Continuation - Ukraine erupts in riots and general strikes

[caveman1917]

That' not an actual image forensic expert. That's a computer scientist.

A computer scientist specializing in digital image forensics, what do you call those?

 

[uke2se]

A computer scientist specializing in digital image forensics, what do you call those?

A computer scientist.

 

[caveman1917]

A computer scientist.

Are you disputing that image forensic experts exist? Or just saying that it is impossible for computer scientists to have expertise in digital image forensics?

 

[uke2se]

Are you disputing that image forensic experts exist? Or just saying that it is impossible for computer scientists to have expertise in digital image forensics?

I agree that he's a self-proclaimed image forensics expert. I'm also saying that his degree is in computer science.

 

[caveman1917]

I agree that he's a self-proclaimed image forensics expert.

And what exactly would computer scientists need to do to not be "self-proclaimed"? Obviously things such as writing textbooks on digital image forensics isn't enough, so what exactly is required? Could you present some examples of "not self-proclaimed" image forensics experts?

 

[uke2se]

And what exactly would computer scientists need to do to not be "self-proclaimed"?

He's not a self-proclaimed computer scientist. He's an actual computer scientist. He's a self-proclaimed image forensic expert. To not be self proclaimed, he would have to be recognized by his peers as an expert in the field. It would also help to have some sort of forensic science in his education.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Are you talking about the guy who wrote the software Brown Noses used for their "analysis"?

What's the point?

Lost the plot?

 

[caveman1917]

Are you talking about the guy who wrote the software Brown Noses used for their "analysis"?

As well as the chapter on digital photo forensics in Handbook of Digital Imaging and various other publications.

 

[uke2se]

As well as the chapter on digital photo forensics in Handbook of Digital Imaging and various other publications.

How many academic papers has he published on image forensics?

 

[caveman1917]

How many academic papers has he published on image forensics?

Are you aware that not every forensic expert in the industry is employed in academic research? He is widely acknowledged as an expert in the literature as a quick search shows. I've asked this already, but do you have some examples of "not self-proclaimed" digital image forensic experts? Preferably ones that would dispute the claimed expertise?

 

[uke2se]

Are you aware that not every forensic expert in the industry is employed in academic research? He is widely acknowledged as an expert in the literature as a quick search shows. I've asked this already, but do you have some examples of "not self-proclaimed" digital image forensic experts? Preferably ones that would dispute the claimed expertise?

I'm sorry, but the burden of evidence is not on me. I'm simply disputing your claim that he is an expert in image forensics. I would like to see evidence of his expertise, which means academic papers (failing having an actual degree, which he does not) and peer recognition. 'Peers' meaning other professionals engaged in image forensics. Can you provide that?

 

[caveman1917]

What's the point?

That's a good question.

In order to make the claim that a digital image has been manipulated, the following is apparently not sufficient to establish expertise:
1. Have a PhD in computer science.
2. Be widely recognized in the literature as an expert on digital forensics.
3. Write the relevant chapters in textbooks on digital imaging.
4. Be widely recognized for writing software tools used in digital forensics.

If only we had these kinds of standards applied to people like Higgins, I'm really running out of irony meters here

 

[caveman1917]

Saakashivli is an outsider with good pro-democratic credentials and with no connections to Ukrainian power structure.

Can this get any more Orwellian?

 

[jimbob]

jimbob doesn't even seem to know that the Russians publicly announced beforehand the cross-border artillery strikes that he repeatedly, for unknown reason, posts the same satellite evidence of.

Ah the Ukrainian artillery strike with the remarkably minor damage:

From the first part of this thread:

Yeah. It's not out of Russian MO to fabricate a cause for war by faking a shelling of their own men.

Images from Putinist propaganda are ... shall we say unconvincing at best:


A few broken windows, a lump of timber that looks like a barn that collapsed on it's own, an impact site that looks like the start of a garden, no sign of fire damage and tellingly - no sign of shrapnel of any kind. The implication of the video is that the windows were blown out by the blast, yet no dirt is seen on the white window panes, just grime of ages.

Here's an image from the alleged shelling:

http://rt.com/files/news/2a/17/40/00/rian_02461853.hr.en.jpg

Here are a few images of the kind of damage an actual artillery strike does:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images...05176587408/A-damaged-building-in-Mar-017.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7GMO7zlzO...ps/5919QcSOBEk/s1600/grozny2600d_belyakov.jpg

http://xoxol.org/putin/grozny-488-900x595.jpg

http://www.lifeforcemagazine.com/aug2012/index_htm_files/179.jpg

http://inmoscowsshadows.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/60455529_chech_prespalace_010296g.jpg

http://blu.stb.s-msn.com/i/43/35F395FC6E62681F57F6D4BFFF822.jpg

Either Russian wood is vastly superior in resistance to explosions to reinforced concrete, or RT didn't show a place hit by an artillery shell while claiming to do so. That's quite telling.

I have no idea what to make of the links to Iranian coup. Perhaps you could explain the idea of how the fact CIA aided a coup in Iran somehow disproves Russian history of wars of aggression and blatant lies.

McHrozni

It took some searching, but I found another image of the "shelling", apparently from a different shell - 3 are alleged to have landed in Donetsk, Russia.

http://cdn1.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...P-3641ad04-fc30-4d93-8642-d4b9e6f65b62_I1.jpg

Again no clear impact site, no evidence of an explosion of any kind, just a damaged roof over a porch, not even the house itself. Amazingly the wall in front of the damaged roof shows no sign of damage. There are what looks like shower curtains not a meter from the damaged roof, very much exposed to wherever the explosion ought to happen, and no sign of shrapnel or ripping of any kind. If this was a result of an artillery shell, it did not explode.

Surely the photographer could come in closer and shoot a few less ambiguous images, as demonstrated in the several images above. However, I strongly suspect the images from Russian propaganda machine do not show an artillery strike at all.

McHrozni

Neither of those two photos show the result of an artillery strike - or at least one carried out with service ammunition of the calibres in use by the Ukrainian Army (or the Russian Army for that matter)

Both the Russians and the Ukrainians use the same basic artillery calibres - an aftereffect of the former USSR - 122mm and 152mm tube artillery, 82mm mortars, and 152mm rockets. not knowing where the impacts are in relation to the border we can't use that to eliminate any suspects - that being said, if the impact is more than 30km from the border we can either conclude that it is unlikely that the Ukrainian Army is responsible, as their equipment only reaches out that far and while we joke about it, artillery survey officers generally know where they are within a km or so....

Looking at the "impacts", the Russian Times impact looks like it was done with a shovel and the person digging it got bore and wandered off - not to mention that the impact of the round didn't disturb the yard debris that was within a metre or so of the "impact." The one from the Belfast Times looks more plausible, until you realize that there are no signs of an explosion - ie, the rubble thrown away from the blast area, the roof panels bent outwards by the force of the explosion, no scorching, etc. This is just bad propaganda.

Also, if this is the claimed reason for that, then the response is severely disproportionate.

 

[caveman1917]

Ah the Ukrainian artillery strike with the remarkably minor damage

 

[uke2se]

That's a good question.

In order to make the claim that a digital image has been manipulated, the following is apparently not sufficient to establish expertise:
1. Have a PhD in computer science.
2. Be widely recognized in the literature as an expert on digital forensics.
3. Write the relevant chapters in textbooks on digital imaging.
4. Be widely recognized for writing software tools used in digital forensics.

That's quite a strawman. I'm not disputing his right to make a claim. I'm disputing you calling him an expert. Keep lying though.

 

[caveman1917]

That's quite a strawman. I'm not disputing his right to make a claim. I'm disputing you calling him an expert. Keep lying though.

By those 4 points relevant expertise has been established. Your claim to the contrary requires better than a random poster on a forum just saying so.

 

[uke2se]

By those 4 points relevant expertise has been established. Your claim to the contrary requires better than a random poster on a forum just saying so.

No, it hasn't. It has been asserted.

1. A degree in computer science says nothing about one's ability to perform image forensics.

2. Who's claiming him to be an expert? His peers? Or random people you managed to google up?

3. His ability to write textbooks says nothing about him being an expert in image forensics. Creationists write textbooks on evolution. That does not make them experts in evolutionary biology.

4. Writing software tools makes him a good (or at least decent) programmer. It says nothing about him being an expert in image forensics.

 

[caveman1917]

2. Who's claiming him to be an expert? His peers? Or random people you managed to google up?

I have already provided you with the link.

3. His ability to write textbooks says nothing about him being an expert in image forensics. Creationists write textbooks on evolution. That does not make them experts in evolutionary biology.

I have already provided you with a link to the textbook. Here is, again, the list of editors:

Author Information

Editor-in-Chief Dr. Kriss received his BA(1962), MS(1964) and PhD(1969) in Physics from the University of California at Los Angeles. He joined the Eastman Kodak Research Laboratories, Color Photography Division, in 1969 and later the Physics Division until his retirement in 1993. In his early years at Kodak, Dr, Kriss focused on color film image structure and modled and simulated the impact of chemical development on image structure and color reproduction. When he joined the Physics Division he focused on image processing of scanned and captured digital images. Dr Kriss spent three years in Japan where helped build an advanced research facility. At Kodak he headed up the Imaging Processing Laboratory and Algorithm Developing Laboratory. He joined the University of Rochester in 1993 where he was the executive director of the Center for Electronic Imaging Systems and taught through the Computer and Electrical Engineering Department. He joined Sharp Laboratories of America in 2000 where he headed the Color Imaging Group. Dr Kriss retired in 2004 but is still active as a consultant, Adjunct Professor at Portland State University, IS&T activities, and as the Editor in Chief of the Wiley-IS&T Series on Imaging Science and Technology.

Associate Editors

Michael Kriss – See above
Pochi Yeh – Electrical and Computer Engineering, UC Santa Barbara
Claire Gu – Jack Baskin School of Engineering, University of California Santa Cruz
Li Yang – Technical Manager, Innventia, Sweden
Gianluigi Ciocca - Imaging & Vision Laboratory, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Italy
Rajesh Kumar - Engineering Research Center for Computer Integrated Surgical Systems and Technology (ERC/CISST), Johns Hopkins University
Randall Friedl - JPL, NASA

 

[uke2se]

I have already provided you with the link.

You provided a link to a Google search results page. Not acceptable. Be specific.

I have already provided you with a link to the textbook. Here is, again, the list of editors:

Do those editors consider him an expert in image forensics?