mikemey

It is a VIRTUAL image of the same thing, created by those same backscattered/x-ray images.

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? The user may as well stand there naked, if only for the full color/shock effect.

Tom M.

If the clothing isn't virtually removed, why aren't outer garments visible on the images, but genitalia is visible?

star_world

Wrong again - that's absolutely not the same thing. I have no issue with comprehension - you just don't like the conclusion I've arrived at. It's not an uninformed opinion - I've come across hundreds of these types of devices, and have closely examined the resulting image on the screens used by the operators. Repeatedly telling me that for some reason best known to you, I somehow don't "comprehend" is just going to get frustrating for you - you may as well stop at some point ^

Nothing is "removed". That simply isn't how it works - have a read through the various documents that people on this board have previously linked to.

doober

He doesn't want to comprehend it, mikemey. All he wants to do is argue and attempt to make others look foolish.

mozgytog

Again with the assertion that an image detailed enough to indicate whether or not a man is circumcised is not a 'nude image'. What exactly has to be shown for you to classify something as a nude image?


Just out of curiosity, what do you know about Rosa Parks?

The only ridiculous story I see is the one where you assert that a grayscale image of a man's penis doesn't constitute a nude image.

That the image of a human being, complete with detailed genitalia, is not a nude image? I wonder why people aren't agreeing with you.


Again you clearly misrepresent the images that are produced by WBI devices, despite the fact that images from the devices, far more detailed than your description, have already been linked in this very thread.

Please cite your source for the claim that it takes five seconds to perform a search by WBI.

I have, which is exactly why I have a problem with you stating that they are anything other than nude images.

Tom M.

And you don't like the informed conclusions others have come to.


If you believe people are arguing that something actually is removed, you do have a comprehension problem.

star_world

I've seen plenty of these images. They are not photographs of a naked person, no matter what way you look at it.

Would you consider a graphic line drawing of a person with no clothes a "nude image"? I'm curious to know where your baseline is here.

We've been there already in this discussion. There is no comparison.

And you're entitled to that opinion. Hint: just telling me "you're wrong" does not make it so. Clearly we disagree on this point.

See above.

See above. I've seen plenty of these images. It's not an uninformed opinion.

My eyes, ORD Terminal 1, Priority Security checkpoint on the right, last Sunday. I saw about a dozen people go through and most were standing at the scanner for ~5 seconds. What's your point - are you just arguing for the sake of it?

Well then you have a problem - just leave it at that if you want ^

No, I haven't seen these informed conclusions. All I see from the majority of posters here are emotional viewpoints about "nudity", mixed in with a little "privacy" and topped off with a small dose of "prudishness".

really have to spell it out with you, don't we? Nothing is removed from the image.

Tom M.

Then you do have a problem with comprehension.


Again, more evidence that you have a problem with comprehending the argument.

star_world

If you have an issue with a point I'm making, report it as a bad post or drop me a PM and I'll be happy to discuss further. You're not doing yourself any favours by repeatedly spouting this sort of nonsense.

mozgytog

Please do share them with us.

A pencil drawing with the level of detail captured by a WBI machine would certainly count as a nude drawing. If a live model was used, it would be a nude drawing of the model.


Actually you've never stated that you know anything about Rosa Parks.


Yes, we clearly disagree. However, when it comes to disagreements over facts, both sides are not equally right. In this case, you are factually wrong.


I have provided the citations for the basis of my statement of the facts. You have not, although you have been invited to do so multiple times. If you have evidence to substantiate your claims and prove me wrong, by all means, do so.


No, I think you are misrepresenting the facts.



So that you can repeat the same misinformation in other threads and act indignant when you're challenged there as well? You have a habit of doing this, of making these inaccurate statements, claiming that nobody's opinion is wrong, acting superior to everyone else, and then acting the victim when you're called on it.

You have no evidence or data with which to back up your assertions, and your positions are indefensible. If you had any, you would've presented it already.

tanja

So true so true.

Tom M.

As I said before, I prefer open and frank discussions.

You're not doing yourself any favours by repeatedly spouting this sort of nonsense.

tanja

Just because some people doesnt mind or care if they get scanned or groped. that doesnt mean that others does.

Everybody have different reasons why they dont want that. Has nothing to do about being a prude.

I have like a lot of peeople been without clothes. But I choose when I wanted to do it.

But I am not going to do it in an airport among strangers just to be able to fly.

And to be more or less forced to do it!

It is getting more and more stupid and insane.

The people that makes up this ridicules rules most be people who have problems with to little nudity in their own lifes. So they have to take out on strangers.

Wimpie

Yes - This is exactly the problem.

Informed people would have emotional viewpoints about "nudity"
Informed people would have an issue with "privacy"
Informed people would have a small dose of "prudishness"

star_world

I travelled through LHR several hundred times while they were piloting these devices. At the time, the policy was that they would let you see the image that had been captured while you were being scanned. That is the source of the majority of the images I've seen - not a jpeg image posted on the Internet, but on the actual monitor used by the screener. Any suggestions for how to post that here?

It's mainly from seeing those images that I'm such a strong proponent of WBI devices - it's quite clear what the images do and do not show. It was quite clear to me that they were far from "nude images" of people.