61–70 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could rewrite the history for next generation and no one would likely notice it. Nearly all tellings of history have a bias, and people nearly always mistell history, espeically history about their tribe/country/ethnicity/country. This is nothing new.
They say history is written by the winners of wars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could rewrite the history for next generation and no one would likely notice it. Nearly all tellings of history have a bias, and people nearly always mistell history, espeically history about their tribe/country/ethnicity/country. This is nothing new.
They say history is written by the winners of wars.
The news portal index.hu regularly republishes his work, this is where the confusion may have originated from: http://index.hu/szarvas/2014/02/11/ader_alair/ you can see the post among other posts here: http://index.hu/szarvas/
Here is a thread where a commenter points out how photo manipulation is frowned upon by professional photographers on their forum, and they can't believe "how a political journalist can do this while a war correspondent can't draw smoke near an explosion.", linking to his republished image on index.hu.
Of course szarvas is not a political journalist, he is a funny guy with a tumblr: http://szarvas.tumblr.com/post/76316693473/nyomomneki-lvnte-...
I wonder how the article talks about clues detectable only by applying filters to the image, yet misses the most obvious sign of retouching: the middle figure's knees, the blur around them can be seen with the naked eye, not to mention the irregular shape.
Regarding the other conclusion of the article (the outline around Orban and Putin seen in the histogram image), to me it simply looks like sharpening. I may be wrong.
The main angle of the post (dressing exactly the same all the time) is a very interesting one, but the end points are somewhat scary. Think of it: if it's so easy to fake color photos so that people won't notice, isn't it easier to fake black&white photos? How do you know this is real: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Yalta_Con... ? I don't. If we routinely don't trust colour pictures in newspapers,…
...again. We're always getting better at faking history, because our creative tools are always a step ahead of the forensic tools. A few centuries ago it was easy for a skilled craftsman to make fake Roman antiquities/medieval manuscripts/whatever, and not so easy to detect the fraud by analysis of the pigmentation in paint or ink, for example.
First is very realistic, that in 2013 he fabricated fishing in Tyva:
http://avmalgin.livejournal.com/3926168.html
Second is that he has multiple doubles, including one mongoloid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, that is somewhat informative. I was skeptical of the used methodology and conclusion which reminds me of conspiracy theory nonsense. Knowing that the guy in the middle is pasted in is pretty helpful. I'm still not convinced about the relevance of the white outline on Putin.
I am skeptical of anyone using the expression "conspiracy theory nonsense" so casually.
Trust is something hard to come by and when dealing with foreign sources you have to rely on translators and their issues. What is worse, even if the translators are reliable, alterations can be made after the fact, but verification is difficult because of language barriers. Here is an example that my father found about Putin's person of the year interview with Time. Time published a full transcript [1] in English an…
