The red sea of people?

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.

Re: The red sea of people?

Postby Sukiari on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:13 am

reichstag fireman wrote:After studying every nook and cranny to these images (all in the name of science. y'understand B) ) they look distinctly fake.

Error Level Analysis @ 0.70 has been applied to the published images. This reveals a plethora of anomalies. These indicate deception from image composition.

In the first image, the upstretched arms at the back are at a notably different error level to the rest of the image. This suggests that the arms were added later. Evidence of very lazy fakery.

Image

Note again the different regions at different compression levels. There appear to be three distinct regions to this image: (i) the bodies in the foreground, (ii) the bodies on the plinth (iii) the building background. In other words, this image is another fraud based on composition.

Image

In this image too, there are distinct regions at different error levels, indicating composition. In particular, note that the energy level of the near foreground is uniform. Yet that region is at a very different level to the bodies along the plinth. Note also the pronounced line running alongside the bodies in the near foreground. Another clear sign of fakery.

Image

While these fake photos are ostensibly harmless, they do serve as a gauge of our gullibility to fake crowd photos. Perhaps that is their real purpose? To see how much they can sucker us? To see whether we're wising to their frauds, their photo fakes and their video deceptions?

Perhaps these fake photos are Tunick's lighter output? Is he involved in faking similar crowd photos for more nefarious purposes?

There is a serious issue here: the ability to fake crowds is an important propaganda weapon of the Apparatus.

If the Apparatus can show through plausible photos that it has mobilised large numbers in its favour, that has a demoralising effect on critics.

Manufacturing photos and footage showing fake crowds on the streets has always been an effective way to manipulate public perception of your power and popularity.

A few more at:
http://i.imgur.com/jdgL2.gif
http://i.imgur.com/05x7N.gif
http://i.imgur.com/xmjKO.gif
http://i.imgur.com/BtXJr.gif
http://i.imgur.com/dGDWB.gif
http://i.imgur.com/9L3RP.gif
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news ... rip-908387


I'm curious, what does your image analysis program attempt to prove? Have you tried it out on photographs you yourself have taken and compressed at varying levels of compression to see if it detects fakery in an image you know is real?

Some image manipulation is obvious to the eye, and can not be disputed reasonably. I have no problem with this at all. However, a couple of transforms might not reveal what you suspect they do.

An investigation into how JPG compression works and the blockiness / artifacts that it produces might be worth your time. I'm not trying to imply that you're being dishonest here, just suggesting that you know what your tools accomplish.
Sukiari
Member
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: The red sea of people?

Postby ninetynine on Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:33 am

The shot where they have their arms linked reminds me of the output from the TSA scanner machines; maybe that's what they do with all that data--make more vicsims with actual real humans body types, flaws and all.

Their feet look like they haven't any toes; some appear cloven-footed.
ninetynine
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:34 am

Re: The red sea of people?

Postby lux on Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:23 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:I have just been banned from Fotoforensics.com for 3 months for uploading one of Tunick´s loony "installation" pictures! How cool is that! :o

The site forbids submitting images with nudity and this is written boldly in red on it's submissions guidelines page:
http://fotoforensics.com/faq.php?guidelines#What%20can%20I%20upload%20for%20analysis

Sukiari wrote:I'm curious, what does your image analysis program attempt to prove?


The explanation and tutorial located here begins ...

"Error Level Analysis (ELA) identifies areas within an image that are at different compression levels. With JPEG images, the entire picture should be at roughly the same level. If a section of the image is at a significantly different error level, then it likely indicates a digital modification."

I think the key point is that it measures different compression levels within an image. So if, for example, something is pasted into an image that section will show up as having a different compression level because it came from another image and so it was saved a different number of times than the main image.

There are exceptions to this as explained in the site's tutorials. One of these exceptions is the color red so using it to analyze these photos with all the red people in them seems rather useless to me. I suggest reading the instructions for the site before trying to use it. Links to all the tutorials are here.

Sukiari wrote:Have you tried it out on photographs you yourself have taken and compressed at varying levels of compression to see if it detects fakery in an image you know is real?


I have done this. Photos I took myself and didn't manipulate don't show manipulation and photos I took myself and did manipulate (by pasting in parts of other photos, etc) do show manipulation. Doing this sort of experimentation is the best way, I think, to see how it all works.

From my experience the best use of this site is to reveal parts of an image that have been pasted in from other sources. That is, to reveal images that are purported to be a single image but are really composites of multiple images. But, you have to read and understand the tutorials to make best use of it.
Last edited by lux on Sun Nov 24, 2013 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The red sea of people?

Postby Flabbergasted on Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:53 am

lux wrote:The site forbids submitting images with nudity and this is written boldly in red on it's submissions guidelines page:
http://fotoforensics.com/faq.php?guidelines#What%20can%20I%20upload%20for%20analysis

I realize that, lux, and I wasn´t trying to flout the site´s rules, but I have previously submitted sundry innocuous pictures that might fit their somewhat peculiar definition of “pornography” (according to an e-mail exchange with fotoforensics.com which I will share with you if you are interested), so I wasn´t expecting this type of reaction because of an award-winning fauxtographer´s picture of a glacier with hundreds of termite-sized "nudes". But, as the adage goes, "the just pay for the sinners". I am OK with it; it´s not a problem.

I was wondering, did anyone else get banned for submitting to fotoforensics.com the pictures posted in this thread?

brianv, did you get banned for analyzing this?

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p2379715
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Previous

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest