Yes, I understand the math involved in creating the graphs.
So what? What do you know about solar physics or satellite images in general?
Solar physics? I know that a solid surface on the Sun has been shown not to exist by the science of helioseismology, has been shown not to exist by the science of gravity/general relativity, and has been shown to be impossible by the science of thermodynamics.
Satellite images in general? I know that the reason the 171Å and 195Å filters are used to obtain the images is because they gather data specifically from far above the photosphere. I know that any kind of processing of those images, unless there's literally a previously undiscovered miracle of physics involved, can not possibly show features under the photosphere. I know that Dr. Neal Hurlburt of LMSAL, the man responsible for acquiring, processing, and analyzing the data from the TRACE solar exploration satellite, agrees with my assessment of running difference images.
I know that you claim to be qualified to understand running difference images, but you haven't shown even the most rudimentary qualifications in a half a decade of blathering on the Internet. I know that you claim to have made running difference images, yet the results of your effort appear to be something quite different, probably forgeries.
You don't understand math at all,
You do realize I'll bury you in court for this sort of trash, right?
I realize you talk the talk, but in over five years of watching you run our mouth on various Internet forums I've never once seen you back up your talk with any action. You can't even be bothered to actually support your claims about your crackpot notions of the Sun's surface.
And as I said before, if you want to sue me for saying you don't understand math, you'd have to show the court that you do. If you want to sue me for saying your bogus "running difference" images are fraudulent, you'd have to show the court that you actually know what you're talking about there, too. And we both know that's not going to happen.
Also, if you really want to bury me in court, go find the quotes on another forum where I flat out called you mentally ill. I haven't said that directly on this forum, but if you would like to directly solicit my opinion on why you see things that aren't really there, I'd be happy to provide it. If you're going to sue me, make it good.
much less what is involved in producing running difference output.
The only problem in your rant here of course is that I accepted your '"Explanation" of the technique long ago, so we aren't actually arguing over the technique, just the fact you avoid the solar physics entirely.
Accept it or not, you do not understand the results of the technique, which obviously leads to the conclusion that you don't actually understand the technique itself. And as for solar physics, it seems you're at odds with, well, every last professional researcher, educator, and scientist working in any related field anywhere on the face of this planet. I don't avoid solar physics. I just don't buy into your wacky ideas which clearly are, by definition, delusions.
Therefore I'm qualified to say what the running difference graphs show and don't show. You aren't.
Until you address the physics of what's happening in the image, frame by frame, pixel by pixel, all you've done is address the math and ignored the physics entirely. That's typical of you guys.
I don't care to address anything about the images that isn't really there. Why should I? Whose face is that in those pictures of that face on Mars? It's not really a face, you say? Duh. The stuff you're seeing in those satellite images isn't really solid surface features either. Maybe it pisses you off because I'm not letting you jump all over the place, dodging and weaving to avoid particular issues. I choose to start right form the beginning and stay focused.
You post a couple of running difference graphs at the very top of your web site. You can't even explain those. Why should anyone go any further with you than that first, top of the page crap you lay out there as "evidence" of your crackpot conjecture? You convince us that you do have the expertise to properly analyze those images, you show us that you actually do understand running difference images, you explain how data gathered thousands of kilometers
above the photosphere can be processed into something that shows surface features
below the photosphere, and then I'll be happy to move on. In five years you haven't even been able to explain what's on the top 3 inches of
your very own web site.
Your qualifications have been challenged, and you have refused to offer any support for your claim that you are qualified.
I can demonstrate your ignorance on qualification right here, right now, just by noting that you're bitching about a software program, not a technique and technically speaking it doesn't matter which software one uses to create a basic RD image. That Photoshop rant was your own worst enemy.
What exact series of PhotoShop filters did you apply to which specific original image to get those fake running difference images you fraudulently post on your web site? We could actually determine that you're being honest here, but for some odd (actually quite apparent) reason, you're balking. If you weren't trying to hide something, you'd come clean.
By the way, be specific. What did I manipulate in any of those images that constitutes "fraud"?
The fraud comes in the fact that you're trying to pass something off as something it's not. You could, you know, prove me wrong by explaining the exact process you used to create those bogus images. But you won't because you know as well as I that they're fakes.
Oh, and in over five years, after asking this questions probably more than fifty times, you
still ignore it. Why is that, Michael? Care to demonstrate your ignorance one more time?...
What method is involved in taking images of data from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and processing them in some way that shows surface features below the photosphere?
).