THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Post Reply
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7017
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The Ukrainian theater

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:18 pm

kickstones wrote: This picture shows Putin and Orban in the exact same pose. It is the same camera angle, their clothing has not moved, their fingers have not moved... This is the same picture, but the man in the middle has been replaced by flowers on the table. The flowers picture was released on 31-January-2013. Back in January 2013, Orban met with Putin to discuss a variety of topics, including energy. A year later, on 15-Jan-2014, they met again and signed an agreement to expand a nuclear power plant.
Great find, kickstones... Here I have simply overlayed the two "2013 / 2014 images" - one on top of the other:

Image

So are our 'world leaders' even faking their own meetings? :blink:

kickstones
Member
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:15 pm

Re: The Ukrainian theater

Unread post by kickstones » Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:29 pm

simonshack wrote:
Great find, kickstones... Here I have simply overlayed the two "2013 / 2014 images" - one on top of the other:

So are our 'world leaders' even faking their own meetings? :blink:
Simon, there was a later update to the Hacker Factor article:
Update 2014-02-19:
A few people have informed me that the kneeling man is the Hungarian President, Janos Ader. (Foreign politics was never my specialty; I apologize for not identifying him.) I have updated the blog entry so he is named rather than "some guy".

Also, I'm told that the man-in-the-middle picture is a satyr -- so being modified is expected. (That's what I get for taking Spanish rather than Hungarian as a second language in school.) But to me, that just makes the irony funnier: a satirical site modified a really-modified photo found on kremlin.ru.

http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index. ... s/P13.html

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7017
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The Ukranian theater

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:38 pm

*

Request for Hungarian help:

Could warriorhun - or some other Hungarian-speaking forum member - please check out this article and let us know what it says?
http://index.hu/tech/2014/02/19/photosh ... g_szarvas/

See, the Hacker Factor links to that article on this page: http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index. ... s/P13.html

Thanks! :)


******************
In any event (even if the kneeling Janos Ader is most likely just a 'satyrical' photoshop spoof), another aberration remains - as pointed out at the Hacker Factor site: one of the four legs of that table (which appears in both images) is considerably longer than the others:
Image


****
My apologies to Nonho for 'derailing' somewhat his excellent thread-starting article - which focuses on a truly important issue, namely: what facts & truths, if any, do the media report about the ongoing 'Ukrainian crisis theater'? So let us return to that topic asap. Sorry for briefly inerjecting with thinly-related photographic analyses.

My apologies to nonho also for derailing - could we move the offending posts? - brianv

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The Ukranian theater

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:04 pm

I don't think it's derailing. This topic could be big. We're just brushing the surface now but it's something to keep an eye on all aspects of.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2580
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: The Ukranian theater

Unread post by nonhocapito » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:20 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:I don't think it's derailing. This topic could be big. We're just brushing the surface now but it's something to keep an eye on all aspects of.
[I removed my previous answer here as it led to an unwanted misunderstanding with brianv. I'll keep it short: I think it is a bit of a derailing and a pity since digging into the ukranian scenario from the point of view of the war news stories could be a lot more palatable and revealing. Just my feeling. Let's move on. -n]

ninetynine
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:34 am

Re: Major leaders are pretty much all actors?

Unread post by ninetynine » Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:28 pm

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsQ5wxZI1U4[/u]

[ADMIN: Post removed to derailing room for failing guidelines. Please use code properly. It is extremely simple to understand if you take a little time to learn it. And our forum is not for posting raw links, but explaining our personal insight on a given topic. Next time you have a link you want to share, please post it properly and tell us what it's about. Thank you.

Link to our required reading and guidelines. (Hey, it also tells you how to use code if you can't figure it out.) : http://cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=32

-HP]

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2247
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: The Ukrainian theater

Unread post by fbenario » Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:52 am

Sukiari wrote:While I don't post all that often on this site I really appreciate it and all the hard work that goes into many of the posts here. While I agree with the premise that there's a lot of fakery out there, we have to be careful with drawing conclusions based upon image analyses of low-resolution, highly compressed web-sized images. These images are going to be reduced in size, have very powerful sharpening filters (essentially edge enhancement), and the information density in solid-hue and nearly solid-hue background items like the sky, streets, and walls which lack much detail is going to be very low.

I don't think that it is useful to attempt to prove anything with techniques involving Photoshop or other filtering programs UNLESS one can describe, and then demonstrate (and falsify!) the premise one is working under. In the case of digital image manipulation, we are talking about mathematical equations, so ideally a person can describe their fakery-detectinon efforts in a mathematical way.

When there are very high quality, uncompressed images available (such as NASA's moon landing images) I think it becomes much easier to detect photo manipulation with the use of filters. However, when the images you are starting with have already been munged before you even see them, you have a much tougher time detecting anything except the compression artifacts and image quality filtering that is applied when the image is sized and compressed for web publication. A useful experiment for anybody who wants to understand this is to simply do it themselves. Acquire a RAW file from a modern digital camera, and experiment with the filtering techniques used to detect manipulation. Then resize the image so it is much smaller, enhance contrast, sharpen, and finally compress the heck out of the image and try your same technique. You will notice that the image now has a multitude of artifacts that it lacked before. Then mentally ask yourself: "Are these artifacts similar to the ones that are supposed to prove that an image was manipulated?"

Some image manipulations are very obvious. Cloning of a small crowd into a large one has been pointed out before, and this becomes undeniable even when the image fakers use transforms to attempt to change the basic geometric nature of the cloned image portions. I suspect, though, that in many cases the manipulation is not digital, but rather set-ups are portrayed as real events. There are many posts on this site pointing out obviously *staged* photographs, as well as other analyses of incongruent shadows and other excellent evidence that the photo was not taken where it was intended to depict. A good recent example of this is the Japanese hostages, who have converging facial shadows and the spotlessly clean captor who is supposed to be in the middle of a dusty desert landscape.

When a person simply shows a filtered version of an image that was already manipulated (sharpened, contrast, color, etc) and then compressed to hell, especially in a context-free post, this just serves to lengthen the page which is not helpful. As another person pointed out, this meeting is portrayed as really happening, including video, interviews, jets and motorcades (supposedly) and the whole nine yards. Would it be necessary to photo-composite an image of this meeting? Could one analyze different videos and photos of the event and come up with similar signs of manipulation? I fear that attempts to use digital techniques for detecting photo-manipulation are not reliable especially without some kind of mathematical or programmatic theory backing them up.
This analysis and explanation seems lucid, helpful, and relevant. Why is it in The Derailing Room?


*****************************
ADMIN NOTICE (simon): Thanks, fbenario. Hoi Polloi has now moved Sukiari's post to the most appropriate thread - "Forensic Photo Analysis".

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by Maat » Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:26 am


arc300
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:13 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by arc300 » Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:33 am

fbenario wrote: This analysis and explanation seems lucid, helpful, and relevant. Why is it in The Derailing Room?
Speaking as a complete layman, I'd be so bold as to suggest that this type of discussion should have its own thread in the required reading section. A kind of "Traps For Young Players" type of thing.

Houdini
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:26 am

Re: TAIPEI river plane crash

Unread post by Houdini » Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:40 pm

Here is a nearly 2-hour video of the "rescue operation" from Russia Today news network. I don't know if they purport this to be from their own camera crew or a feed from someone else, but the camera never moves or shows you any of the surrounding scene (at least in the first 18 minutes that I've watched)...

[st][Youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paUO9A_L-w0#t=220[/Youtube][/st]

[ADMIN: Nice post and information but, I cannot fix this shit link for you, and it ruins the meaning of your post. You don't need the entire URL. Please, please people, read the required reading so you know how to use the tags! It makes your point so much more accessible to readers. Thank you! -H.P.]

I haven't watched the whole thing yet but seeing how many pontoon boats are surrounding the plane, it shows the incongruity of the "happy ending" photo posted earlier. Seeing how deeply the plane is submerged and how none of the rescue workers are getting out of their boats and standing, it can't possibly be waist-deep water. The people in the "happy ending" photo, provided they weren't injured, could have easily waded to shore without any rescue help.

EDIT: Around the 20-minute mark, the camera view briefly switches to an angle from in front of the plane, then at 22 minutes the original view zooms back to the full scene and a hand comes around with a rag and wipes the camera lens - nice touch! :P I need to watch more before adding anything else. Sorry, couldn't get the vid to embed.

[ADMIN: That's because you obviously didn't read the required reading section of the forum! Any more posts like this and I am going to start putting them in the derailing room. Simon, please do a better job of telling people when they join to read our "using the forum" posts. -H.P.]

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Feb 16, 2015 5:22 pm

http://cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=32

This just goes to show we suck at orientation and as a result there are plenty of people who end up joining here who don't know what the fuck they are doing. This is a simple process to fix. Since Simon told me he approves the "handshake e-mails", he needs to let people know to go to the Required Reading.

A lot of the information there is rudimentary, but some of it apparently isn't, since we are consistently having an issue with people failing to understand basic code. Man, our public brainwashing institutions can't even let people know how tags work?

Embarrassing! It's like the grammar of the Internet. Learn to post without gobbledygook. Saying, "I couldn't find it" means you didn't even try. We have the information available in a clearly marked space. Don't pretend you tried.

Sorry for being a crabby pants, but I am sick of this — people pretending to care when they could look up the information with a thirty second search. :angry:

Nothing against your intentions, Houdini. It's the potential for a great post. But with that fatal flaw.

Houdini
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:26 am

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by Houdini » Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:33 pm

Sorry. I don't post that frequently. If I go several months without posting, I come back and apparently forget some of the guidelines. I did know about using the info after the "=" sign when embedding a video, but it didn't take when I did that. Apparently I had to eliminate the info after the second "="...

Selene
Banned
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Selene » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:16 pm

Hi TruthMediaRevolution,

very nice to see your extensive and especially honest introduction. I am glad to see you are not afraid to share your thoughts, how ironically against the stream they may be and open to be convinced of the opposite.

It's funny, because I have the exact opposite views on the themes that you mentioned; 9/11-WTC planes are impossible. There's no questioning about it. No doubts about it. It simply is physically impossible.

About 2 years ago I was in the same position as you seem to be right now (but then without having seen the great September Clues) and mocked others who said "no planes", so no worries, I do understand you perfectly.

Then, investigating more (still without SC, I saw simons work and all others here on the forum combined just last month (!)), it's dead simple why it is impossible.

On the other hand, I am skeptical about the TransAsia crash being faked. Not that I discard any of the analysis and work you've been doing and also here on CF, at all. Same like you do not dismiss September Clues and still are in doubt about the planes.

My question is why would they fake a plane crash? I find it so senseless to do. 9/11 and all the other hoaxes around the world had a purpose. The purpose here is "showing that they can fake something"? I don't get it. So I don't reject the idea of fakery in this particular case, but am not convinced by it either.

Agnostic, so to speak.

On the 9/11 planes, consider this:
  • What we have been presented on TV, and so well exposed how and by whom by this forum and September Clues, cannot be real
  • What did we see, geee, I?? We saw a 'plane' entering a building without resistance, undelayed and entirely intact
  • The most complete way to describe this behaviour is homogeneous
  • A collision of two (very) heterogeneous (point mass, density, material properties -rigidity, strength, thermal conductivity, etc.-) objects can never be homogeneous (only when all heterogeneous properties would "cancel each other out", an almost statistical impossibility)
  • Another point is the opposite, Newton's law of action=reaction ; the collision of a moving WTC-tower building with ~500-600 km/h against a still standing plane. Do you think the plane will be swallowed without resistance, without delay and without breaking by a building of let's say 200.000 tonnes (exact number I don't know and is irrelevant; pretty heavy) that smashes against it with that speed?
  • I think we can all agree that this cartoon physics is impossible, really first grade elementary Newtonian physics (no attack on you, as I know your position, man ;) )
So in short, I hope to be convinced by you and your TransAsia work and I hope to convince you about the physical impossibility of planes. And all the other topics to be discussed here. I agree that YouTube is a great way of sharing our world views.

No name calling or attacks from me; I fully share and keep expressing the same view that we should be inviting, embracing and debating (arguments are enough) towards all those who want to expose the lies perpetrated to the ordinary people by the predatory psychopaths.

Most welcome, I am a mere junior here myself and I will follow your podcast and YouTube channel.

Selene

Paraphrasing one of the greatest thinkers of all time:

...it doesn't matter, because it's just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we but unfortunately we could not explore space, together, both only inner and outer and on Earth, forever, in peace.
Bill Hicks (1993)

Selene
Banned
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Selene » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:30 pm

Hi all,

So far I've done some first contributions in the "Do Rockets work in a vaccuum" topic and this is my first one here.

I am struggling with this topic and many doubts and ideas flying through my cerebral universe.

My stances at the moment regarding space travel are:
  • Apollo is all faked - a video series I am working on, but want to make it very complete and well documented so takes a lot of time
  • Mars Missions - no way, nice Canadian (?) landscape...
  • Hubble and ISS are fakes - no stars in the background is impossible, nice pools and media fakery
  • Rocket space travel seems impossible because of Temperature (mainly) and Pressure conditions
  • But what about satellites? - And if the latter were true, how can we have them?
The arguments for my doubts are:
  • Satellite data is used by many tens of millions of people on a daily basis, I myself am not an exception. Satellite data is calibrated against real geographical data and thus checked for (in)consistencies. If satellite data were faked, so many people would have to be involved to cover it up, it completely exceeds all other hoaxes in size and time.
  • I hear about "signals bouncing off the ionosphere", I am not an expert on the outer Earth, rather the surface and subsurface, so I cannot really add to it, but my question is: how strong is that explanation? Do we have convincing non/pre-NASA information, publications, scientific arguments, to back this up, or do we have only this statement and no real further well-listed explanation of the physics of it and proof it actually works and can deceive the whole world?
  • If rocket space travel is indeed impossible, and the arguments brought forward in that topic are very strong to support that these, can satellites still be possible and up to what altitude do we need to think of?
  • Maybe it's like ISS where the altitude may be different but there's "something" up there that can cause these "sightings" (no Mulder and Scully plots here) and that something (a "satellite" as it is orbiting the Earth) is taking aaaaaall these measurements (the amount of satellite data is humongous), so not in "Lower Earth Orbit" (space) but rather in "Upper Atmospheric Orbit" (let's say 100 km or so??) where T & P conditions are not yet at near zero levels as is the case in space (hence no rocket or any other travel is my most possible stance at the moment)
  • satellites are present in so many forms and I recall to have read here in the topic the possibility of "thrusters to change course" of a satellite. Hmm, don't know about that, but that may also have to do with this "maximum altitude where rockets work due to PVT conditions"?
  • If the bouncing off of the ionosphere can explain the huge satellite (data) industry working and not finding out the truth, that would be a major step forward in the debunking of the space-related subjects, I'd say. A "September Clues" on "The impossibility of Satellites". But well, very well scientifcally documented, referenced and presented.
I am here mainly to learn and to contribute my thoughts, for a more thorough investigation into this will take some time, as Apollo needs to be finished first, but would be interesting to see what is and what isn't possible in terms of space presence and to have a coherent story.

What is the real upper boundary of mankind; landing smoothly on plastic asteroids or hovering with only impulse and/or gravity driven objects at an altitude of a few 10's to 100 kms?

Selene

It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand, and what those things are
Søren Kierkegaard (1847)

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:26 am

Selene wrote:My question is why would they fake a plane crash? I find it so senseless to do. 9/11 and all the other hoaxes around the world had a purpose. The purpose here is "showing that they can fake something"? I don't get it. So I don't reject the idea of fakery in this particular case, but am not convinced by it either.
You're still here? Denying that we've proven video fakery? Ho-humming and adding absolutely nothing of your own research? You haven't refuted any of the points in the TAIPEI thread, but you still claim to sit on the fence. Did you even read it? Obviously not.

You claim to care about the satellite issue, but offer absolutely no evidence to the working theory that satellites are bunk — nor to any sort of contrary. It seems you haven't actually read that forum either.

What do you do? Simply read the title of a thread and then come up with your own random, unrelated thoughts vaguely defending the official story? Is that your assignment? You certainly act like it is.

This is at least the third time you have been warned about this. With every post you fail to acknowledge the problem of your belligerent ignorance of the topics being discussed, it begs the questions: What are you doing here? Why do you write lengthy posts about absolutely nothing? How could you still be contributing nothing to the forum after everything we have told you about the purpose of the forum? How can you claim to be at all familiar with the evidence of fakery presented on thousands of pages of reading material?

You are not really claiming to be "agnostic" on something obviously fake, asking for "debate" when you don't even understand the questions. You are essentially saying, "I don't care what points you've made, and I'm not going to think about them until you do research for me, on my terms."

This isn't your blog or your Facebook page. You claim to be doing what, exactly, for the public, by being a numb idiot that doesn't read the forum you're on?

I am moving your comments to the Derailing Room until I have some sense you are actually reading the forum you claim to use, and you can present cogent arguments based on all that has been discussed in those threads.

Cripes. Sometimes, you people claiming to represent "fairness" really fail at representing an opposing opinion. No wonder we have to ban folks like you so often! It's like reading your shopping list. Wasting our time. I can see why some on here think your own "motivations" for being here really stink. Quite highly. I would basically categorize your attempt at contributions so far as falsely impassioned yawns and feigned ignorance of the entire subject matter of this forum.

Post Reply