Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #269092

Re: Global Warming is not real science

From	Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject	Re: Global Warming is not real science
Date	2014-11-25 21:13 -0700
Message-ID	<D09AA169.41CFC%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <m50egk$3t4$3@dont-email.me> <628d263e-a393-4674-9d28-fc43e123e5dc@googlegroups.com> <m52322$eok$5@dont-email.me> <ghue0.3ar3@rooftop.invalid> <m53gq3$q3o$4@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/25/14, 8:18 PM, in article m53gq3$q3o$4@dont-email.me, "DFS"
<nospam@dfs.com> wrote:

> On 11/25/2014 8:16 PM, owl wrote:
>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/24/2014 7:27 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 24, 2014 4:21:08 PM UTC-7, DFS wrote:
>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hoaxer moron denials make me a little angry, but in the end you
>>>>> dumbasses have to live with yourselves and your stupid paranoia.
>>>> 
>>>> No point in being angry, people like owl, Slimer, etc., obviously have
>>>> brain chemistry issues.
>> 
>>> You have to be really weak-minded - a real lamebrain putz - to be a 9/11
>>> or Sandy Hook 'truther'.
>> 
>> I say Emilie Parker (far right) was photoshopped into this family photo:
>> 
>> http://jazztruther.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/hi-res-photoshopped1.jpeg
>> 
>> What do you think?
> 
> 
> I doubt it was, but I'm sure it's possible.  Experts can do magic with
> Photoshop.

I am not saying it is altered, nor claiming to have any expertise in the
area (though I have done a fair amount of digital editing myself), but I
will say the color of that shirt is brighter than the rest (and perhaps her
pants as well) and the placement of where she is sitting seems a bit odd to
me. The look of the grass in front of her, though, seems to exactly match
that of the grass in front of the (I presume) father's knee. It would be
hard to do that (though that grass could also be added - it does not seem to
match the rest and seems, to me, a bit oddly transparent).

I also did some basic "tricks" to look for differences. I heavily increased
the saturation, tried a couple different blend modes, and looked at the RGB
channels individually. I did not see anything that seemed to suggest the
girl was added using those methods other, perhaps, a slight glow around the
father's knee and leg that *might* be a little fishy.

I then went one step further and saved the image at a fairly high quality as
a JPG and re-imported it. I put that over the original and set the blend
mode to "difference". I added a Levels layer over that and set to see the
differences better. This will often show (or so I have read and seen in a
couple examples myself) if there have been different levels of artifacts.
Not sure why but this seems to bring out different levels of JPG artifacts
from previous edits. I saw nothing to suggest any added images or other
trickery.

Again: not saying she was or was not Photoshopped in... but to my untrained
eye it seems possible but quite unlikely... though a bit more likely than,
say, the other people having been added. Still, without good evidence to say
she was added it would be irresponsible for anyone to make that claim. If
she was it was done well.

> Whether it's altered or not, by the family or not, it doesn't change the
> fact of her murder. Poor, sweet little girl - it breaks my heart.

Agreed. Absolutely.

> Debunking lowlifes:
> https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-emilie-parker-still-alive-after-sand
> y-hook.1054/
> 
> May you hoaxer scumbags suffer 100-fold whatever pain you cause those
> Sandy Hook families.
> 
> 

-- 
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Global Warming is not real science DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-24 18:21 -0500
  Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-24 16:27 -0800
    Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 03:08 +0000
      Re: Global Warming is not real science DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-24 23:52 -0500
    Re: Global Warming is not real science DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-25 09:17 -0500
      Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-26 01:16 +0000
        Re: Global Warming is not real science DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-25 22:18 -0500
          Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-26 03:55 +0000
            Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 21:18 -0700
              Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-26 04:30 +0000
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 21:38 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-26 07:50 -0800
          Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 21:13 -0700
            Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-26 04:23 +0000
              Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 21:56 -0700
        Re: Global Warming is not real science Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-26 13:27 -0500
          Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 12:56 -0700
            Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 13:02 -0700
            Re: Global Warming is not real science Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-11-26 21:59 +0100
              Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 14:35 -0700
              Re: Global Warming is not real science Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-11-27 06:35 -0500
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 08:58 -0700
              Re: Global Warming is not real science Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-11-27 14:11 +0000
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-11-27 15:26 +0100
                Re: Global Warming is not real science WaRmNfUzZy <warmnfuzzi@muzzimail.net> - 2014-11-27 09:28 -0500
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-27 10:02 -0500
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 09:17 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-11-27 17:09 -0500
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 14:24 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 09:14 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 08:39 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science WaRmNfUzZy <warmnfuzzi@muzzimail.net> - 2014-11-27 12:08 -0500
                Re: Global Warming is not real science tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 11:15 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2014-11-27 17:50 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 19:11 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 19:29 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 09:19 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 08:51 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science WaRmNfUzZy <warmnfuzzi@muzzimail.net> - 2014-11-27 12:09 -0500
                Re: Global Warming is not real science tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 11:10 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 14:11 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-11-27 22:41 +0000
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-11-27 23:56 +0100
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 16:49 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 16:57 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 19:24 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2014-11-27 19:11 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 20:38 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 19:52 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2014-11-27 20:01 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 21:06 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-11-28 09:56 +0100
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-28 09:34 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-11-28 17:40 +0100
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-28 09:48 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-28 09:35 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2014-11-28 11:12 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-28 12:25 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-28 14:30 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-28 20:44 -0500
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-28 19:07 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-28 07:52 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science WaRmNfUzZy <warmnfuzzi@muzzimail.net> - 2014-11-28 11:31 -0500
            Re: Global Warming is not real science Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-26 17:08 -0500
              Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 15:43 -0700
  Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 03:14 +0000
    Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-24 20:24 -0700
      Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 03:31 +0000
        Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-24 20:41 -0700
          Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 03:50 +0000
            Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-24 20:54 -0700
              Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 04:06 +0000
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-24 20:39 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 09:06 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-25 08:31 -0800
                Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 18:12 +0000
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 12:05 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 19:12 +0000
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 12:22 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 19:37 +0000
                Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 13:09 -0700
                Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 21:51 +0000

csiph-web