Continuation - Ukraine erupts in riots and general strikes

[caveman1917]

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

False. I provided you with a Google scholar search. The results speak for themselves, but why bother actually looking at the given sources when you can just keep claiming that none were provided?

Do those editors consider him an expert in image forensics?

Of course not, they just let him write the chapter on digital photo forensics because they think he's a looney.

 

[uke2se]

False. I provided you with a Google scholar search. The results speak for themselves, but why bother actually looking at the given sources when you can just keep claiming that none were provided?

I did look at them, and it's still not acceptable. You need to be specific.

Of course not, they just let him write the chapter on digital photo forensics because they think he's a looney.

Do they consider him an expert in image forensics? Please provide proof.

While you're at it, you can also provide anything other than a few tweets where the good doctor demonstrates how the photo in question has been digitally altered.

 

[jimbob]

I did look at them, and it's still not acceptable. You need to be specific.




Do they consider him an expert in image forensics? Please provide proof.

While you're at it, you can also provide anything other than a few tweets where the good doctor demonstrates how the photo in question has been digitally altered.

And none of this discussion about that part of the report has any bearing about this analysis that I posted

Here is one of the Bellingcat reports (Who’s Lying? An In-depth Analysis of the Luhansk Buk Video)

Which was waved away as not relevant (somehow).

We weren't talking about something you linked to, but what's in the "news" these days and others linked to as latest Brown Noses revelations. Any substantial comment on what's in the two expert takes on that material? Or is the cognitive dissonance too strong again?

Which isn't actually an answer.

 

[caveman1917]

Do they consider him an expert in image forensics? Please provide proof.

They endorse a textbook chapter specifically on "Digital Photo Forensics" by him. The burden of proof is on you that these editors are either incompetent or through some other reason not consider him an expert on the subject of digital photo forensics.

This is of course leaving out the other 3 well-documented points.

 

[caveman1917]

Which was waved away as not relevant (somehow).

Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

 

[uke2se]

They endorse a textbook chapter specifically on "Digital Photo Forensics" by him. The burden of proof is on you that these editors are either incompetent or through some other reason not consider him an expert on the subject of digital photo forensics.

This is of course leaving out the other 3 well-documented points.

Fair enough. I'll consider him an expert for the sake of discussion. Now, where is the analysis where he demonstrates that the photo has been digitally altered. I checked on Twitter, and it ain't there, possibly due to character limits.

 

[caveman1917]

Now, where is the analysis where he demonstrates that the photo has been digitally altered. I checked on Twitter, and it ain't there, possibly due to character limits.

You could try asking him.

 

[uke2se]

You could try asking him.

Why? You brought his claim into this thread. I'm asking you.

 

[caveman1917]

Why? You brought his claim into this thread. I'm asking you.

I've claimed that an actual digital image forensic expert found it to be manipulated, a claim which I established. If you want to discuss the method, you should do so with him, he's the one doing it after all.

 

[uke2se]

I've claimed that an actual digital image forensic expert found it to be manipulated, a claim which I established. If you want to discuss the method, you should do so with him, he's the one doing it after all.

Ok, claim dismissed then, as there is nothing to discuss and no way to challenge his assertion here.

 

[caveman1917]

Ok, claim dismissed then, as there is nothing to discuss and no way to challenge his assertion here.

 

[uke2se]

You should try a bit of skepticism when you join a skeptics forum.

 

[caveman1917]

You should try a bit of skepticism when you join a skeptics forum.

A known crank makes a claim of a manipulated image - no problem. A known expert makes that claim - gotta be skeptical.

I better put the irony meter shop on speed dial.

Has contacting people for more details on their methods ever occurred to you?

 

[uke2se]

A known crank makes a claim of a manipulated image - no problem. A known expert makes that claim - gotta be skeptical.

I better put the irony meter shop on speed dial.

I don't know what you're talking about, and can only assume you have mistaken me for someone else.

Has contacting people for more details on their methods ever occurred to you?

The nifty thing is that for the purposes of this discussion, I don't have to. The burden of evidence is on you. I have no intention of doing your work for you.

It should be noted that your expert has made this kind of declaration before, and been wrong.

 

[caveman1917]

It should be noted that your expert has made this kind of declaration before, and been wrong.

Source?

 

[uke2se]

Source?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...th-Photoshop-World-Press-Photo-launches-probe

 

[caveman1917]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...th-Photoshop-World-Press-Photo-launches-probe

Could you refute his response as well?

 

[uke2se]

Could you refute his response as well?

No, but I take solace in the fact that nobody who mattered were convinced by him.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I'm skeptical about this. Shouldn't it be Brown Noses?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Which isn't actually an answer.

I ate all the popcorn alone.