UM-Bot Posted January 22, 2023 #1 Share Posted January 22, 2023 Jaime Maussan used artificial intelligence software to enhance the original image of a 'round, domed ship'. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/363391/ufo-expert-posts-up-ai-enhanced-image-of-object-spotted-over-juarez 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esoteric_toad Posted January 22, 2023 #2 Share Posted January 22, 2023 (edited) AI does not know what the shape is and is only guessing. Since the data was not there before the 'enhancement' it is basically just filling in and making a shape up. This provides zero evidence. Chances are if you took a permanent marker to a photo and fed it to an 'AI' it would look something like this. Check out AI images of people. Check out the hands and teeth. It cannot even get that right https://creator.nightcafe.studio/creation/ZPYvhJVG5ELo7wpmiAbF. Edited January 22, 2023 by esoteric_toad 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted January 22, 2023 #3 Share Posted January 22, 2023 Give monkey the gun... Bit for AI 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_mc Posted January 22, 2023 #4 Share Posted January 22, 2023 Looks like a mushroom hat to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted January 22, 2023 #5 Share Posted January 22, 2023 ufo expert 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted January 22, 2023 #6 Share Posted January 22, 2023 @ChrLzs. ....... 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gumball Posted January 23, 2023 #7 Share Posted January 23, 2023 See it has made it look like an oil painting which really doesn't help his case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted January 23, 2023 #8 Share Posted January 23, 2023 (edited) 8 hours ago, UM-Bot said: Jaime Maussan used artificial intelligence software to enhance the original image of a 'round, domed ship'. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/363391/ufo-expert-posts-up-ai-enhanced-image-of-object-spotted-over-juarez Oh, dearie, dearie me... Where to begin? First, I think I'll vomit... Second, you probably should Google Jaime Maussan. He is a UFO=alienz promoter, his background is NOT in any sort of digital image enhancement or genuine scientific analysis.. and to be more than polite, his utterances on the topic in the past have been somewhere between blatant misinformation and unscientific claptrap. But that all being said, we must always assume the best, even if initial appearances are to the contrary. And they are... Please note that I'm busy at the moment, so this rebuttal analysis is going to be spread over several posts, possibly over a few days, even. Sorry, but I'd really like to sink this comprehensively.. So... let's take a look at the original image supplied by Jaime: Now, what follows assumes that this is the best original that is available. If anyone has found a higher resolution version of this 'full' image, please let me know. Jaime is not very reliable when it comes to posing links and references. First impressions can be quite important, and I'd make a few comments: 1. This appears to be a crop from another file. It is 664 x 589 pixels - that is not a standard image size. 2. The quality is poor. Note that everything is a bit fuzzy, there don't seem to be any truly sharp edges (more about this later), and also if you look at areas of high contrast, eg the edges of dark things against a light background, note that there is a 'halo' around everything. This tells me the image has been excessively sharpened and or had its contrast adjusted, either via the camera settings or post-processing. More about this later too - suffice to say it's a very bad thing, especially if you are wanting to enlarge anything....... 3. My first impression is that there is a bird flying past, that has been identified by Mr Maussan as a UFO (=alienz!) Stay tuned... by the way, I'll explain everything I do, so you can verify what I say. You'll never see Jaime do that... Edited January 23, 2023 by ChrLzs 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted January 23, 2023 #9 Share Posted January 23, 2023 (edited) Photo enhancing AI? Sounds like meh. Why would you need AI to use photoshop? That said it’s a pretty cool photo even without enhancing especially if the object was not added after it was taken. Would love to see the original before it was shrunk to twitter size limits. Doubt that will happen. Edited January 23, 2023 by OverSword 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted January 23, 2023 #10 Share Posted January 23, 2023 (edited) Now to justify those first three points above... For note 1. - I just measured the pixels, so that is 100% correct and verified. For note 2. - here's the edge effect - if you look at where there is edge contrast, eg a dark area abuts a light area, you will find that a couple of pixels width on the dark side has been artificially darkened and a couple of pixels width on the light side has been lightened. The effect is quite noticeable where I've put the arrows: This is a very common way to sharpen an image, although it has been done *very* poorly here. All of that 'tinkering' is FALSE detail - the program made it up, based on nothing real.. Analytically, that sort of image 'enhancement' is far worse than useless as it results in the dreaded false detail.. So even from this alone, our 'UFO' has been polluted by false detail. Only a fool or someone completely unfamiliar with digital imaging, would throw ANY additional enhancement or enlargement at it, let alone lousy amateurish work as shown here. The other HUGE problem here, is if that is the highest resolution of this image, the 'UFO' is only about 5 pixels wide by about 18 pixels long. That is nowhere near the amount required to (for example) show those ridiculous windowy looking things in the enhanced version. Here's what it looks like if you enlarge it WITHOUT adding any false details (which is what Jaime's 'AI' method has done in spades): That's all the camera recorded. Each of those little blocky squares is one pixel, which is the smallest dot in an image. I've deliberately enlarged it so you can see the true extent of the 'detail'. Yes, you can see a vague shape, but you can also can see that if that original sharpening affected a couple of rows of pixels at the top, bottom and sides, virtually the whole thing is contaminated by false detail. And that's before Jaime mangled the image with his incompetence. It is absolute and utter bull**** that any AI can resolve 'hidden detail' as demonstrated here - Jaime may as well have got out his crayons. Now about item 3. - let's look at something rather odd. It's a rather dark blob compared to the rest of the picture... Can we work out anything from that? Stay tuned. Edited January 23, 2023 by ChrLzs 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the13bats Posted January 23, 2023 #11 Share Posted January 23, 2023 9 hours ago, ChrLzs said: Second, you probably should Google Jaime Maussan. He is a UFO=alienz promoter, his background is NOT in any sort of digital image enhancement or genuine scientific analysis.. and to be more than polite, his utterances on the topic in the past have been somewhere between blatant misinformation and unscientific claptrap. He is a complete and total charlatan and i wonder if he is facing legal repercussion from his desecration of human remains and burial sites with that alien mummy BS he was pushing. If not he should be. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fauxhammmer Posted January 23, 2023 #12 Share Posted January 23, 2023 Once I read “Jaime Maussan” in any article, I’m out! It’s equal to reading Ed and Lorraine Warren in a paranormal article! 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItwasAliens Posted January 24, 2023 #13 Share Posted January 24, 2023 Could this drop of water on someone’s windshield be of non-human origin? Some ancient astronaut theorist somewhere is saying a profound yes. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the13bats Posted January 24, 2023 #14 Share Posted January 24, 2023 3 hours ago, Fauxhammmer said: Once I read “Jaime Maussan” in any article, I’m out! It’s equal to reading Ed and Lorraine Warren in a paranormal article! You way nailed that one! Did you hear the story where the warrens were on some talk show with joe nickells who ask ed for proof ed threatened joe with bodily harm. Best i got on jaime is he paid 10k for a monkey skeleton because he thought it had to be an alien. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted January 25, 2023 #15 Share Posted January 25, 2023 I have a few moments, so let's delve a little deeper into specifics, and see whether Jaime Maussan's AI is artificially intelligent, or artificially idiotic. Here's what Jaime ended up with, and then the actual data at right: A few comments... (I can't help thinking one eyed shark..) Sorry, I'll be serious now.. Look at the little cloud above - that VERY strongly looks like Photoshop's EMBOSS tool. The emboss tool is an additive tool that adds false detail in order to get a 3D effect. Jaime wanted a 3D effect and sorta got one (that's NOT how you do image analysis). Maussan used his AI (Artificial Idiocy) program to smoothed out the outline and transform it into a curved solid shape, with about a bazillion added pixels to falsely raise the resolution. It then looks as if he has used either a contrast enhancement, or perhaps UnSharp Mask (USM). USM can be handy if you have a very good quality original (we don't), but it is a tiny bit out of focus. It enhances edges, but in this case it seems to have been applied very amateurishly, as it is all over the shop - some parts have the extra contrast, others don't. Added to the EMBOSS effect, USM and contrast adjustment are ALL tools you should not use in image analysis as they fu mess with the original pixels - they change things, add things, and delete things. FALSE details. Made up pixels. And what about those 'windows'? Look carefully at the circled line of pixels in this original, enlarged image: That line of pixels suffers badly from 'posterisation'. Posterising is the effect you get due to there being a limited number of discrete colors, so in order to show a gradient of say light to dark, or of one colour changing to another, there will be 'jumps' in the color brightness of adjacent pixels - at normal viewing distances it will look smooth, and this process saves on file size. Let me repeat that - JPEG files use a limited color depth and the compression process (which keeps the file size down) uses a method where it jumps from one color/brightness to another. It looks fine at a distance but if you enlarge the beejezus out of it, you'll see ... FALSE 'detail'. So, in this case, the Artificial Idiot AGAIN decides to emphasise this already false detail by adding skinny lines as if each original pixel was in fact a 'window'. Of course it is obvious that there aren't enough pixels in the original image to have captured any such detail. I hope it is clear what Jaime Maussan has done here. He's completely mangled and regenrated and heavily altered the original image in a way that is utterly moronic, and that has very little in common with the actual recorded pixels, which are way to few and way too small to resolve any detail in what is almost certainly a seabird flying past. When I have time, I'll pop by and explain another reason why I believe this is simply a nearby bird flying across the shot... And if not, is most likely a fake addition. I might also take the liberty of reversing Jaime's enhancement, to see exactly what we get back to.... (what this means is that we'll take that made-up image back down to the same number of pixels as in the original data, and see just how closely it matches. If it's not identical, then that will very obviously mean Jaime Maussan has cheated, and at best doesn't understand anything about how his AI program works. Frankly, I don't think he has got any AI software, as nothing could be that bad.. He's just played with photoshop. Like I said, he may as well have just scribbled all over the image with his crayons. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now