Guth's kooky web page

On Jul 10, 8:14 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:03 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 7, 4:54 pm, Bob Officer wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 19:15:47 -0400, in alt.astronomy, ah

wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 7:06 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 5, 5:03 am, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

[...]

I'll take all the honestly positive and thus constructive feedback
you've got to offer.

You need to set-out a reproducible set of steps . . . anything else cannot
be reliably peer reviewed.

Oh, and you need a little work on your lingo. Give footnotes, if necessary.

Being reviewed by a peer of incest cloned bigots isn't exactly what
I'd call a necessary step.

However, I may try to edit a previous web page, just to see if there's
fewer words that'll say the exact same as I've been saying all along
for the last 7 years and counting.

BTW, I tried much nicer "lingo" at first, including several positive
efforts in directly sharing with our NASA by phone. So, I've been
there, and I've done that dozens of times as of years ago. Where the
heck were you or others of your kind?

Hey, Man: I don't know about seven years ago . . . what we got is now.

You want credibility?

Delineate the reconstruction of a systematic series of reproducible steps
intended to achieve your result.

That's science.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've been there and done that process a good hundred times.

If you're a rusemaster/naysayer, no amount "reconstruction of a
systematic series of reproducible steps" is going to save the day.

If you folks can't demonstrate as for doing as well or actually a
whole lot better than myself, then you and others of your infomercial
spewing kind have no business in suggesting that anything I've
accomplished is in any way bogus or hardly as hocus pocus, like folks
supposedly having walked on our moon.

Fine.

Have it your way.

I thought if we even had a hint of how he came up with a JPG image of
derived from FITS Data set, we could understand the processing. As
far as I can see he could have anyplace along the process edited the
image on the bit level, and then continued oversampling, to get to
the end image he shows on the web page.

--
Ak'toh'di- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good grief almighty. What sort of photo enlarge/enhance software
doesn't have a GIF to JPEG conversion?

Just be certain to turn off all the JPEG file compression and/or pixel
rounding features before saving to disk.

Uh . . . JP(E)G--by it's nature--is an algorithmically-derived format, thus _any_ transfer into or out of JP{(E)G will
result in some form of obfuscatory degradation, thus some degree of loss of the original digital information.

Unless you're doing something weird or plain wrong, this conversion
process can go back and forth a thousand times without such ever
affecting one lousy pixel.

ROLF!

"Hi! I made a pikture in Mkrosopft Paynt!"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is that your best infomercial white noise?

I didn't realise you were prone to litany.

Being human, I'm prone to many things, along with a touch of my
dyslexic encrypted mindset to boot.


Lets see your best efforts. Go right ahead and knock our dumbfounded
socks off.

I doubt that, but I'll give it a shot.

You'll probably have to wait for the weekend, though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's more than good enough, as I'd spent months before going lose
cannon postal.

Image enlarging is not something for the average naysayer, much less
is observationology ever going to get honestly applied in any
deductive sense of the word.

Remember, that just because something is very large doesn't mean that
it doesn't exist.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 10, 8:14 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:03 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 7, 4:54 pm, Bob Officer wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 19:15:47 -0400, in alt.astronomy, ah

wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 7:06 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 5, 5:03 am, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

[...]

I'll take all the honestly positive and thus constructive feedback
you've got to offer.

You need to set-out a reproducible set of steps . . . anything else cannot
be reliably peer reviewed.

Oh, and you need a little work on your lingo. Give footnotes, if necessary.

Being reviewed by a peer of incest cloned bigots isn't exactly what
I'd call a necessary step.

However, I may try to edit a previous web page, just to see if there's
fewer words that'll say the exact same as I've been saying all along
for the last 7 years and counting.

BTW, I tried much nicer "lingo" at first, including several positive
efforts in directly sharing with our NASA by phone. So, I've been
there, and I've done that dozens of times as of years ago. Where the
heck were you or others of your kind?

Hey, Man: I don't know about seven years ago . . . what we got is now.

You want credibility?

Delineate the reconstruction of a systematic series of reproducible steps
intended to achieve your result.

That's science.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've been there and done that process a good hundred times.

If you're a rusemaster/naysayer, no amount "reconstruction of a
systematic series of reproducible steps" is going to save the day.

If you folks can't demonstrate as for doing as well or actually a
whole lot better than myself, then you and others of your infomercial
spewing kind have no business in suggesting that anything I've
accomplished is in any way bogus or hardly as hocus pocus, like folks
supposedly having walked on our moon.

Fine.

Have it your way.

I thought if we even had a hint of how he came up with a JPG image of
derived from FITS Data set, we could understand the processing. As
far as I can see he could have anyplace along the process edited the
image on the bit level, and then continued oversampling, to get to
the end image he shows on the web page.

--
Ak'toh'di- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good grief almighty. What sort of photo enlarge/enhance software
doesn't have a GIF to JPEG conversion?

Just be certain to turn off all the JPEG file compression and/or pixel
rounding features before saving to disk.

Uh . . . JP(E)G--by it's nature--is an algorithmically-derived format, thus _any_ transfer into or out of JP{(E)G will
result in some form of obfuscatory degradation, thus some degree of loss of the original digital information.

Unless you're doing something weird or plain wrong, this conversion
process can go back and forth a thousand times without such ever
affecting one lousy pixel.

ROLF!

"Hi! I made a pikture in Mkrosopft Paynt!"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is that your best infomercial white noise?

I didn't realise you were prone to litany.

Being human, I'm prone to many things, along with a touch of my
dyslexic encrypted mindset to boot.


Lets see your best efforts. Go right ahead and knock our dumbfounded
socks off.

I doubt that, but I'll give it a shot.

You'll probably have to wait for the weekend, though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's more than good enough, as I'd spent months before going lose
cannon postal.

Easy to see why, working with just the .gif

I found your spot via JPL he

http://pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov/PDS/...rcd_query.html

Just to the right--and below--center is a dark spot that looks like the head of
Anpu (Anubis) . . . it's to the left side of that whitish cottoncandy-esque mass.

Clicking just to the left of 'Anubis' gives a sector shot that seem to be
located between Lat(-16 -- -19), and Lon(95 -- 101).

For example:

http://pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov/outd...info.7130.html

is pretty-much the same as

http://pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov/outd...info.7469.html

I've downloaded FITS of the available data types, but the broad range of
conversion possibilities makes an intelligible assessment much more arduous than
originally for-seen.

I'm using IRIS, btw, to do my FITS conversions.

Alas, I'm (paid) working on two different websites in my spare time off FT work,
so this 'fun' will have to wait a bit longer.


Image enlarging is not something for the average naysayer, much less
is observationology ever going to get honestly applied in any
deductive sense of the word.

Seriously, Brad: working from such a poor data set does nothing but relegate
most such analysis to the deductive realm.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, mind, but it doesn't do a lot to
bolster any claim you, I, or anyone else may have.

Now, if JPL has (and offers access to) the original data set(s)--set(s) which
have far greater granularity--more precise analysis could be performed . . . .


Remember, that just because something is very large doesn't mean that
it doesn't exist.

Zen and the Art of Obfuscation?

I see that you're still stuck in that naysay toilet.
-
Brad Guth

"BradGuth" wrote in message
ps.com...
I see that you're still stuck in that naysay toilet.
-
Brad Guth

Where Art Deco poots, "ah" is right there to Slurp.

HJ

BradGuth wrote:
I see that you're still stuck in that naysay toilet.

Nay.

"ah" wrote in message
...
BradGuth wrote:
I see that you're still stuck in that naysay toilet.

Nay.

Using plunger to help Flush "ah".

HJ

ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
I see that you're still stuck in that naysay toilet.

Nay.

Nay.

--
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads for alt.astronomy
Trainer and leash holder of:
Honest "Clockbrain" John
nightbat "fro0tbat" of alt.astronomy
Tom "TommY Crackpotter" Potter
http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=deco

"You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco."
--Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something"

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
I see that you're still stuck in that naysay toilet.

Nay.

Nay.

Slurp...Slurp...Slurp...

"Bob Officer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:11:50 -0600, in alt.astronomy, Art Deco
wrote:

ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
I see that you're still stuck in that naysay toilet.

Nay.

Nay.

Nay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkNBCvlartg

HJ

Bob Officer wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:11:50 -0600, in alt.astronomy, Art Deco
wrote:

ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
I see that you're still stuck in that naysay toilet.

Nay.

Nay.

Nay.

Nay.