Sandy Hook: License Plate on Honda Civic

JRBids

Senior Member.
I was just double checking the info provided, since there seems to be a question about the car. Wonder of anyone else has better info.

Look at the license plates on these 2 photos

http://imageshack.us/a/img607/336/628x4711.jpg

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/16/67/36/3897225/3/3140x2355.jpg

They don't look like they match, I wonder if anyone can sharpen the image?


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

JonJson

Active Member

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I was just double checking the info provided, since there seems to be a question about the car. Wonder of anyone else has better info.

Look at the license plates on these 2 photos

http://imageshack.us/a/img607/336/628x4711.jpg


http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/16/67/36/3897225/3/3140x2355.jpg


They don't look like they match, I wonder if anyone can sharpen the image?

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:




It's perfectly obvious it's the same image just reduced, and the number plate has not been changed.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Look at the license plates on these 2 photos
...

They don't look like they match, I wonder if anyone can sharpen the image?

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.
 

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:


If you actually zoom in on the 628 image, you get this:


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



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!,

 
Last edited:

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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff 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.

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

JRBids

Senior 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.


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?
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
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:




It's perfectly obvious it's the same image just reduced, and the number plate has not been changed.

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:
U

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?

"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?)
 

deirdre

Senior 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.jpg

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

However, other questions remain and need to be answered. First, the license plate, when traced via through the DMV, turns out to be owned by the Dane County Sheriff’s Department in Madison, WI. The CT license plate also returns search results for a 2010 Ford Silver Crown Vic Police Interceptor, issued, 03/29/2012, which was prior to the Sandy Hook shooting. Its listed activity is “PTT” and Registration Type is for “GOV” use. The VIN number for this vehicle is 2FABP7BV4AX134170. Separate databases yield conflicting results for the same license plate considering the owner of is Dane County Sheriff’s Department but also listed as a 2010 Honda Civic and the license plate is listed as a police interceptor.

Content from External Source
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.jpg


so maybe they have a "872" car also. and that license plate lookup site just sucks.
 

sharpnfuzzy

Active Member
... and that license plate lookup site just sucks.

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.
 
Top