the epidemic burned itself out, they would have recovered, though I'm not sure how long they would have lasted against later generations of the Spanish colonists.

Of course, the interesting quirk of fate that the Aztecs did not attack right away because Cortez's appearence fit a prophecy almost perfectly. A white man with a red beard appearing at that year...spooky. If you want evidence for God, use THAT, not some lame-ass picture.

leonarde · 03-28-2002, 09:40 PM

Actually the technology exists and is used to take
a bad audio recording (static and background sounds) and filter out everything but the voices
singing, conversing, whatever. I suppose that is
"doctoring" but it ISN'T putting in anything that
wasn't there already. I think this is used on the
soundtracks of movies as well....
Advanced technology of the same sort CAN be used
to add one sound to another (for new CDs etc. in
a recording studio). The technology itself is
neutral: it all depends on what is being done with
it....

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 03-28-2002, 09:54 PM

I can define whatever I like to be noise within a picture. Gimme a piece of bark, I'll take a picture, define some noise, remove it, and get a picture of Cthulhu eating children pancakes. Not too hard. So what he did was indeed doctoring. Yes, the technology is neutral. The man, however, wasn't. I can say he docotored it because I can filter out noise to get an entirely different picture.

Mageth · 03-29-2002, 11:44 AM

From the article:

"After filtering and processing the digitized images of the eyes to eliminate "noise" and enhance them,"

From JC:

In plain English, DOCTORING THEM. That's what it is, call a spade a spade. He filtered out what he didn't want to get that image.

From Leonarde:

Actually the technology exists and is used to take a bad audio recording (static and background sounds) and filter out everything but the voices
singing, conversing, whatever. I suppose that is
"doctoring" but it ISN'T putting in anything that
wasn't there already. I think this is used on the
soundtracks of movies as well....
Advanced technology of the same sort CAN be used
to add one sound to another (for new CDs etc. in
a recording studio). The technology itself is
neutral: it all depends on what is being done with
it....

I'll back JC on this. As one with several years experience in image processing, including writing software filtering algorithms, I can testify that algorithms may be used or tweaked to generate different, preferred results. Removing "noise" requires some understanding of what the underlying "signal" is expected to be. So if one removes "noise" using algorithms chosen or tweaked assuming the "signal" includes a human face, one may obviously have success in making the image appear to look more like a face.

And image (and audio) processing algorithms may (and often do) result in information being added to the "original." It's called enhancement.

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-29-2002, 01:02 PM

All of the (very good) skeptical examination aside, a more fundamental issue remains:

It is absolutely nonsensical to believe that an omnipotent (or even very powerful) god would choose to reveal itself in such a bizarre, ambiguous and equivocal manner.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]

leonarde · 03-29-2002, 02:39 PM

And what would be a "sensical" way, in your opinion?

lpetrich · 03-29-2002, 02:58 PM

The way that we reveal ourselves to each other.

And if that is unsatisfactory, then what would be better?

Undercurrent · 03-29-2002, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
And what would be a "sensical" way, in your opinion?

A large deposit made into my bank account.

m.

leonarde · 03-29-2002, 03:47 PM

Posted previously by three parties:

Quote:

It is absolutely nonsensical to believe that an omnipotent (or even very powerful) god would
choose to reveal itself in such a bizarre, ambiguous and equivocal manner.

[ Malaclypse the Younger ]

leonarde
And what would be a "sensical" way, in your opinion?

lpetrich

The way that we reveal ourselves to each other.

Ah but many people believe He did just that: that
he walked among us, made friends, revealed much
about His nature to a wide circle of people: both
his friends and acquaintances, and in certain
instances, to total "strangers". He shared our
bread, probably worked construction for several
years, helped out a bunch of sick people (both
those physically and emotionally sick).
Yet it seems the same people who reject the (granted)extraordinary circumstances of the solid
Marian apparitions, reject not only the Divinity
of Jesus but even the (very simple and really incontrovertible)fact of His historical existence.
Cheers!

03-29-2002, 01:02 PM	#26
Malaclypse the Younger Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: nowhere Posts: 416	All of the (very good) skeptical examination aside, a more fundamental issue remains: It is absolutely nonsensical to believe that an omnipotent (or even very powerful) god would choose to reveal itself in such a bizarre, ambiguous and equivocal manner. [ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-28-2002, 09:31 PM	#21
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	From the site itself: "After filtering and processing the digitized images of the eyes to eliminate "noise" and enhance them," In plain English, DOCTORING THEM. That's what it is, call a spade a spade. He filtered out what he didn't want to get that image. I could do the SAME THING to show Cthulhu eating babies. That doesn't mean Cthulhu was eating babies at the whole miracle thing. Also, the story itself, insofar as the images appearing in the eyes are concerned, is nonsensical. She made an image appear on the cloak, right? Then...wouldn't she be looking AT the cloak instead of from it? Damn that logic entering into this whole thing

03-28-2002, 09:40 PM	#23
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Actually the technology exists and is used to take a bad audio recording (static and background sounds) and filter out everything but the voices singing, conversing, whatever. I suppose that is "doctoring" but it ISN'T putting in anything that wasn't there already. I think this is used on the soundtracks of movies as well.... Advanced technology of the same sort CAN be used to add one sound to another (for new CDs etc. in a recording studio). The technology itself is neutral: it all depends on what is being done with it....

03-28-2002, 09:54 PM	#24
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	I can define whatever I like to be noise within a picture. Gimme a piece of bark, I'll take a picture, define some noise, remove it, and get a picture of Cthulhu eating children pancakes. Not too hard. So what he did was indeed doctoring. Yes, the technology is neutral. The man, however, wasn't. I can say he docotored it because I can filter out noise to get an entirely different picture.

03-29-2002, 11:44 AM	#25
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	From the article: "After filtering and processing the digitized images of the eyes to eliminate "noise" and enhance them," From JC: In plain English, DOCTORING THEM. That's what it is, call a spade a spade. He filtered out what he didn't want to get that image. From Leonarde: Actually the technology exists and is used to take a bad audio recording (static and background sounds) and filter out everything but the voices singing, conversing, whatever. I suppose that is "doctoring" but it ISN'T putting in anything that wasn't there already. I think this is used on the soundtracks of movies as well.... Advanced technology of the same sort CAN be used to add one sound to another (for new CDs etc. in a recording studio). The technology itself is neutral: it all depends on what is being done with it.... I'll back JC on this. As one with several years experience in image processing, including writing software filtering algorithms, I can testify that algorithms may be used or tweaked to generate different, preferred results. Removing "noise" requires some understanding of what the underlying "signal" is expected to be. So if one removes "noise" using algorithms chosen or tweaked assuming the "signal" includes a human face, one may obviously have success in making the image appear to look more like a face. And image (and audio) processing algorithms may (and often do) result in information being added to the "original." It's called enhancement.

03-29-2002, 02:39 PM	#27
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	And what would be a "sensical" way, in your opinion?

03-29-2002, 02:58 PM	#28
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	The way that we reveal ourselves to each other. And if that is unsatisfactory, then what would be better?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.