+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Science and Technology (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-11.html)
+--- Thread: Detecting Photgraphic Fakes In The Time of Computers (/thread-389.html)
Detecting Photgraphic Fakes In The Time of Computers - Peter Lemkin - 16-11-2008
I was just reading a technical article on this subject and there ARE experts who can [with a high level of certainty] detect fakes - new [computer generated] and old [using computer algorithms]. We are increasingly faced with doubtful photos. A complex and technical subject. Attached are some references on the subject for those who want to explore this.
Detecting Photgraphic Fakes In The Time of Computers - Jack White - 16-11-2008
Thanks, Peter...I just emailed them some questions.
Jack
Detecting Photgraphic Fakes In The Time of Computers - Peter Lemkin - 16-11-2008
I thought you'd might appreciate that Jack. Their techniques are very computer intensive and not for amateurs, but I think they may well be the types who'd be able to do the work on important photos pro bono, just as an academic exercise, and being good citizens. The article was in the June, 08 Scientific American. The upshot of it was that the new software available can create fakes that fool the eye, but not another computer - with the right analysis software. They also, in their article, mentioned a few things that can be seen as fakes with the 'naked eye', if you know what to look for. Two I remember were light source differences and eye reflection angles. There were others. More importantly they claim that a jpeg or tiff file do contain proof of forgery, but only a special program they specialize in can find that evidence. It is an increasingly important issue and may well apply to digitized images of originally optical/film images, as well.
Detecting Photgraphic Fakes In The Time of Computers - Charles Drago - 17-11-2008
Jack,
What is your take on the work of Tom Wilson?
Detecting Photgraphic Fakes In The Time of Computers - Peter Lemkin - 17-11-2008
I'll let Jack respond and then I'll add my 'piece' on Wilson - as few have as much info on his methods - nor have tried as much to make it public [now that he is deceased]. Which reminds me...time to send out another [of many] emails to try to move this along. Perhaps some on the Forum would like to help generate 'polite pressure' to those who have control over Wilson's work at this time. I'll let you know when and where.....
Detecting Photgraphic Fakes In The Time of Computers - David Guyatt - 17-11-2008
I think this is going to be an increasingly important subject in the years to come. My belief is that CGI and film morphing are going to be used to shape pubic opinion in such areas as news footage etc.
The below sequence of pictures (lifted from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphing) are of interest. Please take a look and then tell me which one is the Austrian Nazi as I'm easily confused?
![[Image: 300px-Bush-Arnie-morph.jpg]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Bush-Arnie-morph.jpg/300px-Bush-Arnie-morph.jpg)
Detecting Photgraphic Fakes In The Time of Computers - Charles Drago - 17-11-2008
I'm glad you responded, Peter. Of course you know I'm aware of your connections to the Wilson matter, and I URGE you to keep pursuing it.
For those readers who are not aware of the material under discussion: Hang in there, and we'll deal with the inherent complexities carefully.
If I may cut to the chase: If photo analyst Tom Wilson's methods are sound, we have irrefutable photographic evidence of conspiracy.
If they are not sound, the larger and proven case for conspiracy remains undiminished.
Detecting Photgraphic Fakes In The Time of Computers - Charles Drago - 17-11-2008
The one in the middle, David, looks like Senator Norm Coleman.
The one on the rights suffers from Waldheimer's Disease: That's when you get old and forget you were a Nazi.
Detecting Photgraphic Fakes In The Time of Computers - Peter Lemkin - 17-11-2008
Charles Drago Wrote:I'm glad you responded, Peter. Of course you know I'm aware of your connections to the Wilson matter, and I URGE you to keep pursuing it.
For those readers who are not aware of the material under discussion: Hang in there, and we'll deal with the inherent complexities carefully.
If I may cut to the chase: If photo analyst Tom Wilson's methods are sound, we have irrefutable photographic evidence of conspiracy.
If they are not sound, the larger and proven case for conspiracy remains undiminished.
To me, Tom Wilson died under somewhat questionable circumstances,a nd few know he had met with a high-level FBI [in his naivte] and given that man his proofs of conspiracy in the JFK assassination - they are now denied by the FBI, but it can be proven they were given to them! A nearly complete set of his materials were with Dr. Wecht [they are now confiscated, due to the trumped-up charges against Wecht]. I'll have more to say soon.... One last point. Tom Wilson was admitted repeatedly and never denied being an expert witness [using his techniques] on other forensic cases [not related to 'national security cases'] with Dr. Wecht and others.
Detecting Photgraphic Fakes In The Time of Computers - Jack White - 17-11-2008
Charles Drago Wrote:Jack,
What is your take on the work of Tom Wilson?
I was one of the few researchers who understood Tom's work, and he often told me that I was the only "researcher" that he trusted, along with Cyril Wecht.
To answer your question, Tom discovered MANY REMARKABLE THINGS, but he was a "lone operator" and not trusting nor inclined to work with others, so I believe he in some instances misinterpreted his findings. Not being a researcher, he was rather naive about some aspects of the investigation. Not believing that the Justice Department could have been involved (Hoover, FBI), he was hoping to use his discoveries to get the Justice Department to reopen the investigation.
He had a brilliant scientific mind, but as a newcomer to JFK research, some of his approaches were flawed. He should have worked with other trusted
researchers...for instance George Michael or PD Scott.
His most important discovery is UNKNOWN. Through Ted Kennedy, he was
granted access to the MOST SECRET FILES in the Archives, where he was able to VIEW THE ORIGINAL AUTOPSY PHOTOS BEFORE THEY WERE ALTERED. He was not allowed to copy them or make notes, but I presume that among his effects he left a description of the event.
I hope that this knowledge was not involved in his untimely demise.
Jack