1. Tazmanian

    Tazmanian Account Closed

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  2. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member


    I just made it bigger, they both look the same to me. Why would someone change the license number in a photo?
     
  3. Tazmanian

    Tazmanian Account Closed

    LP.

    872 YEO ???

    I wish someone would rez it up in Photoshop and post it here.
     
  4. Tazmanian

    Tazmanian Account Closed

    Someone on You Tube has already done it LP1.
     
  5. Tazmanian

    Tazmanian Account Closed

  6. JonJson

    JonJson Active Member

    The explanation is on the form itself in the box above the section you want explained.

    The entry 2010-03-0063607 is not a date but the bill number. The -03 designates it as a motor vehicle.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Yes. Why would they?
     
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's much simpler to prove it's the same image by taking the large 3140x2355 image, and reducing it down to 628 wide, like:
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    It's perfectly obvious it's the same image just reduced, and the number plate has not been changed.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  9. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member


    You tell me, Mr Unregistered.
     
  10. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Is it believed these are actually two different shots? Of the exact same moment and angle? It's just likely the larger shot was reduced in quality to upload, and the cropped photo has retained more of the original resolution.
    Sharpening the larger lower resolution picture is just going to result in false information.

    Edit... I'm wrong going by Mick's post below - I guess the large picture has just as much info as the smaller.
     
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This type of thing is an easy mistake to make if you are not familiar with how images and pixels work. If you zoom in on the actual raw pixels of the large image you get:

    [​IMG]
    If you actually zoom in on the 628 image, you get this:
    [​IMG]

    But when images are enlarged, they are usually interpolated (smoothed) to get rid of the pixel squares.

    [​IMG]

    And then adding contrast and sharpening just makes things worse. It seems like you are making it clearer, but really you are simply creating shapes out of whatever blurry pixels you scaled up. So you get this, which looks something like 4TIIL!,

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  12. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    As someone who has worked with photos and photoshop for major textbooks publishers for years, I can assure anyone wondering, you cannot turn a lo rez image into a high rez image.
     
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Well, technically you can increase the resolution, you just can't increase the amount of information in the image.

    There are various techniques for "upscaling" an image, but they are all about making it look better. They can sometimes make an image easier to make out. But can also, as above, make the image harder to make out, or make it look like something else entirely.

    You get a lot of this from UFO photos, where three pixels gets blown up into some huge image.
     
  14. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Right, you can't ADD information, which is why if you have a need to have 300dpi to print, you can turn a 150 dpi photo into a 300.
     
  15. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    Okay so you cant really do this. when an object is out of focus and captured with a digital camera it makes up a good deal of the data you see anyway. the thread about reptile secret service details this pretty well.

    Guessing what you think you see from something blurry is a god damn farce. Do we need to go into the whole "indians see sailing ships as sea monsters" example here? your mind evolved to see patterns or make them up if it cant find one, you will no matter what see SOMETHING, and if you dont have enough data for a real answer you make one up based off what you wish were true or think would be.... its be tested countless times. anyone who thinks they can darken, clear up, and extrapolate any information from this is just masturbating their ego.

    anyhow even if this wasn't the case, or a moot point, the hell would this prove/add to this anyway? if there was any iota of truth to this conspiracy, dont you think the fed could/would have stamped a simple bogus plate to be used and staged the photo with a real car? i dont get this at all.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member


    It's certainly does appear they're running out of minutia to examine. Now that we've discussed photos of cars and people in a parking lot with shadows taken from different angles, they want to compare the same exact shot, with differing resolutions?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    I am not sure why common sense is not applied when dealing with Sandy hook but ok lets pretend they changed the license plate for a second. 872 is clearly seen on both pictures along with the y and o. the only letter that looks different would be the E and the second picture looks like an L. So instead of using common sense and saying one picture is blurry and the other one is clear. End of story oh no the hoaxers will run around saying they changed the license plate and found one almost the exact same too. what would be the point?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  18. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    "Why? Well....you mean....why would they switch a registration plate for a similar one? Well, it's obvious isn't it? It's because..........I'll get back to you........". ("Truthers" don't think that far ahead. Rather like the nuns with comfortable shoes. This proves what? That nuns prefer sensible shoes?)
     
  19. MrOctober77

    MrOctober77 New Member

    A new claim has come out about the Lanza car, linking it to the Dane County WI sheriff dept.

    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=117172

    The author does not mention contacting the sheriff office, which should have the first thing to do you would think.

    sledge-3-768x647.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2019
  20. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    well i'm not paying 4 dollars and to see if i get the same results. And it is illegal for me to post them anyway.

    but she kinda debunks it right in her article
    i say "her" because the original source is Stephanie Sledge http://archive.fo/54kya#selection-587.464-587.481

    Wisconsin Motor Vehicle does not register Connecticut license plates. period.
    Here is one of Dane County's (which is where James Fetzer is from, btw) Crown Vics
    12871148915_3fc9ab98cf_b.


    so maybe they have a "872" car also. and that license plate lookup site just sucks.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  21. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    yup
    21113440155_4b7de604b9_b.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  22. sharpnfuzzy

    sharpnfuzzy Member

    The space character is probably causing the search term to be truncated in whatever database or system has the Wisconsin registrations. My guess is that a search for 862 YEO would show results for the first cruiser above? I don't wanna pay $4 either to find out though.
     
  23. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member