GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE

Science > Physics > GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 3 of 6

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"George Hammond"
Date:	08 Oct 2005 04:15:41 PM
Object:	GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE

OK, I have proposed that it is possible to make a video
movie that will be VISIBLE to adults but INVISIBLE
to children.
For instance you could make porno movies that would
be VISIBLE to adults, but INVISIBLE to children.
------------------------------------------------
Most people don't believe this is possible, and this is
WHY they don't believe in God! This phenomena is
essentially a demonstration of what the phenomenon
of GOD is!
------------------------------------------------
OK, here's how it can be done.
It is a known fact that the PFF
(movie picture fusion frequency)
of an adult is 15 frames/sec.
This is why silent Movies were all
shot at 16 fps (the minimum frequency
for adults)
It is also a known fact that the PFF
of a 5 year old is only 8 frames/sec.
(Riedel, 1966)
This is because the PFF is INTELLIGENCE
dependent, and ungrown children have lower
intellgiences than adults because their brains
aren't fully grown... and thus lower PFF's.
OK.... so this is how the movie is made:
The above data shows that it takes 1/15 of a second
for an adult to recognize a single picture (movie frame)
but it takes 1/8 of a second for a 5 year old to recognize
the same picture.
So here's what you do. Make a film strip with
still frames of the Kentucky Derby 1/16
of a second long, alternated by still frames of a
blank light grey background 1/8 of a second long.
Since it takes the kid 1/8 of a second to see the
horses but they are only falshed for 1/16 of a
second.... he will see nothing but a light grey screen
with nothing on it.
The adult however CAN see a picture that is only
flashed for 1/16 of a second... so he will see a film
of the Kentucky Derby.
Now video films are shot at 30 frames per second,
so this means if you are making a video, you would
have to show 2 frames of the Derby, followed by
4 frames of the grey background, thus giving the
desired 1/15 sec and 1/7.5 sec alternating sequence.
I am willing to bet you $100 bucks, that the
Kentucky Derby will be clearly visible to ADULTS,
while the Derby will be ABSOLUTELY INVISIBLE
to children watching the same video!
By the way, the video interlacing should eliminate any
annoying flicker problems.
Any vido film makers want to take me up on the
wager?
If so.... I will yield FULL PATENT RIGHTS to the
invention of "childproof X-rated film technology", to
you, which should reap you a fortune... not to mention
world wide publicity......... all I ask is that you
give me a copy of the video since it proves the
"existence of the invisble world".... and thus the
"existence of God"... which I am interested in proving.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================
.

User: "Nosterill"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	11 Oct 2005 03:57:02 AM

George Hammond wrote:

<snip>
Oh sure... you can see a "flash of light" at 1/100 of a sec...
but you can't "recognize any pictures" at that speed.

Oh yes I can!
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	11 Oct 2005 07:01:18 AM

On 11 Oct 2005 01:57:02 -0700, "Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com>
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

<snip>
Oh sure... you can see a "flash of light" at 1/100 of a sec...
but you can't "recognize any pictures" at that speed.

Oh yes I can!

Single flash projector Tachyscope testing has proved you wrong years
ago.... to say nothing of decades of subliminal movie testing data.
Go ahead, open up your 35 mm camera, set it on 1/100 of a sec,
point it at a road sign, look thru it and snap the shutter, you won't
see anything but a flash of daylight.
Move it down to 1/15 of a sec and you'll see the sign.
Somebody already tried this.... get back to us.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: "Mark Martin"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	11 Oct 2005 08:29:13 AM

George Hammond wrote:

On 11 Oct 2005 01:57:02 -0700, "Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com>
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

<snip>
Oh sure... you can see a "flash of light" at 1/100 of a sec...
but you can't "recognize any pictures" at that speed.

Oh yes I can!

I used to be a theater projection operator. Movie film, after just a
few projector passes, accumulates a well distributed collection of dust
particles. No two frames have exactly, or even nearly exactly, the same
distribution of dust. Have you actually gone to the movies? Running at
24 fps, the field of dust specks can be seen plainly for every single
frame. Having been in a position to observe the dust pattern on a given
physical film print repeatedly, I can say with confidence that the dust
on individual frames can be registered & resolved even to the point of
becoming intimately familiar with them. By the end of a one week run, I
used to anticipate specific dust specks on specific frames reliably. Go
watch an old movie on TV that's digitized from a dirty film print.
And so-called subliminal imaging REQUIRES that the image be both
registerable and resolvable at 1/24 of a second. If a sign saying "buy
popcorn" weren't perceptible, then it WOULDN'T WORK. No one would be
able to read it to begin with. EVERY frame of a motion picture is
plainly visible. The fusion rate has only to do with continuity of
motion.
And as for continuity of motion, the frame refresh rate can be
dropped to even below 15 fps. There are cheap, low end digital movie
cameras on the shelves at this moment which shoot at only 10 fps. I've
seen experimental video shot at only 5 fps, in which motion tolerably
approximates continuity.
-Mark Martin
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	11 Oct 2005 07:01:21 PM

On 11 Oct 2005 06:29:13 -0700, "Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com>
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

On 11 Oct 2005 01:57:02 -0700, "Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com>
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

<snip>
Oh sure... you can see a "flash of light" at 1/100 of a sec...
but you can't "recognize any pictures" at that speed.

Oh yes I can!

[Hammond]
Look... there's something you're not taking into account.
the human PFF (Picture Fusion Frequency" is HIGHLY
IQ DEPENDENT.
In fact, the relation between IQ and PFF is given by:
IQ = 5 PFF + 25
or solving for PFF:
PFF = IQ/5 -5
OK... for a person with an average IQ (100) his PFF
will be:
PFF = 100/5 - 5 = 15 frames/sec
which is the population average PFF.
Which is WHY silent movies were all shot at 16 fps
(they only bumped it to 24 when talkies came out
to keep the SOUND TRACK from warbling)
but for a person with an IQ of 140, then
his PFF will be:
PFF= 140/5 - 5 = 23 frames/sec
So... assuming the movie is running at 24 frames/sec... it is
entirely possible that YOU might be able to see individual
dust frames..... but the average person CANNOT!
You sound pretty bright to me, theatre projector operators
would have to be reasonjably bright. It's entirely possible
that you do have an IQ of 140.... many research physicists
have measured IQ's in excess of 160.

Ever had your IQ tested?

And so-called subliminal imaging REQUIRES that the image be both
registerable and resolvable at 1/24 of a second. If a sign saying "buy
popcorn" weren't perceptible, then it WOULDN'T WORK. No one would be
able to read it to begin with.
EVERY frame of a motion picture is
plainly visible.

[Hammond]
WRONG. the average human can oly see 15 frames/sec (or less)
as individual frames. this has been known since the time of
Thomas Edison.

The fusion rate has only to do with continuity of
motion.

[Hammond]
Same difference.

And as for continuity of motion, the frame refresh rate can be
dropped to even below 15 fps. There are cheap, low end digital movie
cameras on the shelves at this moment which shoot at only 10 fps. I've
seen experimental video shot at only 5 fps, in which motion tolerably
approximates continuity.

[Hammond]
sure, sure, sure... I know all about it. the averager AVI or MPEG
on a computer is only running at 12 frames/sec because they are
compressed to cut the file size. this is common knowledge.
The point is you can't see a photo flashed FASTER then 1/yourPFF

-Mark Martin

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: "Mark Martin"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	11 Oct 2005 10:18:14 PM

George Hammond wrote:

Ever had your IQ tested?

Yes: 127. But it's much worse than that. When theater film runs at
24 fps, that's just the refresh rate. When a single frame is projected
onto the screen it must stand still. The strip of film must undergo
intermittent advancement. It is moved into the light gate, exposed to
the light source, then advanced & replaced by the next frame. In order
to avoid the blurr of the advancing frame, the projector has a shutter
between the gate & the lamphouse, the light source.
Just slightly before the frame is to advance, the shutter eclipses
the lamphouse. While the light is cut off, the frame then advances.
Once the next frame is in place, the shutter opens and allows the
current frame to be seen. Each frame is visible, really, for only 1/48
second. Anything which is visible for exactly one frame, for example a
dust particle, is registered for only 1/48 second.
And it's not just objects such as dust. In a fast paced action movie
there are sequences of shots which may last only a few frames each, and
events within a shot may occupy not more than one or two frames. The
muzzle flash of a gun sometimes is only a single frame, yet everyone
sees it. In Star Wars movies there are many such single frame events
which are clearly seen. But not only that, but sometimes the visual
effects aren't executed perfectly, yielding mistakes which are visible,
but last but a single frame. In the original 1980 release print of The
Empire Strikes Back there's a shot of Darth Vader standing with his
glowing light saber. The glow effect was added in post production by an
effects technician. But as it turns out there's a mistake. The exact
last frame of the shot is "naked"; the glow effect is not present,
revealing a plain prop blade. But this individual frame is clearly
visible. Same thing in the 1st remake of King Kong. There's a shot
looking straight up between the twin towers as Kong falls from directly
above. But- the exact first frame of the shot has no Kong in it. He
appears in midair 1/24 second into the shot. But all of these things
are really visible for only 1/48 second.

EVERY frame of a motion picture is
plainly visible.

[Hammond]
WRONG. the average human can oly see 15 frames/sec (or less)
as individual frames. this has been known since the time of
Thomas Edison.

The reason that subliminal advertising was made illegal is that it
tended to work. In order for it to work, a viewer must be able to read
the message, and do so in only 1/48 second. Every frame is visible.
In the late '70s Douglas Trumbull patented a process called
"ShowScan". All it basically amounts to is increasing the frame rate. A
movie is photographed & projected at 72 fps. The motivation was the
observation that a higher frame rate = more information, causing the
motion to appear vastly more real than the standard 24 fps. If people
weren't able to register the extra frames, if they were only redundant,
then the technique wouldn't work. As it turns out, the system does
work, and is in use at theme parks today.

The fusion rate has only to do with continuity of
motion.

[Hammond]
Same difference.

[Hammond]
sure, sure, sure... I know all about it. the averager AVI or MPEG
on a computer is only running at 12 frames/sec because they are
compressed to cut the file size. this is common knowledge.

The point is you can't see a photo flashed FASTER then 1/yourPFF

Maybe. But most people then must have a pretty high rate. Kids play
with strobe lamps all the time. What's the duration of a xenon flash?
It's extremely fast. But in a pitch black room you can fire off a
single strobe flash, and an image of the stuff in the room is
registered.
-Mark Martin
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	12 Oct 2005 04:18:27 AM

On 11 Oct 2005 20:18:14 -0700, "Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com>
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

Ever had your IQ tested?

[Hammond]
WRONG. AND YOU KNOW THAT'S WRONG!
The SAME FRAME is "shuttered" 2 or three times by the "propellor
shaped shutter" in the projector.... therefore your "dust particles"
are visible for 1/24 of a second, NOT merely 1/48 of a second.

And it's not just objects such as dust. In a fast paced action movie
there are sequences of shots which may last only a few frames each, and
events within a shot may occupy not more than one or two frames. The
muzzle flash of a gun sometimes is only a single frame, yet everyone
sees it. In Star Wars movies there are many such single frame events
which are clearly seen. But not only that, but sometimes the visual
effects aren't executed perfectly, yielding mistakes which are visible,
but last but a single frame. In the original 1980 release print of The
Empire Strikes Back there's a shot of Darth Vader standing with his
glowing light saber. The glow effect was added in post production by an
effects technician. But as it turns out there's a mistake. The exact
last frame of the shot is "naked"; the glow effect is not present,
revealing a plain prop blade. But this individual frame is clearly
visible. Same thing in the 1st remake of King Kong. There's a shot
looking straight up between the twin towers as Kong falls from directly
above. But- the exact first frame of the shot has no Kong in it. He
appears in midair 1/24 second into the shot. But all of these things
are really visible for only 1/48 second.

[Hammond]
No they are not. The "double shuttering" shows the SAME FRAME
TWICE IN A ROW...... the FILM only advances at 1/24 of a second,
the shutter "double shutters" the SAME FRAME twice (in some projectors
three times).
You don't seem to realize that "flicker fusion frequency" and
"puicture fusion frequency" are TWO DIFFERENT PHENOMENA,
and are TOTALLY UNRELATED to each other.

EVERY frame of a motion picture is
plainly visible.

[Hammond]
WRONG......... an average IQ person (IQ=100) can consciously see
only 15 different frames per second, no matter HOW MANY frames are
actually flashed in front of him. There are video cameras that whill
display 500,000 frames/second.... the person can only see 15 frames
per second however.... his brain simply "averages" each 33,333 frames
into a "single picture". You'r enot going to sit there and tell me
that a person can SEE 500,000 frames per second are you?
THAT'S RIDICULOUS!

[Hammond]
WRONG. the average human can oly see 15 frames/sec (or less)
as individual frames. this has been known since the time of
Thomas Edison.

[Hammond]
WRONG.... A "SINGLE FRAME" of a movie is visible for 1/24 of
a second.........it doesn't matter how many times you "chop" it with a
"shutter" to reduce "flicker". You're confused.

In the late '70s Douglas Trumbull patented a process called
"ShowScan". All it basically amounts to is increasing the frame rate. A
movie is photographed & projected at 72 fps. The motivation was the
observation that a higher frame rate = more information, causing the
motion to appear vastly more real than the standard 24 fps. If people
weren't able to register the extra frames, if they were only redundant,
then the technique wouldn't work. As it turns out, the system does
work, and is in use at theme parks today.

[Hammond]
Look... you're behind the times. there are video cameras with a built
in palyback screen that can shoot and display video at 500,000 frames
per second........... are you going to tell me that a person can
consciously see 500,000 frames a second... don't be stupid.

The fusion rate has only to do with continuity of
motion.

[Hammond]
Same difference.

[Hammond]
sure, sure, sure... I know all about it. the averager AVI or MPEG
on a computer is only running at 12 frames/sec because they are
compressed to cut the file size. this is common knowledge.

The point is you can't see a photo flashed FASTER then 1/yourPFF

[Hammond]
they won't see any "stuff" unless the strobe flash is longer than 1/15
of a second for adults.... in fact LONGER flashes are needed fo
kids... more like 1/10 of a second.

-Mark Martin

User: "T Wake"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	12 Oct 2005 01:41:11 PM

"George Hammond" <ghammond1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lvjpk15iqccfgppn2bhg5utb1jvqsmdmap@4ax.com...

On 11 Oct 2005 20:18:14 -0700, "Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[Hammond]
WRONG. AND YOU KNOW THAT'S WRONG!

Well, no it is isn't. As usual you are talking crap.
However, what is more important to me is why you can see and respond to Mark
Martins posts when he is comfortably at number 11 on your list of hate.
Am I the only person you have really killfiled? Should I be flattered if I
am?
.

User: "odin"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	12 Oct 2005 10:12:34 AM

they won't see any "stuff" unless the strobe flash is longer than 1/15
of a second for adults.... in fact LONGER flashes are needed fo
kids... more like 1/10 of a second.

OK. Read the wikipedia article on Xenon flash lamp. It contains the
following information: "Discharge durations for common flashlamps are in the
microsecond to a few milliseconds range and can have repetition rates of
hundreds of hertz." Xenon flash lamps are used in all sorts of applications
where a strobe light effect is needed. My dad used them to photograph insect
behavior without cooking them. So You should be able to do your experiment
without all the messy video stuff. Just test to see if kids and adults are
able to see different things in a dark room while changing the flash rate
and the flash duration of a Xenon flash lamp strobe light. I think that you
will find that your theory does not hold up. But even if it did, how would
that prove anything about god?
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	12 Oct 2005 01:18:10 PM

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:12:34 -0700, "odin" <ragnarok@yahoo.com> wrote:

they won't see any "stuff" unless the strobe flash is longer than 1/15
of a second for adults.... in fact LONGER flashes are needed fo
kids... more like 1/10 of a second.

[Hammond]
That is one hell of a good idea!
There may be a problem with it however.... due to ther fact that the
light is so bright especially when flashed in a dark room. Intense
light causes "afterimage effects" which may interfere.... however...
you could put a lampshade over the flashlamp... or wear sunglasses
or something.
Some guy already mentioned that he opened up his 35 mm camera, which
has a variable speed shutter (.1 sec, .05 sec, .001 sec, ......etc).
Of course there you have the same problem of a brght flash in a dark
room also.
This is why measuring the PFF (picture fusion frequency) of the person
is so ideal.... it doesn't involve any of these "eye problems" that
flash lamps do.... all you need is a film projector with a variable
speed motor.
Anyway.... thanks for the idea.... if I had either a flashlamp or a 35
mm camera you can be sure I'd be testing people (especially kids under
7 vs. adults) right now.
By the way... they must have tested thousands of adults using flash
lamps.... problem is... they probably never bothered to test kids.
Fact is Riedel (1966) seems to be one of the few to test kids, and HE
was the one who first discovered the PFF increases linearly with age
in kids under 18. And still, nobody seems to know about it except me
and a few obscure research scientists like Siegfried Lehrl in Nurnberg
who I am in contact with.
You're a smart cookie Odin... thanks for the suggestion..
By the way, I just thought of another thing.... you know how those
Wagon wheels go backwards in western movies because of the strobe
effect of the movie film..... I'll bet you can run a film at a certain
rate (variable speed projector) where a kid would see the wheels
rotate one way, and adults would see them rotate the opposite way!
anyway.... nice talking to you.... you got me thinking...
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: "bv_schornak"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	12 Oct 2005 04:48:28 PM

George Hammond schrieb:

There may be a problem with it however.... due to ther fact that the
light is so bright especially when flashed in a dark room. Intense
light causes "afterimage effects" which may interfere...

George, you claimed there is no "persistence of vision". How can
any "afterimage effects" occur if your claim is true?
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.

User: ""
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	12 Oct 2005 11:40:43 AM

George Hammond wrote:

In fact, the relation between IQ and PFF is given by:

IQ = 5 PFF + 25

Where in the world did you get this formula? Can you site a source, or
provide evidence that fusion rate is IQ dependant?
Dave
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	12 Oct 2005 01:56:20 PM

On 12 Oct 2005 09:40:43 -0700,

wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

In fact, the relation between IQ and PFF is given by:

IQ = 5 PFF + 25

Where in the world did you get this formula? Can you site a source, or
provide evidence that fusion rate is IQ dependant?
Dave

[Hammond]
Sure Dave, no problem:
You will find this equation on the VERY LAST page, (on the 17th line
before the end of the paper) of the following online paper by Prof.
Siegfried Lehrl (whom I am in contact with in Nurnberg):
IQ = 5 Ck (bit/s) + 25
http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html
Note: "Ck(bits/sec)" is identically "PFF frames/sec", so the equation
can be written:
IQ = 5 PFF + 25
In fact I have another paper published by him in German, where this
equation is graphed out in a graph IDENTICAL to Figure 3 in the above
online paper, only the axes are labled:
IQ
| /
| /
| /
| /
| /
| /
| /
| /
----------------------------- Bilderwechsel pro sekunde
(frames per second)
Abb. 3
Erwarteter Zusammenhang zwischen Bilderverschmelzungsfrequenz (BVF)
und IQ bei Erwachsenen
Translation:
(Fig. 3 Indicated connection between picture fusion frequency (BVF)
and IQ with adults)
NOTE: "Bilderwechsel pro sekunde" means "frames per second" in German.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: "bv_schornak"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	12 Oct 2005 04:56:52 PM

George Hammond wrote:

Erwarteter Zusammenhang zwischen Bilderverschmelzungsfrequenz (BVF)
und IQ bei Erwachsenen

Translation:
(Fig. 3 Indicated connection between picture fusion frequency (BVF)
and IQ with adults)

"Erwartet" = assumed (guessed). "Indicated" isn't the proper
translation here.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.

User: ""
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	13 Oct 2005 12:15:05 PM

George Hammond wrote:

On 12 Oct 2005 09:40:43 -0700,

wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

In fact, the relation between IQ and PFF is given by:

IQ = 5 PFF + 25

Where in the world did you get this formula? Can you site a source, or
provide evidence that fusion rate is IQ dependant?
Dave

First off, bits per second is NOT the same thing as frames per second.
A frame/picture has much more information than a single bit. The
report you referenced cites sources regarding this from the 1950's,
when lobotomies and electro-shock weren't uncommon.
Secondly, IF you take the report at face value, it is analyzing the
processing power of the frontal cortex (i.e. intelligence), not the
occipital lobe (i.e. vision). Equating the (highly questionable)
bit/sec processing rate of the frontal lobe to frames/sec of the
occipital lobe is a huge logic jump.
Lastly, "capturing" images (i.e. knowing what you just saw) is
different from frame flicker. Just because you've eliminated frame
flicker doesn't mean you can't recognize a random image thrown into the
mix. A report, titled "Speed of processing in the human visual
system", can be found here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
Type in "8632824" in the search bar.
Note that the picture was only shown for 20ms (that's 20 MILLIseconds),
which equates to 50fps. This report refutes your contention.
Dave
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	13 Oct 2005 02:05:21 PM

On 13 Oct 2005 10:15:05 -0700,

wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

On 12 Oct 2005 09:40:43 -0700,

wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

In fact, the relation between IQ and PFF is given by:

IQ = 5 PFF + 25

Where in the world did you get this formula? Can you site a source, or
provide evidence that fusion rate is IQ dependant?
Dave

First off, bits per second is NOT the same thing as frames per second.

[Hammond]
It will AMAZE you to find out IT IS !!!!!.

A frame/picture has much more information than a single bit.

[Hammond]
They know all that Dave. One paper by Lehrl here estimates the
visul input through the eye as 100,000,000 bits/second.
That doesn't make any difference!
Look, for instance they know that "reading a letter" out of the
alphabet takes 5 bits of information because 26=2^4.7 = 5 bits
when rounded up to the nearest bit.
and this is WHY it takes the average person 7.3 seconds (by actual
test) to read the following 20 letters:
L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D X
..... because it contains 100 BITS of information (i.e. 5x20=100 bits),
and the brain can only process 15 bits/sec so, 100/15 = 7.3 seconds.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN.... that the eye doesn't recognize that the letters
are printed on 20 pound watermarked paper, that there are fly specks
on the paper... that the fluorescent lights are flickering, and that
the secretary sitting in the background isn't wearing a bra... all of
which is millions of bits of information/second going into the eye and
through the brain. NEVERTHELESS it takes 7.3 seconds for you to read
the above line of 20 letters.... and if you double it to 40 letters it
will take you 14.6 seconds. This is because it takes the total
intelligence of the brain at it's highest intellectual level to read
the letters (i.e. go thrugh the binary logical sequence of identifying
the next letter, as fast as you can)... and they can actually COMPUTE
YOUR INTELLIGENCE from how fast you can read the letters.
IT TURNS OUT.... that the PICTURE FUSION FREQUENCY is IDENTICALLY
this same speed.......... that the FRAME RATE is equal to I BIT PER
FRAME... because there is a "binary decision" which decides "is this
the same picture I just saw, or is it different....yes/no" and that
DECISION requiers ONE BIT of information processing in the brain at
the top inellectual/conscious level.
FACT IS.... the scientists are agreed, and the DATA SHOWS that
"bits/second of mental speed" is IDENTICAL to "frames/sec at the
fusion speed" of the same brain.

report you referenced cites sources regarding this from the 1950's,
when lobotomies and electro-shock weren't uncommon.

Secondly, IF you take the report at face value, it is analyzing the
processing power of the frontal cortex (i.e. intelligence), not the
occipital lobe (i.e. vision). Equating the (highly questionable)
bit/sec processing rate of the frontal lobe to frames/sec of the
occipital lobe is a huge logic jump.

[Hammond]
Look...they don't know HOW THE BRAIN WORKS..... sll they know for
SURE... is that you can ask test questions involving "mental speed"
and determine someone''s IQ.... regardless of the "zillions of bits of
information that are flowing into the persons 5 senses).
and direct experiment shows that the PFF goes LINEARLY with the
mental age (Intelligence) of children. And that the PFF goes likewise
with Intelligence in adults.
Hey..,. I'm not here to argue with someone who is unfamilar with the
literature and unfamiliar with PROVEN RESULTS and COMMON KNOWLEGE in
the field.

Lastly, "capturing" images (i.e. knowing what you just saw) is
different from frame flicker. Just because you've eliminated frame
flicker doesn't mean you can't recognize a random image thrown into the
mix. A report, titled "Speed of processing in the human visual
system", can be found here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

Type in "8632824" in the search bar.

[Hammond]
Look, Dave... you're talking to someone WHO KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN "FLICKER FUSION FREQUENCY" (50 hZ) AND "PICTURE FUSION
FREQUENCY" (15 HZ).
You don't need to tell me about it.

Note that the picture was only shown for 20ms (that's 20 MILLIseconds),
which equates to 50fps. This report refutes your contention.
Dave

[Hammond]
You're making mountains out of molehills Dave. Look, someone can
probably tell if a flash of light lasting 1/1000 of a second was RED
or GREEN.... that doesn't mean he could comprehend a picture in one
millisecond. This paper calls for deciding whether the flashed
picture contains "an animal or no animal"... we don't know what the
picture was that was flashed, what color clues, shape clues, siloutte
cluds etc. were involved.
Furthermore, he says it takes 150-milliseconds to "visually
process" the picture to reach a yes-no decision (150 ms = 7
framses/sec). It could very well be that the yes-no decision is made
based on "subliminal" information..... that the person didn't actually
"see" the picture (in "20 ms").... but like the famous "bag of
popcorn" in the movie theater tests.... he simply "feels" that the
animal (or the popcorn") was there.
Look... I'm basing this "invisble movie" suggestion on LONG
ESTABLISHED DATA published by dozens of researchers in hundreds of
tests.... most notably Riedel's (1966) researches that conclusively
show that the PFF of 7 year olds is 10 frames/sec and the PFF of 15
year olds is 15 frames/second.... and that the PFF increases LINARLY
with the childrens age under age 18.
Now, from this ALONE we KNOW that short-duration photogrpahh flashes
that are "subliminally invisible" to a CHILD.... will NOT be
"subliminally invisible" to an ADULT..... ERGO.... it is posswible to
make a videotape "movie" consisting of a series of "short suliminally
invislbe" frames that will be INVISIBLE to the kids, but NOT SHORT
ENOUGH to be "subliminally invisible" to the ADULTS. Hence a (crude)
"movie that will be VISIBLE to adults, but INVISIBLE to kids.
I don't think there is ANY QUESTION but that this can be done.
I'm NOT GUARANTEEING that the movie seen by the adults will
not being a crude, flickering and commercially unuseable movie....
I'm just saying that it will be INVISIBLE to kids, but VISIBLE to
adults..... that's ALL I'M SAYING..... and that I argue is a DIRECT
VISUL DEMONSTRATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD! (I can prove!)
ANYWAY.... it appears that you are scietifically capeable of
analyzing this problem.... and have a good attitude (e.g. not
stupendously or fatuously negative)..... and I FULLY APPRECIATE your
input... I hope to hear more from you.
But in the end.... the question is NOT going to be answered, untill
somebody figures out how we can make this video and try it... without
spending $100 doing it and exceeding the measly research budget!
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	13 Oct 2005 02:21:07 PM

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:14:55 +0200, "erik" <erik@somewhere.com> wrote:
[Hammond]
PS... DAVE
...... here's a guy who has a suggestion on how to make the movie using
"AviSynth" on a computer.....
<snip>

Could a run of the mill commercial video lab alter a VHS tape
for me in this specific way?

Thanks in advance, George Hammond

[Erik]
I think that trying the "computer" way is worth a shot. You can
write
an AviSynth script that would blank the frames and then encode the
result to mpeg. I think you can even force I frames to be at the
significant frames.

Erik.

[Hammond]
<snip>
The problem with AVI, MPEG and other "computer" video systems is
that most people (including me) are using old 200, or 400 mc CPU
computers with run of the mill graphics cards... and they are just
too
slow.... they "compress" the frame rates unpredictably.... AVI only
runs at 12 frames/sec on my computer for instance. This will
OBLITERATE the effect which depends on running at
TRUE 30 FRAMES/SEC VIDEO SPEED (like t.v.) !

As I see it, the only way I can GUARANTEE that the video is actually
running at "true 30 frames/sec" speed is to do the experiment using
VHS video on a VCR.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WR0NG ABOUT THIS....!!

Isn't there some way to "edit" a video on a computer, and then load
it
on to a VHS tape?

You do see what the problem is, right? I have to be SURE the video
that I produce is actually running at 30 frames/sec...!

George Hammond

[Hammond]
PS:

What about these new graphical "video editing" programs I see
advertised online in which al lyou have to do is "cut and paste" or
"drag and drop" individual frames in the video editor to make an
"edited" version of a vieotape or video file. Seems to me that
"writing a script" is kind of an old fashioned approach given the
proliferation of these new graphical interface video editing
programs
that are floating around? Some of them are even freeware.

George

[Erik]
My idea is to prepare the file AVI or MPEG on a computer with a
proper framerate and then play it on a DVD top set player. There are
models that can play DIVX/XVID or ISO MPEGs from CD-R or DVD-ROM. The
DVD player makes sure the framerate is correct.

[Hammond]
Would this involve burning a CD or DVD ?

As for available tools, I suggested AviSynth, because it's what I
use.

[Hammond]
Is AviSynth difficult to learn to use ? Do you have to know how to
write script ?

I am not a big fan of click-and-drag-and-drop kind of programs.
But there are sure other ways to build the video the way you need it.

[Hammond]
Right... I'm looking for the shortest distance beetwen here and there.
By the way... what would a video lab charge me to edit a VHS
tape as I've described? It may be easier to find investors than
it is to find freelance technical experts.

How to transfer the video to VHS tape, video card with TV output?
Or record it on CD, play it on DVD player and record it on tape.

[Hammond]
Oh... so we're talking either:
1. Video card with t.v. output.
2. CD or DVD burner.
looks like too much equipment.

As for the idea, I think it will flicker and won't be good for the
eyes.

[Hammond]
No doubt.... the BIG QUESTION is whether it will be VISIBLE
to adults and INVISBLE to kids.
Flicker can be dealt with later.

Not mentioning you'll have to do something with the sound, too

[Hammond]
That's been mentioned... will have to be addressed later.
What we are looking for is a "proof of concept" experiment.
E.g. Can you make a video that is VISIBLE to adults, but INVISIBLE to
kids, based on the fact that short (intermittant) frame sequences are
invisble (subliminal) to kids whereas they are visible to adults.

:) Anyway, have fun!
Erik.

[Hammond]
Likewise I'm sure.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: "Mark Martin"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	13 Oct 2005 02:39:10 PM

George Hammond wrote:

By the way... what would a video lab charge me to edit a VHS
tape as I've described? It may be easier to find investors than
it is to find freelance technical experts.

Hiring a lab would cost a lot more than to just purhcase a consumer
grade digital video editor. I have several installed on my PC. Pinnacle
Studio 9 is only about a hundred dollars. But on the other hand, I
picked up a copy of last year's editor from Magix for only $30. Avid
has a stripped down version of its software available for free
download. The Windows Movie Maker editor is included at no extra cost
with every PC that uses XP. They're all capable of easily removing
individual frames, and those frames can be replaced with images lasting
only a single frame. Many times I have edited out single frames damaged
with compression artifacts. (I do this, incidentally, because said
artifact on a single frame of video, 1/30 second long, is plainly
visible.)

How to transfer the video to VHS tape, video card with TV output?
Or record it on CD, play it on DVD player and record it on tape.

Why do you need VHS tape? Why not just use mini-DV? At any rate,
many of the available editors can pipe a finished file directly onto
either VHS or mini-DV, as well as burn it to CD & DVD.
-Mark Martin
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	13 Oct 2005 06:24:16 PM

On 13 Oct 2005 12:39:10 -0700, "Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com>
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

By the way... what would a video lab charge me to edit a VHS
tape as I've described? It may be easier to find investors than
it is to find freelance technical experts.

[Hammond]
Cripes.... now you're saying something! I have ready access to a
Windows XP computer. Of course I'd have to find the Windows XP
Installation CD which has Movie Maker on it which might be a
problem... they usually don't give you that when they donate the
computer... and this one is a donation... which is up and running and
Inernet cable connected nearby.

How to transfer the video to VHS tape, video card with TV output?
Or record it on CD, play it on DVD player and record it on tape.

Why do you need VHS tape? Why not just use mini-DV?

[Hammond]
Mini-DV players are more expensive and less available than VCR's,
and you're still talking TAPE... so it's the same problem.

At any rate,
many of the available editors can pipe a finished file directly onto
either VHS or mini-DV, as well as burn it to CD & DVD.

[Hammond]
Now you're talking... How do I "pipe a computer file to a VCR"...
what kind ofconnectors would you use... will the VCR record it
ok?

Many tmes I have edited out single frames damaged
with compression artifacts. (I do this, incidentally, because said
artifact on a single frame of video, 1/30 second long, is plainly
visible.)
-Mark Martin

[Hammond]
Plainly visible to YOU if it's on a single frame..... but is it
plainly visible to a 7 year old KID if it's only on a single frame....
how about testing that if you've still got one of those old videos
around with a "slightly damaged" frame on it.
Remember, your PFF is TWICE as fast as a 7 year old's!!
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: "Gary Eickmeier"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	14 Oct 2005 10:26:38 AM

George Hammond wrote:

On 13 Oct 2005 12:39:10 -0700, "Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com>
wrote:

At any rate,
many of the available editors can pipe a finished file directly onto
either VHS or mini-DV, as well as burn it to CD & DVD.

[Hammond]
Now you're talking... How do I "pipe a computer file to a VCR"...
what kind ofconnectors would you use... will the VCR record it
ok?

It needs a breakout box, a video card with video out, or a digital
camera with pass-thru capability that can take the AVI file and convert
it to video. It is then recorded on VHS tape.
You can't do it on DVD, because the medium for DVD is MPEG encoded,
which means it would go nuts if you had frames cut out of a sequence.
MPEG video encodes using only every fourth frame or so, and assumes
most of the content of contiguous frames is very similar.
What would your requirements for the video be again? And would it prove
to you once and for all that children and adults could see virtually the
same thing?
Gary Eickmeier
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	14 Oct 2005 12:18:03 PM

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:26:38 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

On 13 Oct 2005 12:39:10 -0700, "Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com>
wrote:

At any rate,
many of the available editors can pipe a finished file directly onto
either VHS or mini-DV, as well as burn it to CD & DVD.

[Hammond]
Now you're talking... How do I "pipe a computer file to a VCR"...
what kind ofconnectors would you use... will the VCR record it
ok?

[Eickmeier]
It needs a breakout box, a video card with video out, or a digital
camera with pass-thru capability that can take the AVI file and convert
it to video. It is then recorded on VHS tape.

[Hammond]
A "video out card"... oh cripes....

You can't do it on DVD, because the medium for DVD is MPEG encoded,
which means it would go nuts if you had frames cut out of a sequence.
MPEG video encodes using only every fourth frame or so, and assumes
most of the content of contiguous frames is very similar.

[Hammond]
THAT'S EXACTLY what I'm afraid of with ANY "computer video file"...
I suspect NONE OF THEM run at true 30 frames/sec.... how could
they?... the files would be homongous!!

What would your requirements for the video be again? And would it prove
to you once and for all that children and adults could see virtually the
same thing?

Gary Eickmeier

[Hammond]
OK... here's the problem:
1. Time and money are of the essence.... especially money.
2. We only need B&W for a "proof of concept" experiment.
This should cut down the file sizes.
3. We only need a 5 SECOND MOVIE (150 frames)... or maybe 2
or 3 different 5 second clips on the tame tape (some trial and
error is involved)
4. THE MAIN THING, is that we have to be GUARANTEED that
the video is , "shot, edited, and shown" at TRUE 30 FPS
SPEED (same as t.v. speed... no frame rate slowing!)
5. The specifications for the 5 second clip are as follows (only 1
second of the clip is shown):
<----------------------------------------OneSecond------------------------------------------------------------->
|01|02|...|...|...|...|07|08|...|...|...|...|13|14|...|...|...|...|19|20|...|..|...|...|25|26|...|...|...|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>
Note: the numbered frames are from a REAL B&W video movie
.....(any ole movie will do)... as long as it is a TRUE 30 FPS video
movie!
Note: The |...| frames are BLANK SUBASTITUTION FRAMES (light gray).
The process of editing consists of:
Substituting the designated frames of the original movie
with |...| frames as show above.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
THEN.... I say, when this video clip is played at TRUE 30 FRAMES/SEC
video speed, the original move will be VISIBLE to an adult, and
INVISIBLE to a child of 7 years old or less.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINALLY, if that doesn't work, the following sequence should be on
the tape also:
|01|...|...|...|05|...|...|...|09|...|...|...|13|...|...|...|17|...|...|...|21|..|...|...|25|...|...|...|29|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>
this is just a slight "variation on the theme"...
like I say.... a little experimentation above or below the rates
depicted above will be necessary to "maximise" the effect.
[Hammond]
Gary... I know you've got some insight into this, since you are a
video producer, editor etc.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: "Gary Eickmeier"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	14 Oct 2005 09:06:30 PM

George Hammond wrote:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:26:38 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

On 13 Oct 2005 12:39:10 -0700, "Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com>
wrote:

At any rate,
many of the available editors can pipe a finished file directly onto
either VHS or mini-DV, as well as burn it to CD & DVD.

[Hammond]
Now you're talking... How do I "pipe a computer file to a VCR"...
what kind ofconnectors would you use... will the VCR record it
ok?

[Eickmeier]
It needs a breakout box, a video card with video out, or a digital
camera with pass-thru capability that can take the AVI file and convert
it to video. It is then recorded on VHS tape.

[Hammond]
A "video out card"... oh cripes....

[Hammond]
THAT'S EXACTLY what I'm afraid of with ANY "computer video file"...
I suspect NONE OF THEM run at true 30 frames/sec.... how could
they?... the files would be homongous!!

What would your requirements for the video be again? And would it prove
to you once and for all that children and adults could see virtually the
same thing?

Gary Eickmeier

[Hammond]
OK... here's the problem:

1. Time and money are of the essence.... especially money.

2. We only need B&W for a "proof of concept" experiment.
This should cut down the file sizes.

3. We only need a 5 SECOND MOVIE (150 frames)... or maybe 2
or 3 different 5 second clips on the tame tape (some trial and
error is involved)

4. THE MAIN THING, is that we have to be GUARANTEED that
the video is , "shot, edited, and shown" at TRUE 30 FPS
SPEED (same as t.v. speed... no frame rate slowing!)

5. The specifications for the 5 second clip are as follows (only 1
second of the clip is shown):

<----------------------------------------OneSecond------------------------------------------------------------->

|01|02|...|...|...|...|07|08|...|...|...|...|13|14|...|...|...|...|19|20|...|..|...|...|25|26|...|...|...|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>

Note: the numbered frames are from a REAL B&W video movie
....(any ole movie will do)... as long as it is a TRUE 30 FPS video
movie!

Note: The |...| frames are BLANK SUBASTITUTION FRAMES (light gray).

The process of editing consists of:

Substituting the designated frames of the original movie
with |...| frames as show above.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
THEN.... I say, when this video clip is played at TRUE 30 FRAMES/SEC
video speed, the original move will be VISIBLE to an adult, and
INVISIBLE to a child of 7 years old or less.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINALLY, if that doesn't work, the following sequence should be on
the tape also:

|01|...|...|...|05|...|...|...|09|...|...|...|13|...|...|...|17|...|...|...|21|..|...|...|25|...|...|...|29|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>

this is just a slight "variation on the theme"...
like I say.... a little experimentation above or below the rates
depicted above will be necessary to "maximise" the effect.

[Hammond]
Gary... I know you've got some insight into this, since you are a
video producer, editor etc.

OK, seems simple enough, but I would recommend black frames in between
rather than gray. And I see no reason to avoid color. I have plenty of
video to choose from. I recommend something very recognizable in the
scene, and to have it longer than your proposed 5 seconds. We could do 1
minute of one scheme, one minute of the other, to give the viewer enough
time to "lock on" to what it was. Something that both a child and an
adult could recognize.
How about if we make the tape available to whoever is willing to give me
the amount for the tape and mailing - say, $10 each? Then we could have
a real discussion about it. This would be an ideal experiment, because
you are specifying the conditions beforehand, and none of us knows what
the result will be until I am done making it.
Gary Eickmeier
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	15 Oct 2005 03:30:57 AM

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:06:30 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:26:38 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

On 13 Oct 2005 12:39:10 -0700, "Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com>
wrote:

At any rate,
many of the available editors can pipe a finished file directly onto
either VHS or mini-DV, as well as burn it to CD & DVD.

[Hammond]
Now you're talking... How do I "pipe a computer file to a VCR"...
what kind ofconnectors would you use... will the VCR record it
ok?

[Eickmeier]
It needs a breakout box, a video card with video out, or a digital
camera with pass-thru capability that can take the AVI file and convert
it to video. It is then recorded on VHS tape.

[Hammond]
A "video out card"... oh cripes....

[Hammond]
THAT'S EXACTLY what I'm afraid of with ANY "computer video file"...
I suspect NONE OF THEM run at true 30 frames/sec.... how could
they?... the files would be homongous!!

What would your requirements for the video be again? And would it prove
to you once and for all that children and adults could see virtually the
same thing?

Gary Eickmeier

[Hammond]
OK... here's the problem:

1. Time and money are of the essence.... especially money.

2. We only need B&W for a "proof of concept" experiment.
This should cut down the file sizes.

3. We only need a 5 SECOND MOVIE (150 frames)... or maybe 2
or 3 different 5 second clips on the tame tape (some trial and
error is involved)

4. THE MAIN THING, is that we have to be GUARANTEED that
the video is , "shot, edited, and shown" at TRUE 30 FPS
SPEED (same as t.v. speed... no frame rate slowing!)

5. The specifications for the 5 second clip are as follows (only 1
second of the clip is shown):

<----------------------------------------OneSecond------------------------------------------------------------->

|01|02|...|...|...|...|07|08|...|...|...|...|13|14|...|...|...|...|19|20|...|...|...|...|25|26|...|...|...|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>

Note: the numbered frames are from a REAL B&W video movie
....(any ole movie will do)... as long as it is a TRUE 30 FPS video
movie!

Note: The |...| frames are BLANK SUBASTITUTION FRAMES (light gray).

The process of editing consists of:

Substituting the designated frames of the original movie
with |...| frames as show above.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
THEN.... I say, when this video clip is played at TRUE 30 FRAMES/SEC
video speed, the original move will be VISIBLE to an adult, and
INVISIBLE to a child of 7 years old or less.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINALLY, if that doesn't work, the following sequence should be on
the tape also:

|01|...|...|...|05|...|...|...|09|...|...|...|13|...|...|...|17|...|...|...|21|...|...|...|25|...|...|...|29|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>

this is just a slight "variation on the theme"...
like I say.... a little experimentation above or below the rates
depicted above will be necessary to "maximise" the effect.

[Hammond]
Gary... I know you've got some insight into this, since you are a
video producer, editor etc.

[Eickmeir]

OK, seems simple enough, but I would recommend black frames in between
rather than gray.

[Hammond]
No.... the drastic average brightness difference between pure black
(or pure white) and the regular video frames will cause an annoying
flicker. If the substitution (blank) frames are GRAY.... and are
"roughly near the average brightness" of the regular video frames, it
will ruduce the flicker tremendously. Even if color is used.

And I see no reason to avoid color.

[Hammond]
OK...lf file size isn't a problem.

I have plenty of
video to choose from. I recommend something very recognizable in the
scene,

[Hammond]
OK...

and to have it longer than your proposed 5 seconds. We could do 1
minute of one scheme, one minute of the other, to give the viewer enough
time to "lock on" to what it was. Something that both a child and an
adult could recognize.

[Hammond]
OK... if making the clip longer doesn't involve any labor intensive
expense..... I presume from what you're saying this isn't going to be
edited by hand for each frame insertion.... 1 minute is 900 frames!!
30 seconds is a long time for most people.

How about if we make the tape available to whoever is willing to give me
the amount for the tape and mailing - say, $10 each?

[Hammond]
If it works, the tapes will be woth a lot more than that.... but
YES, sure, in fact I think $10 would be generous, even if it only has
a few minutes of recording on it, considering the work of copying,
shipping and handling.
You're the "man of the hour" Gary, obviously. All this is being
documented on the internet, so any experimentation you do certainly
gives you propetary rights to any discoveries made, under the common
law.
I think the REAL PROBLEM is going to be that it is going to take a
certain amount of "fiddling around" with the durations of the frame
sequences in the film to maximize the discrimination between
"invisiblity and visiblity"... once that is determined..... cleaning
up the visible mode (adult mode) so it appears reasonably viewable
will be the challenge.
By the way, you're going to need a couple of kids aged less than 7
years old to test the "invisibility"..... where are you going to get
them?

Then we could have
a real discussion about it.

[Hammond]
Roger... of course, if it actually works (which I'm reasonably
confident it will, based on Riedel's authoritative research on
childhood vs. adult PFF's), the discussion will probably extend to the
APA if not the newspapers.. if it works at all!

This would be an ideal experiment, because
you are specifying the conditions beforehand, and none of us knows what
the result will be until I am done making it.
Gary Eickmeier

[Hammond]
Correct! that about sums it up.... imagine the headlines:
"Scientific proof of God discovered on the Internet"
Cripes.... we could get a "ticket to Stockholm" for something like
that!
Anyway.... before I sign off.... let me give one more explanation
of HOW this movie is supposed to work.
It is well known that an image inserted into a movie, if flashed
for a short enough duration will be "subliminal" which means INVISBLE
to the viewer.
OK, Riedel's masurments on kids (1966 in Germany) shows that longer
sequences are subliminal (invisble) to kids, than are to adults.
OK.. this immediately tells us that if we make a movie consisting of
sequences that are long enough to be visble to adults, but too short
to be seen by kids... then voila.... we have a movie that is visible
to adults, but invisble to kids.
So... what my scheme is, is this:
<----------------------------------------OneSecond------------------------------------------------------------->
<-----> 1/15 sec
|01|02|...|...|...|...|07|08|...|...|...|...|13|14|...|...|...|...|19|20|...|...|...|...|25|26|...|...|...|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>
This is ordinary 30 fps videotape.
The IDEA is, that the two frames |01|02|, |07|08|, etc, are long
enough for an adult to see, but too short for a kid to see.
The blank frames |...|...|...|...| have to be inserted between the
"real" frames to make the real frames become "subliminal" (invisble)
to the kids. This is because it takes the kid 1/8 of a second to
consciously see a picture... which is about this long:
|...|...|...|...|.
As you can see, there is no way you can slide a "window" that long
over the tape and have it pick up more than ONE set of numbered frames
(real frames).... therefore the kid should see NOTHING because the
entire movie is simply a string of subliminally invislbe events one
after another.... the whole movie should be INVISIBLE to him!
On the other hand, an adult should see (a somewhat jerky and
flickering) version of a regular movie!
OK.... like I say... one may have to "fiddle around" with this to
MAXIMIZE the effect.... for instance, I think one of the following 4
basic versions should work:
|01|02|...|...|...|...|07|08|...|...|...|...|13|14|...|...|...|...|19|20|...|...|...|...|25|26|...|...|...|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>
or:
|01|02|...|...|...|06|07|...|...|...|11|12|...|...|...|16|17|...|...|...|21|22|...|...|...|26|27|...|...|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>
or:
|01|...|...|04|...|...|07|...|...|10|...|...|13|...|...|16|...|...|19|...|...|22|...|...|25|...|...|28|...|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>
or:
|01|...|...|...|05|...|...|...|09|...|...|...|13|...|...|...|17|...|...|...|21|...|...|...|25|...|...|...|29|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>
The reason is that many other "second order" effects creep in besides
the basic "PFF effect"... and some of these effects can be large... so
it will be necessary to fool around with the sequences as shown above,
to get the best results.
Meanwhile, all of this presumes that "interlacing" is going to have no
effect on the basic mechanism... which I think is true.
As you know, each of the above "frames" is composed of two interlaced
"fields" in video technology... I don't think this affects the
situation in any fundamental way.... however this may become useful
when "fine tuning" the mechanism later on down the road.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to

User: "Gary Eickmeier"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE	15 Oct 2005 09:01:43 PM

George Hammond wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:06:30 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
[Eickmeir]

OK, seems simple enough, but I would recommend black frames in between
rather than gray.

I know that black is the way to go if, for example, we want to cut out a
frame of video that we want to go by unnoticed. For example, if the
still photographer fires his flash during a video, it will affect 1
frame only, because it is of such short duration. We could eliminate
that flash if we black out the offending frame, and no one would be the
wiser. You can sometimes notice it if you are looking for it, but it is
better to insert a black frame than to skip a frame, which would look
jerky, or insert a frame from either side of the flash frame, which
would be apparent as a hesitation.
You know, George, if you can see the flash from a modern camera, you are
seeing something that lasts less than a 1/1000th of a second. Kids can
see it too.
Anyway, I can see some possible logic to your method, so I could try
that, too, but I believe black will work to make the missing frames less
noticeable and annoying. Gray would be like trying to show two movies at
once on the same video.

And I see no reason to avoid color.

[Hammond]
OK...lf file size isn't a problem.

Same file size. In digital, it uses 13 gigs per hour. That is the rate
we edit with. When it goes to DVD it gets reduced to about 2 gig per
hour, but video tape is not that way. It will be frame for frame.

I have plenty of
video to choose from. I recommend something very recognizable in the
scene,

[Hammond]
OK...

We could do maybe 30 seconds of each of your 4 schemes.

How about if we make the tape available to whoever is willing to give me
the amount for the tape and mailing - say, $10 each?

[Hammond]
If it works, the tapes will be woth a lot more than that.... but
YES, sure, in fact I think $10 would be generous, even if it only has
a few minutes of recording on it, considering the work of copying,
shipping and handling.

You're the "man of the hour" Gary, obviously. All this is being
documented on the internet, so any experimentation you do certainly
gives you propetary rights to any discoveries made, under the common
law.
I think the REAL PROBLEM is going to be that it is going to take a
certain amount of "fiddling around" with the durations of the frame
sequences in the film to maximize the discrimination between
"invisiblity and visiblity"... once that is determined..... cleaning
up the visible mode (adult mode) so it appears reasonably viewable
will be the challenge.
By the way, you're going to need a couple of kids aged less than 7
years old to test the "invisibility"..... where are you going to get
them?

My kid is 7, and she has an entire class full of co- 7 year olds.

Then we could have
a real discussion about it.

Please, no press.

This would be an ideal experiment, because
you are specifying the conditions beforehand, and none of us knows what
the result will be until I am done making it.
Gary Eickmeier

[Hammond]
Correct! that about sums it up.... imagine the headlines:

"Scientific proof of God discovered on the Internet"

Cripes.... we could get a "ticket to Stockholm" for something like
that!

George, if I help you make the tape, I don't want to be dragged into
some dopey proof of God. The experiment is only intended to show
something about PFF and your ideas about certain frame rates. Even if
the test is wildly successful, it would show nothing about God or his
people.

Anyway.... before I sign off.... let me give one more explanation
of HOW this movie is supposed to work.
It is well known that an image inserted into a movie, if flashed
for a short enough duration will be "subliminal" which means INVISBLE
to the viewer.
OK, Riedel's masurments on kids (1966 in Germany) shows that longer
sequences are subliminal (invisble) to kids, than are to adults.
OK.. this immediately tells us that if we make a movie consisting of
sequences that are long enough to be visble to adults, but too short
to be seen by kids... then voila.... we have a movie that is visible
to adults, but invisble to kids.
So... what my scheme is, is this:

<----------------------------------------OneSecond------------------------------------------------------------->

<-----> 1/15 sec

|01|02|...|...|...|...|07|08|...|...|...|...|13|14|...|...|...|...|19|20|...|...|...|...|25|26|...|...|...|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>

This is ordinary 30 fps videotape.

The IDEA is, that the two frames |01|02|, |07|08|, etc, are long
enough for an adult to see, but too short for a kid to see.

The blank frames |...|...|...|...| have to be inserted between the
"real" frames to make the real frames become "subliminal" (invisble)
to the kids. This is because it takes the kid 1/8 of a second to
consciously see a picture... which is about this long:
|...|...|...|...|.
As you can see, there is no way you can slide a "window" that long
over the tape and have it pick up more than ONE set of numbered frames
(real frames).... therefore the kid should see NOTHING because the
entire movie is simply a string of subliminally invislbe events one
after another.... the whole movie should be INVISIBLE to him!
On the other hand, an adult should see (a somewhat jerky and
flickering) version of a regular movie!
OK.... like I say... one may have to "fiddle around" with this to
MAXIMIZE the effect.... for instance, I think one of the following 4
basic versions should work:

|01|02|...|...|...|...|07|08|...|...|...|...|13|14|...|...|...|...|19|20|...|...|...|...|25|26|...|...|...|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>

or:

|01|02|...|...|...|06|07|...|...|...|11|12|...|...|...|16|17|...|...|...|21|22|...|...|...|26|27|...|...|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>

or:

|01|...|...|04|...|...|07|...|...|10|...|...|13|...|...|16|...|...|19|...|...|22|...|...|25|...|...|28|...|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>

or:

|01|...|...|...|05|...|...|...|09|...|...|...|13|...|...|...|17|...|...|...|21|...|...|...|25|...|...|...|29|...|-------120MoreFramesOftheMovie------>

The reason is that many other "second order" eff