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?reichstag fireman wrote:After studying every nook and cranny to these images (all in the name of science. y'understand ) 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.
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.
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.
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://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news ... rip-908387
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.