All image stabilization is a HOAX!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Unclaimed Mysteries, Aug 13, 2007.

  1. Not just the tricky electronic ISO-bumping. IS, VR, whatever you call
    it, is pure mind control marketing hoaxing at its best. A printed or
    displayed image made in "stabilizing" mode contains an extremely light
    watermarking that says:

    "STABILIZED IMAGE. YOU BELIEVE THIS IS SHARP AND IN FOCUS. STABILIZED
    IMAGE. YOU BELIEVE THIS IS SHARP AND IN FOCUS. STABILIZED IMAGE. YOU
    BELIEVE THIS IS SHARP AND IN FOCUS."

    This subliminalistic suggestion is repeated in many languages and
    embedded over and over throughout the image. In reality, these images
    are fuzzy and indistinct. But you READ, BELIEVE, AND OBEY OTHERWISE
    WITHOUT CONSCIOUS AWARENESS. We've been brainwashed! Stop the
    stabilization madness!

    My analysis and proof of this phenomenon was unfortunately lost in a
    recent hard drive failure. My bad.

    C
    --
    It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Aug 13, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    Unclaimed Mysteries
    <> wrote:

    > My analysis and proof of this phenomenon was unfortunately lost in a
    > recent hard drive failure. My bad.


    Yep, and my Philosophers Stone got flushed down the toilet.

    --
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
    carrying a cross."
    Sinclair Lewis
    Ockham's Razor, Aug 13, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Dave Cohen Guest

    Ockham's Razor wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Unclaimed Mysteries
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> My analysis and proof of this phenomenon was unfortunately lost in a
    >> recent hard drive failure. My bad.

    >
    > Yep, and my Philosophers Stone got flushed down the toilet.
    >

    The only mystery here is who needs this post.
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Aug 14, 2007
    #3
  4. Dave Cohen wrote:
    > Ockham's Razor wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >> Unclaimed Mysteries
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> My analysis and proof of this phenomenon was unfortunately lost in a
    >>> recent hard drive failure. My bad.

    >>
    >> Yep, and my Philosophers Stone got flushed down the toilet.
    >>

    > The only mystery here is who needs this post.
    > Dave Cohen



    I guess we'll just leave that one hanging. Thanks, Dave, that was fantastic.

    C.

    --
    It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Aug 14, 2007
    #4
  5. In article <>, Unclaimed Mysteries
    <> wrote:

    > Not just the tricky electronic ISO-bumping. IS, VR, whatever you call
    > it, is pure mind control marketing hoaxing at its best. A printed or
    > displayed image made in "stabilizing" mode contains an extremely light
    > watermarking that says:


    <nonsense snipped>

    I'm glad school will be back in session soon.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 14, 2007
    #5
  6. Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    > In article <>, Unclaimed Mysteries
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Not just the tricky electronic ISO-bumping. IS, VR, whatever you call
    >> it, is pure mind control marketing hoaxing at its best. A printed or
    >> displayed image made in "stabilizing" mode contains an extremely light
    >> watermarking that says:

    >
    > <nonsense snipped>
    >
    > I'm glad school will be back in session soon.


    I'm zinged beyond words.

    C.

    --
    It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Aug 14, 2007
    #6
  7. Unclaimed Mysteries

    John Ortt Guest

    Oh damn. All that money wasted.

    But the good news is that I'm an even better photographer than I thought!

    Obviously it must be my supersteady hands getting me the nice sharp shots :)

    Now to find a good lawyer and sue Canon.


    "Unclaimed Mysteries"
    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >> In article <>, Unclaimed Mysteries
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Not just the tricky electronic ISO-bumping. IS, VR, whatever you call
    >>> it, is pure mind control marketing hoaxing at its best. A printed or
    >>> displayed image made in "stabilizing" mode contains an extremely light
    >>> watermarking that says:

    >>
    >> <nonsense snipped>
    >>
    >> I'm glad school will be back in session soon.

    >
    > I'm zinged beyond words.
    >
    > C.
    >
    > --
    > It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    > http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
    >
    John Ortt, Aug 14, 2007
    #7
  8. In article <>, Unclaimed Mysteries
    <> wrote:

    > I'm zinged beyond words.


    OK sonny, let mom have her e-Machine back now.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 14, 2007
    #8
  9. Unclaimed Mysteries

    GotMilk? Guest

    On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:22:05 -0500, Unclaimed Mysteries
    <> wrote:

    >Not just the tricky electronic ISO-bumping. IS, VR, whatever you call
    >it, is pure mind control marketing hoaxing at its best. A printed or
    >displayed image made in "stabilizing" mode contains an extremely light
    >watermarking that says:
    >
    >"STABILIZED IMAGE. YOU BELIEVE THIS IS SHARP AND IN FOCUS. STABILIZED
    >IMAGE. YOU BELIEVE THIS IS SHARP AND IN FOCUS. STABILIZED IMAGE. YOU
    >BELIEVE THIS IS SHARP AND IN FOCUS."
    >
    >This subliminalistic suggestion is repeated in many languages and
    >embedded over and over throughout the image. In reality, these images
    >are fuzzy and indistinct. But you READ, BELIEVE, AND OBEY OTHERWISE
    >WITHOUT CONSCIOUS AWARENESS. We've been brainwashed! Stop the
    >stabilization madness!
    >
    >My analysis and proof of this phenomenon was unfortunately lost in a
    >recent hard drive failure. My bad.
    >
    >C


    Why be concerned? No matter how it works, it works.

    Just as people like to think they are protected by "laws". Yet human-invented
    "laws" are nothing more than a false mental-security-blanket. They're just one
    more moron's useless opinion written on paper, subliminal messages, words that
    they desire to wrap their minds in. They believe they are safe within their laws
    so it must be so. When in reality they live in an anarchist's dream, a universe
    of chaos. Blissfully going on about their lives as if all is well and properly
    ordered within their world because they have brainwashed themselves into
    thinking that is how it is. People believe what they want to believe, they only
    see what they believe.

    If it works with every minute of their waking life then it should work just as
    well in their cameras too.

    I used to be a practicing hypno-therapist. You'd be surprised what you'd believe
    and do and see if I told you to believe and do and see it. The old nonsense
    about a person never doing what they wouldn't normally do is one huge fat lie.
    An excellent example: look at how many non-violent christians whose main mantras
    are "Thou shalt not kill" and "Judge not", yet they will instantly judge others
    to death or put them to death for the last 2000 years. The numbers that became a
    human-sacrifice to their god are in the staggering hundreds of millions. They
    continue sacrificing others to appease their beliefs in their god to this very
    day by denying basic human-rights to anyone who is different from them. They are
    taught and want to believe that "different" is synonymous with "evil". They do
    as they are told to do by what they want to believe they are told to do. And all
    this just from an imaginary god in their minds that they invented and continue
    to reinvent. (Hint: it's called psychosis.)

    It's easy to make anyone believe anything. You just have to start out by making
    them want to believe it.

    Watch the next political speech or sermon in a church to see how easily it is
    done.
    GotMilk?, Aug 14, 2007
    #9
  10. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Dave Cohen Guest

    Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    > In article <>, Unclaimed Mysteries
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm zinged beyond words.

    >
    > OK sonny, let mom have her e-Machine back now.


    Stop knocking e-Machines, I'm using one. Actually, they are now owned by
    Gateway, not sure how much Gateway are influencing what's offered. Mine
    pre-dates the takeover.
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Aug 14, 2007
    #10
  11. Dave Cohen wrote:
    > Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >> In article <>, Unclaimed Mysteries
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm zinged beyond words.

    >>
    >> OK sonny, let mom have her e-Machine back now.

    >
    > Stop knocking e-Machines, I'm using one. Actually, they are now owned by
    > Gateway, not sure how much Gateway are influencing what's offered. Mine
    > pre-dates the takeover.
    > Dave Cohen


    One word: Packard-Bell.

    Okay, that's technically two words, but the memory is just as painful.
    Especially the soldered-on-the-motherboard memory.

    C.

    --
    It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Aug 14, 2007
    #11
  12. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Somebody Guest

    "Dave Cohen" <> wrote in message
    news:vU7wi.1576$vC4.118@trndny01...
    > Ockham's Razor wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >> Unclaimed Mysteries
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> My analysis and proof of this phenomenon was unfortunately lost in a
    >>> recent hard drive failure. My bad.

    >>
    >> Yep, and my Philosophers Stone got flushed down the toilet.
    >>

    > The only mystery here is who needs this post.
    > Dave Cohen



    No Dave the only mystery is why do all of the kooks come out of the wood
    work and how do with with a plunger and Crisco cram them back in.

    Somebody!
    Somebody, Aug 14, 2007
    #12
  13. Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:

    > One word: Packard-Bell.
    >
    > Okay, that's technically two words, but the memory is just as painful.
    > Especially the soldered-on-the-motherboard memory.


    Why would you even want to upgrade when Bill Gates said, "640K is more
    memory than anyone will ever need" in their computers.






    Rita
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 14, 2007
    #13
  14. Rita wrote on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:42:41 -0400:

    ??>> One word: Packard-Bell.
    ??>>
    ??>> Okay, that's technically two words, but the memory is just
    ??>> as painful. Especially the soldered-on-the-motherboard
    ??>> memory.

    RÄB> Why would you even want to upgrade when Bill Gates said,
    RÄB> "640K is more memory than anyone will ever need" in their
    RÄB> computers.

    That was what the Hackers call a Vandevar after Vandevar Bush
    who answered "Two or three" when asked how many computers the
    nation might need.

    James Silverton
    Potomac, Maryland

    E-mail, with obvious alterations:
    not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
    James Silverton, Aug 14, 2007
    #14
  15. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Somebody Guest

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
    >
    >> One word: Packard-Bell.
    >>
    >> Okay, that's technically two words, but the memory is just as painful.
    >> Especially the soldered-on-the-motherboard memory.

    >
    > Why would you even want to upgrade when Bill Gates said, "640K is more
    > memory than anyone will ever need" in their computers.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita


    Actually, Bill Gates was probably correct. But, then he started writing
    bloated OSes and programs and that bloat unfortunately for the 640k mark
    didn't work so well.

    Somebody!
    Somebody, Aug 15, 2007
    #15
  16. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Les Stewart Guest

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" wrote

    > Why would you even want to upgrade when Bill Gates said, "640K is more
    > memory than anyone will ever need" in their computers.
    >


    Nit picking skeptic here.....

    According to Wired News he denies he ever said it:

    http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/01/1484

    --
    Les
    Les Stewart, Aug 15, 2007
    #16
  17. In article <Unpwi.7005$%t4.5328@trnddc03>, James Silverton
    <> wrote:

    > That was what the Hackers call a Vandevar after Vandevar Bush
    > who answered "Two or three" when asked how many computers the
    > nation might need.


    Well, hackers may call it that, but then they'd be wrong. The man's
    name is Vannevar Bush, and although I don't know who, if anyone said
    "two or three" (Ken Olson?), I doubt it was Vannevar Bush, the man who
    conceptualized the 'memex' in 1945, a home storage device for all our
    papers, photos, and other files. The memex was expected to hold all
    these items and to allow immediate, random retrieval of whatever data
    we wanted for viewing on a translucent screen. It was his intention
    that the memex be used to extend and store records useful to science
    and facilitate the consultations of these records.

    In "As We May Think," Bush said, "The advanced arithmetical machines of
    the future will be electrical in nature, and they will perform at 100
    times present speeds, or more. Moreover, they will be far more
    versatile than present commercial machines, so that they may readily be
    adapted for a wide variety of operations. They will be controlled by a
    control card or film, they will select their own data and manipulate it
    in accordance with the instructions thus inserted, they will perform
    complex arithmetical computations at exceedingly high speeds, and they
    will record results in such form as to be readily available for
    distribution or for later further manipulation. There will always be
    plenty of things to compute in the detailed affairs of millions of
    people doing complicated things."

    I have some doubt, then, that Vannevar Bush is the speaker of that
    estimate. I'm willing to have my doubt corrected, though, if someone
    points me to a reputable source for this quote.

    --
    Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
    The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
    http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
    Phil Stripling, Aug 15, 2007
    #17
  18. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Allen Guest

    Phil Stripling wrote:
    > In article <Unpwi.7005$%t4.5328@trnddc03>, James Silverton
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> That was what the Hackers call a Vandevar after Vandevar Bush
    >> who answered "Two or three" when asked how many computers the
    >> nation might need.

    >
    > Well, hackers may call it that, but then they'd be wrong. The man's
    > name is Vannevar Bush, and although I don't know who, if anyone said
    > "two or three" (Ken Olson?), I doubt it was Vannevar Bush, the man who
    > conceptualized the 'memex' in 1945, a home storage device for all our
    > papers, photos, and other files. The memex was expected to hold all
    > these items and to allow immediate, random retrieval of whatever data
    > we wanted for viewing on a translucent screen. It was his intention
    > that the memex be used to extend and store records useful to science
    > and facilitate the consultations of these records.
    >
    > In "As We May Think," Bush said, "The advanced arithmetical machines of
    > the future will be electrical in nature, and they will perform at 100
    > times present speeds, or more. Moreover, they will be far more
    > versatile than present commercial machines, so that they may readily be
    > adapted for a wide variety of operations. They will be controlled by a
    > control card or film, they will select their own data and manipulate it
    > in accordance with the instructions thus inserted, they will perform
    > complex arithmetical computations at exceedingly high speeds, and they
    > will record results in such form as to be readily available for
    > distribution or for later further manipulation. There will always be
    > plenty of things to compute in the detailed affairs of millions of
    > people doing complicated things."
    >
    > I have some doubt, then, that Vannevar Bush is the speaker of that
    > estimate. I'm willing to have my doubt corrected, though, if someone
    > points me to a reputable source for this quote.
    >

    I've always heard that the quote was from an IBM exec, and the number
    was six or seven. I don't believe that he was still with the company
    when they got going in the computer business. I'm reminded of the remark
    whenever I visit someone on the hospital and see several computers in
    each nursing station and one outside each patient's door.
    Allen
    Allen, Aug 15, 2007
    #18
  19. Les wrote on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:24:58 -0500:

    ??>> Why would you even want to upgrade when Bill Gates said,
    ??>> "640K is more memory than anyone will ever need" in their
    ??>> computers.
    ??>>
    LS> Nit picking skeptic here.....

    LS> According to Wired News he denies he ever said it:

    LS> http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/01/1484

    You all forced me to get out my "Hacker's Dictionary" and
    everyone is partially right according to it. A "vannevar" (I
    stand corrected) is defined as a "bogus technological
    prediction or a foredoomed engineering concept etc." Vannevar
    Bush actually predicted 'electronic brains the size of the
    Empire State Building with a Niagara Falls size cooling system
    for the tubes'. Semi-conductors were known when he made the
    prediction.

    James Silverton
    Potomac, Maryland

    E-mail, with obvious alterations:
    not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
    James Silverton, Aug 16, 2007
    #19
  20. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Allen Guest

    James Silverton wrote:
    > Les wrote on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:24:58 -0500:
    >
    > ??>> Why would you even want to upgrade when Bill Gates said,
    > ??>> "640K is more memory than anyone will ever need" in their
    > ??>> computers.
    > ??>>
    > LS> Nit picking skeptic here.....
    >
    > LS> According to Wired News he denies he ever said it:
    >
    > LS> http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/01/1484
    >
    > You all forced me to get out my "Hacker's Dictionary" and everyone is
    > partially right according to it. A "vannevar" (I stand corrected) is
    > defined as a "bogus technological prediction or a foredoomed engineering
    > concept etc." Vannevar Bush actually predicted 'electronic brains the
    > size of the Empire State Building with a Niagara Falls size cooling
    > system for the tubes'. Semi-conductors were known when he made the
    > prediction.

    Yes, semi-conductors were known, but integrated circuits were still way
    off in the future. As I recall, the semi-conductor dates back to 1948; I
    was in the Army 1954-56 in a Nike antiaircraft missile battery. The
    analog computer alone had 1500 multi-purpose vacuum tubes, but only
    three solid-state devices--all three were diodes. (That was classified
    information back then, but I believe that my stating it is not going to
    affect national security; actually, in the manuals accompanying the
    system, Ohm's Law--the same one in every high school physics book--was
    classified.) And considering the size computer that Bush was predicting,
    a Niagara-size cooling system was probably a conservative estimate.
    Allen
    >
    > James Silverton
    > Potomac, Maryland
    >
    > E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
    Allen, Aug 16, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. James E Kropp

    Re: Appropriate Use of Image Stabilization

    James E Kropp, Jul 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    450
    John Navas
    Aug 2, 2003
  2. JJVandJMB

    Which cameras have image stabilization??

    JJVandJMB, Oct 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,007
    Jupiter
    Oct 22, 2003
  3. MOON HOAX "later that it was all a hoax"

    , May 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    373
    Unclaimed Mysteries
    May 30, 2005
  4. Al Clark

    Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

    Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    119
    Views:
    1,766
    Dan Sullivan
    Dec 9, 2006
  5. Ofnuts

    Re: All image stabilization created equal?

    Ofnuts, Aug 3, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    324
    Peter
    Aug 4, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page