Continuation - Ukraine erupts in riots and general strikes

[magellan]

and if I don't read German?

As i said before: be glad. Otherwise your head might explode.

As it is now you are perfectly safe and isolated, in a world where US is always good and russia is always bad.

 

[caveman1917]

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

1. He made 3 claims about the photograph, that it was 1) composited, 2) had its lighting altered and 3) was edited in other ways. The photographer acknowledged all 3 of these. You should specify on what basis you classify this as having been "wrong".

2. Even if he was wrong, that does not invalidate his expertise. Everyone gets things wrong every now and then.

3. Your argument is based on the claim by another computer scientist, a photographer and a business manager. How would you be able to tell this wasn't just expert disagreement? Propped up by a whole lot of media drama perhaps.

4. More importantly, the evidence in this thread does not support your claim that this is a skeptics forum. The exact same claim of digital image alteration is uncritically accepted from sources such as Bellingcat, specifically Eliot Higgins, who can by reasonable standards be considered simply a crank, but is subjected to heavy skepticism and ridiculous standards of expertise when coming from the other side from someone with actual relevant expertise. Skepticism applied with such level of selectivity isn't skepticism at all, it is bias masquerading as skepticism.

 

[uke2se]

1. He made 3 claims about the photograph, that it was 1) composited, 2) had its lighting altered and 3) was edited in other ways. The photographer acknowledged all 3 of these. You should specify on what basis you classify this as having been "wrong".

It wasn't a composite. He was wrong. Actual experts weren't convinced by Krawetz.

2. Even if he was wrong, that does not invalidate his expertise. Everyone gets things wrong every now and then.

But the fact that he was wrong speaks to him making snap judgments. His reasoning in the World Press Photo case was at least spelled out and fairly documented. In this case he simply asserts that a "line" is present that he thinks should not be there and thus concludes that the photo has been manipulated. It's really weak reasoning.

3. Your argument is based on the claim by another computer scientist, a photographer and a business manager. How would you be able to tell this wasn't just expert disagreement? Propped up by a whole lot of media drama perhaps.

The fact that the World Press Photo organization upheld the winning photo tells me that they were satisfied with a recognized expert's official report, as opposed to a alleged expert's blog post.

4. More importantly, the evidence in this thread does not support your claim that this is a skeptics forum.

I'm well aware that we are inundated with various forms of cranks, woos and trolls of all political and religious persuasions. The Putinites are such a group. The rest of us provide the skepticism.

The exact same claim of digital image alteration is uncritically accepted from sources such as Bellingcat, specifically Eliot Higgins, who can by reasonable standards be considered simply a crank, but is subjected to heavy skepticism and ridiculous standards of expertise when coming from the other side from someone with actual relevant expertise. Skepticism applied with such level of selectivity isn't skepticism at all, it is bias masquerading as skepticism.

I still have no idea what you are talking about. I was not a part of that conversation. Reading the wiki entry on Higgins, - who I didn't know existed before you told me - he doesn't really strike me as a crank, but you may have other information.

 

[caveman1917]

It wasn't a composite.

Then why did the photographer acknowledge to overlaying different versions of the picture?

But the fact that he was wrong speaks to him making snap judgments.

You have not established that as a fact. Actually, you've specifically declined countering his response.

It's really weak reasoning.

It's not reasoning at all.

The fact that the World Press Photo organization upheld the winning photo tells me that they were satisfied with a recognized expert's official report, as opposed to a alleged expert's blog post.

Yes they were satisfied with a picture manipulated in this fashion.

The Putinites are such a group. The rest of us provide the skepticism.

I'll just point out that Childlike Empress has been one of the few people consistently skeptical of the more relevant subject of discussion, Bellingcat.

I still have no idea what you are talking about. I was not a part of that conversation. Reading the wiki entry on Higgins, - who I didn't know existed before you told me - he doesn't really strike me as a crank, but you may have other information.

Funny how that works...

Could you try reading the page before the one you entered on?

 

[uke2se]

Then why did the photographer acknowledge to overlaying different versions of the picture?

That's not a composite. A composite is several different images used to create a new image. The photo in question was not a composite. It was digitally retouched. Krawetz was wrong.

You have not established that as a fact. Actually, you've specifically declined countering his response.

It has been established by people much more qualified to do so than I.

It's not reasoning at all.

If you say so.

Yes they were satisfied with a picture manipulated in this fashion.

It abided by the rules of the competition. If it had been a composite image, like Krawetz said it was, it wouldn't have.

I'll just point out that Childlike Empress has been one of the few people consistently skeptical of the more relevant subject of discussion, Bellingcat.

Ok?

Funny how that works...

Could you try reading the page before the one you entered on?

What? The wikipedia front page?

 

[caveman1917]

That's not a composite. A composite is several different images used to create a new image. The photo in question was not a composite. It was digitally retouched. Krawetz was wrong.

Every time a certain software function in a certain program gets used a tag is added to the metadata. This software function is compositing two images to one. Here are two possible definitions for "composite": 1) it is composite if this software function took place irrespective of the values of the images or 2) it is composite only if it took place such that the other image is not the result of a certain class of functions on the first one.

Can you give any reason to prefer definition 2 over 1 other than that the WPP was happy with some forms of digital retouching?

It has been established by people much more qualified to do so than I.

Yet that claim is simply asserted by you. Could you link to a rebuttal?

It abided by the rules of the competition. If it had been a composite image, like Krawetz said it was, it wouldn't have.

In fact, it would, if you use the definition that actually corresponds to what the test is purported to measure.

What? The wikipedia front page?

How about: this thread, as in 2 pages ago.

 

[uke2se]

Every time a certain software function in a certain program gets used a tag is added to the metadata. This software function is compositing two images to one. Here are two possible definitions for "composite": 1) it is composite if this software function took place irrespective of the values of the images or 2) it is composite only if it took place such that the other image is not the result of a certain class of functions on the first one.

Can you give any reason to prefer definition 2 over 1 other than that the WPP was happy with some forms of digital retouching?

That's not a good definition of a composite image.

Here's one from a dictionary:

a picture, photograph, or the like, that combines several separate pictures.

Here's another one:

a photograph characterized by overlapping or juxtaposed images resulting from a multiple exposure or the combining of negatives (composite print)

Here's another one:

Photography) a photograph formed by superimposing two or more separate photographs

Here's a wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compositing

Here's another one, specifically for digital compositing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_compositing

You will note that all of the definitions talk about different images, and not the same image.

Yet that claim is simply asserted by you. Could you link to a rebuttal?

You'll find the link to the expert assessment in the link I already provided.

In fact, it would, if you use the definition that actually corresponds to what the test is purported to measure.

So you are saying that Neil Krawetz created a ************* over something that didn't matter at all? This sounds an awful lot like a convenient excuse to avoid admitting being wrong.

How about: this thread, as in 2 pages ago.

Interesting. There seems to be a pro-Russian troll trying to put questionable material on Wikipedia. Thankfully, the editors have removed it.

 

[caveman1917]

That's not a good definition of a composite image.

It's the one your sources use, the compositing of different pictures to create the final image. For instance, contrary to your claims, this really is a composite

You'll find the link to the expert assessment in the link I already provided.

False. I specifically asked you for a refutation of his response, you've refused to provide it.

So you are saying that Neil Krawetz created a ************* over something that didn't matter at all? This sounds an awful lot like a convenient excuse to avoid admitting being wrong.

Krawetz didn't create anything, he asserted correctly that the image had been composited based on correct analysis of the metadata. Some media then started saying things like "limbs have been added", none of which was claimed. Then another computer scientist wrote a, by his own admission, strongly emotional response containing several verifiable errors. Not the least of which being changing the definition of "compositing" so that it's not compositing as long as the base pictures aren't different enough to be disqualified from that contest. What if the contest changes its requirements, will the definition of "compositing" follow along?

Interesting. There seems to be a pro-Russian troll trying to put questionable material on Wikipedia. Thankfully, the editors have removed it.

This is blatantly false, stop lying.

 

[caveman1917]

As we can see yet again in this thread, the self-proclaimed "skeptics" aren't skeptics at all.
Just compare what these so-called "skeptics" defend as a forensic analysis versus what they consider questionable material.

The introduction of the term "Putinists", which is of course left undefined, has no other use than to muddy the waters against the actual skeptics who are consistently questioning the stream of verifiable lies, fabrications and total bunk that the self-proclaimed "skeptics" produce in this thread.

 

[uke2se]

It's the one your sources use, the compositing of different pictures to create the final image. For instance, contrary to your claims, this really is a composite
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=33297&stc=1&d=1433837563[/qimg]

That one is, yes. The contest winning one isn't.

False. I specifically asked you for a refutation of his response, you've refused to provide it.

Considering actual experts have more things on their plates than get into an internet flame war with a blogger, I'm not surprised there was no refutation of his response. None was needed. The experts had spoken.

Krawetz didn't create anything, he asserted correctly that the image had been composited based on correct analysis of the metadata.

Krawetz wrote this in his blog:

"So here's what likely happened... The photographer took a series of photos. However, the sun's position made everyone dark and in silhouette. So, he combined a few pictures and altered the people so you could see their faces."

Had the photographer done that, it would have been a composite and disallowed from competition. It was found not to have been a composite and was thus allowed. So, Krawetz asserted that the image was a composite of several different images. Krawetz was wrong, no matter what he wrote in his response.

This is blatantly false, stop lying.

I'm not. It's apparently what happened.

 

[uke2se]

As we can see yet again in this thread, the self-proclaimed "skeptics" aren't skeptics at all.
Just compare what these so-called "skeptics" defend as a forensic analysis versus what they consider questionable material.

The introduction of the term "Putinists", which is of course left undefined, has no other use than to muddy the waters against the actual skeptics who are consistently questioning the stream of verifiable lies, fabrications and total bunk that the self-proclaimed "skeptics" produce in this thread.

"Putinist" I define as someone willing to lie for Putin, whether consciously or not. There are several in this thread. An example of such a lie is your continued insistence that I accept something that I was never even a part of discussing, or that I defend some forensic analysis I never even read. You can stop lying now. Nobody is buying it.

 

[Childlike Empress]

How Many Neo-Nazis Is the U.S. Backing in Ukraine?

[...] In some ways the incessant, noxious and once seemingly absurd Russian propaganda has become a self-fulfilling prophecy: The United States Government is knowingly training and arming neo-Nazi Ukrainian ultranationalist paramilitary members in broad daylight in an unstable country with an unclear future. Nineteen million dollars of U.S. taxpayer’s money is going into this. We are all paying for it. There is no denying this one. [...]

Seemingly absurd. Interesting. And now it's fulfilling itself. Where do we know this from? Syria anybody?

On the weekend there was a mini-Maidan 3.0 with five camping tents and a couple of dozen activists. In the night came the goons with the balaclavas and ended that one. Same type as those who assaulted the gay pride march.

Where are they coming from? Who could have known? But we are the good guys!

 

[Childlike Empress]

As we can see yet again in this thread, the self-proclaimed "skeptics" aren't skeptics at all.
Just compare what these so-called "skeptics" defend as a forensic analysis versus what they consider questionable material.

The introduction of the term "Putinists", which is of course left undefined, has no other use than to muddy the waters against the actual skeptics who are consistently questioning the stream of verifiable lies, fabrications and total bunk that the self-proclaimed "skeptics" produce in this thread.

I like how this one ended in "stop pretending that I had a point! that's a lie! there never has been something like a point!!!1 so I win."

Unbelievable.

 

[caveman1917]

That one is, yes. The contest winning one isn't.

Yes it is, in exactly the same way as the one above. Again, the photographer himself described doing this (taking multiple transformations of his picture and then combining these to a final image).

Considering actual experts have more things on their plates than get into an internet flame war with a blogger, I'm not surprised there was no refutation of his response. None was needed. The experts had spoken.

So you have no response. Quod erat expectandum. A "blogger" who is still writing textbooks on the subject, should be noted.

Had the photographer done that, it would have been a composite and disallowed from competition. It was found not to have been a composite and was thus allowed. So, Krawetz asserted that the image was a composite of several different images. Krawetz was wrong, no matter what he wrote in his response.

Krawetz was correct, as the photographer indicated. Just because the jury considers some specific transformations of pictures to combine (not the translation, rotation and scaling I did above) as acceptable does not mean that it's not a composite.

The absurdity of this line of reasoning should be evident when you have 2 photo contests going on, then the same picture can be both composite and non-composite depending on which jury you ask what they are comfortable with.

I'm not. It's apparently what happened.

Can you please identify this purported "Pro-Russian troll" that you claim to have been doing this? The edit history completely disagrees with you. The only troll in the edit war easily identified is "Volunteer Marek" who started it.

 

[caveman1917]

You can stop lying now. Nobody is buying it.

 

[caveman1917]

Unbelievable.

It's a bit like the old 'supporting of dictators' adage "but at least he's our bastard", only this time it's "but at least he's our Alex Jones". The part about jumping into the middle of a discussion of Higgins and then claiming not to be part of it is also funny enough.

 

[jimbob]

I had missed this story the first time round

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/12/armoured-russian-vehicle-inside-ukraine

The Guardian has found more evidence of Russian military hardware operating inside Ukraine, spotting an armoured vehicle marked with the symbol of the Russian army's "peacekeeping forces".

The armoured personnel carrier was well inside Ukraine, in Lutuhyne, a town near Luhansk, where a Ukrainian military convoy was destroyed by artillery and Grad missiles last week.

Their vehicle was marked in three places with a blue circle and the yellow Cyrillic letters MC – the Russian abbreviation for "peacekeeping forces".

Many of these have been seen moving on the other side of the border in recent weeks, and the vehicle's presence was yet more evidence of what Moscow has continually denied – that its soldiers are active in east Ukraine.

In many cases, separatists have claimed that columns are not Russian military vehicles but trophies stolen from the Ukrainian army.

 

[jimbob]

Whilst we are discussing whether multiple independent journalists or Russian state-controlled media is more reliable, it might be time to link to this article. It also highlights that Russia lied about the presence of Russian troops in Crimea.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-release-report-on-russian-troops-in-ukraine

Boris Nemtsov allies release report on Russian troops in Ukraine

Fellow opposition figures unveil 65-page document based on work started by the Kremlin critic before he was killed in February

Although the report uncovers little new information, it is perhaps the most extensive compilation yet of evidence of the Kremlin’s involvement in the eastern Ukraine conflict, which has killed more than 6,200 people since April 2014. Besides the human cost, the war has resulted in sanctions that have isolated Russia politically and created a refugee crisis, the authors said. In the first 10 months of the war, Russia spent 53bn roubles on deploying troops, sending military equipment and paying the salaries of “mercenaries” fighting on the side of separatists, according to the publication.

This report was prepared by Russian patriots. The war that Putin started with Ukraine contradicts Russia’s interests, it is harming Russia’s interests, and we will do everything we can to stop it,” said Yashin.

In a chapter about the takeover of Crimea, which Putin at first attributed to local self-defence forces, the report quotes Russian soldiers who took part in the military operation to capture key infrastructure on the peninsula in February 2014.

 

[caveman1917]

Whilst we are discussing whether multiple independent journalists or Russian state-controlled media is more reliable

Neither Western nor Russian media is reliable on this subject, both to not very different degree. Furthermore, most Western journalists aren't independent but working under an employer, just like the Russian ones actually.

However, what we were discussing is whether cranks parroted by Western media are more reliable than experts. It seems that the "skeptic" way is to go with the cranks (meaning people with no formal education in the subject, or any other subject for that matter, and no experience in it) and the "Putinist" way is to go with the experts. This thread has been one sad display from the start, but now it's really just getting ridiculous.

 

[jimbob]

Neither Western nor Russian media is reliable on this subject, both to not very different degree. Furthermore, most Western journalists aren't independent but working under an employer, just like the Russian ones actually.

However, what we were discussing is whether cranks parroted by Western media are more reliable than experts. It seems that the "skeptic" way is to go with the cranks (meaning people with no formal education in the subject, or any other subject for that matter, and no experience in it) and the "Putinist" way is to go with the experts. This thread has been one sad display from the start, but now it's really just getting ridiculous.

Western reporters are working for several different employers, and many of the foreign correspondents are keen on reporting as impartially as possible. Good ones are aware of their own biases, and try to account for them. I admit that I only know a retired foreign correspondent socially, and not very well, but his professional attitude was certainly along those lines.

There is plenty of evidence of the Russian denials being untrue. Sufficient information is in the public domain for this.

The Guardian and BBC have also reported on the less savoury aspects of the Ukrainian side.

Russia has zero credibility in this. Ukrainian sources have slightly more, but independent journalists when they corroborate each others stories and provide evidence are credible.

I do realise that at least one of the people proclaiming the Russian narrative has proclaimed their belief in conspiracy theories* so this is probably a waste from their point of view.

This is actually a pretty good example to view conspiracies. Russia is trying to hide its involvement, and there is plenty of hard evidence that it is involved. Unlike, any proposed conspiracy about 9/11, Russia did have the advantage that it had access to pretty much the same Soviet-era type of equipment as Ukraine, making it easier to claim that "rebels" captured it.

Despite this, the narrative is full of holes. Massive conspiracies are hard to hide. Russia has failed.


*9/11 springs to mind but I am not going to look for posts