FREE TAPATALK APP

Alferd_Packer · 9th May 2012, 12:11 PM

The nuts over at American Stinker could give the truthers a run for the money in sheer numbskullery

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...oom_photo.html

The comments are freaking hilarious.

ANTPogo · 9th May 2012, 01:14 PM

Mara Zebest!? Sheesh...

And the accusation that the "situation room" picture is a forgery is practically ancient. We even had a thread about it here almost exactly one year ago.

JayUtah · 9th May 2012, 01:25 PM

I love how all those "Photoshop users" (i.e., including every teenager with a bit-torrent to a warez site) and "graphic artists" are patting themselves on the back.

If they were photographic analysts, they'd notice a few things. First, depth of field. The focus plane appears to be right at Mrs. Clinton. Gen. Webb is slightly behind the focus plane but still in focus. Sec. Gates in the foreground is considerably defocused. And similarly, Pres. Obama is also out of focus, indicating he is considerably behind the depth of field.

Second, juxtaposition cues. There is an ambient-occlusion cue where the President's chair can be seen to rest up against the far wall. The general whom many photo "analysts" seem to be using as a depth and scale reference is seated at the conference table, very near the focus plane. The lack of occlusion on the people standing behind the general's chair indicates some distance between them and the chair, and the faint occlusion on the wall behind them indicates some distance remaining. This gives us a rough estimate of the depth of the room along the optical axis.

Further, Obama is visibly slumping in his chair, his forearm resting on his thigh.

The placement cues are consistent with Obama being considerably farther behind the USAF general than the hoax theorists seem to believe. This is the same foreshortening "forced perspective" technique that was used in Lord of the Rings to seat Gandalf and Frodo in Gandalf's cart while making Frodo seem very small.

http://marciokenobi.wordpress.com/20...d-perspective/

Regarding Tomason (the dark-haired woman) and Blinken (the blue-shirted man leaning), our illustrious "analyst" (and crusading birther) Mara Zebest can't seem to distinguish Tomason's blue-gray blazer from Blinken's blue shirt. So throughout her analysis she insists Tomason's hands are suspiciously in front of Blinken's shirt. The boundary, she argues is suspiciously indistinct, but in fact it isn't. There is a fair amount of chromatic noise from the compression, and a fair amount of lens blur, but there is a prominent medium-frequency boundary in both luminance and color.

While Zebest clearly has some expertise in using Adobe products, she really has no demonstrable understanding of, or qualification in, the analysis and authentication of photographs. Here's a hint: if you're going to be a sculptor, you need to know more than just how to make a chisel.

ANTPogo · 9th May 2012, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

While Zebest clearly has some expertise in using Adobe products, she really has no demonstrable understanding of, or qualification in, the analysis and authentication of photographs. Here's a hint: if you're going to be a sculptor, you need to know more than just how to make a chisel.

Well, this is the same woman who was the "expert" that proved Obama's birth certificate was a forgery for World Net Daily and Sheriff Joe's Cold Cuts Posse.

JayUtah · 9th May 2012, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Well, this is the same woman who was the "expert" that proved Obama's birth certificate was a forgery for World Net Daily and Sheriff Joe's Cold Cuts Posse.

Yeah I know who she is. She knows how to use Adobe's Creative Suite products, but she has no training, expertise, or experience in forensic forgery detection or authentication. She came to Sheriff Joe's camp with no prior expertise. One of the fundamental rules of expertise is that you must demonstrate proficiency before asking people to trust that your proficiency has solved the crime.

There were composites before there was Photoshop. There was alteration before there was Photoshop. Using one of my favorite examples, at Bad Astronomy http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....spaceman/page3 we discuss the altered photo of Titanic http://www.lessons-from-history.com/...ages/H1557.JPG that was done in 1912, and as the thread proves, are still convincing today. BTW, my avatar there really is a pic of me.

jargon buster · 9th May 2012, 02:04 PM

fourtoe · 9th May 2012, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

http://www.belch.com/blog/wp-content...5/obamaps2.jpg

Haha, yeah, I loved the meme that came from this.

What is the credibility on The American Thinker? I thought that Ron Wieck posted there.

MG1962 · 9th May 2012, 02:19 PM

And the thing - what does it matter or what does it prove. Did Obama being in that room or being in that room change the outcome - even it is a fake it means nothing

ANTPogo · 9th May 2012, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by fourtoe

What is the credibility on The American Thinker?

Zero, pretty much.

JayUtah · 9th May 2012, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

And the thing - what does it matter or what does it prove. Did Obama being in that room or being in that room change the outcome - even it is a fake it means nothing

It means absolutely nothing in terms of the validity of the bin Laden raid, which can be ascertained from other sources. However to birthers, it means yet another reason to despise the Obama administration. In the birther mindset, the Obama administration is so shameless in its need to bolster the image of an "illegitimate" president that they have to resort to grandstanding via Photoshop.

Horatius · 9th May 2012, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

In the birther mindset, the Obama administration is so shameless in its need to bolster the image of an "illegitimate" president that they have to resort to grandstanding via Photoshop.

...which is ridiculous on its face. How hard would it be to just get a photo of Obama actually watching the raid? Or, if that's impossible for some reason, staging a photo-op to simulate that shot? Why photoshop it?

Gord_in_Toronto · 9th May 2012, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

I love how all those "Photoshop users" (i.e., including every teenager with a bit-torrent to a warez site) and "graphic artists" are patting themselves on the back.

If they were photographic analysts, they'd notice a few things. First, depth of field. The focus plane appears to be right at Mrs. Clinton. Gen. Webb is slightly behind the focus plane but still in focus. Sec. Gates in the foreground is considerably defocused. And similarly, Pres. Obama is also out of focus, indicating he is considerably behind the depth of field.

Second, juxtaposition cues. There is an ambient-occlusion cue where the President's chair can be seen to rest up against the far wall. The general whom many photo "analysts" seem to be using as a depth and scale reference is seated at the conference table, very near the focus plane. The lack of occlusion on the people standing behind the general's chair indicates some distance between them and the chair, and the faint occlusion on the wall behind them indicates some distance remaining. This gives us a rough estimate of the depth of the room along the optical axis.

Further, Obama is visibly slumping in his chair, his forearm resting on his thigh.

The placement cues are consistent with Obama being considerably farther behind the USAF general than the hoax theorists seem to believe. This is the same foreshortening "forced perspective" technique that was used in Lord of the Rings to seat Gandalf and Frodo in Gandalf's cart while making Frodo seem very small.

http://marciokenobi.wordpress.com/20...d-perspective/

Regarding Tomason (the dark-haired woman) and Blinken (the blue-shirted man leaning), our illustrious "analyst" (and crusading birther) Mara Zebest can't seem to distinguish Tomason's blue-gray blazer from Blinken's blue shirt. So throughout her analysis she insists Tomason's hands are suspiciously in front of Blinken's shirt. The boundary, she argues is suspiciously indistinct, but in fact it isn't. There is a fair amount of chromatic noise from the compression, and a fair amount of lens blur, but there is a prominent medium-frequency boundary in both luminance and color.

While Zebest clearly has some expertise in using Adobe products, she really has no demonstrable understanding of, or qualification in, the analysis and authentication of photographs. Here's a hint: if you're going to be a sculptor, you need to know more than just how to make a chisel.

Look. If it confirms What I Know^TM, who cares if it's an obvious fake?

ANTPogo · 9th May 2012, 07:32 PM

The White House today issued the following official response to this article:

Tomtomkent · 9th May 2012, 11:29 PM

You know my "who farted" game works great with most the photos in this thread.

It was clearly the Pres in most cases, and don't you just love him for it?

Sorry, bit of a derail, but just as valid as most the pseudo-facts CTs believe about the ops room photos.

000063 · 10th May 2012, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

...
http://marciokenobi.wordpress.com/20...d-perspective/...

I was thinking about the Tower of Pisa thing that everyone does just before I scrolled down to it.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

It means absolutely nothing in terms of the validity of the bin Laden raid, which can be ascertained from other sources. However to birthers, it means yet another reason to despise the Obama administration. In the birther mindset, the Obama administration is so shameless in its need to bolster the image of an "illegitimate" president that they have to resort to grandstanding via Photoshop.

There was also the ridiculous suggestion that Hilary is putting her hand to her mouth to draw attention to herself. She said that she doesn't remember when the shot was taken, wasn't really paying attention to the camera, and her sinuses were acting up.

elbe · 10th May 2012, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Horatius

...which is ridiculous on its face. How hard would it be to just get a photo of Obama actually watching the raid? Or, if that's impossible for some reason, staging a photo-op to simulate that shot? Why photoshop it?

Maybe someone, like the general, wouldn't be involved with a staged photo-op but they want his military cred to strengthen the image of the president! Isn't it obvious?!

9th May 2012, 12:11 PM	#1
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,279	Bin Laden op situation room photo The nuts over at American Stinker could give the truthers a run for the money in sheer numbskullery http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...oom_photo.html The comments are freaking hilarious.
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

9th May 2012, 01:14 PM	#2
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,608	Mara Zebest!? Sheesh... And the accusation that the "situation room" picture is a forgery is practically ancient. We even had a thread about it here almost exactly one year ago.
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris

9th May 2012, 01:25 PM	#3
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,217	I love how all those "Photoshop users" (i.e., including every teenager with a bit-torrent to a warez site) and "graphic artists" are patting themselves on the back. If they were photographic analysts, they'd notice a few things. First, depth of field. The focus plane appears to be right at Mrs. Clinton. Gen. Webb is slightly behind the focus plane but still in focus. Sec. Gates in the foreground is considerably defocused. And similarly, Pres. Obama is also out of focus, indicating he is considerably behind the depth of field. Second, juxtaposition cues. There is an ambient-occlusion cue where the President's chair can be seen to rest up against the far wall. The general whom many photo "analysts" seem to be using as a depth and scale reference is seated at the conference table, very near the focus plane. The lack of occlusion on the people standing behind the general's chair indicates some distance between them and the chair, and the faint occlusion on the wall behind them indicates some distance remaining. This gives us a rough estimate of the depth of the room along the optical axis. Further, Obama is visibly slumping in his chair, his forearm resting on his thigh. The placement cues are consistent with Obama being considerably farther behind the USAF general than the hoax theorists seem to believe. This is the same foreshortening "forced perspective" technique that was used in Lord of the Rings to seat Gandalf and Frodo in Gandalf's cart while making Frodo seem very small. http://marciokenobi.wordpress.com/20...d-perspective/ Regarding Tomason (the dark-haired woman) and Blinken (the blue-shirted man leaning), our illustrious "analyst" (and crusading birther) Mara Zebest can't seem to distinguish Tomason's blue-gray blazer from Blinken's blue shirt. So throughout her analysis she insists Tomason's hands are suspiciously in front of Blinken's shirt. The boundary, she argues is suspiciously indistinct, but in fact it isn't. There is a fair amount of chromatic noise from the compression, and a fair amount of lens blur, but there is a prominent medium-frequency boundary in both luminance and color. While Zebest clearly has some expertise in using Adobe products, she really has no demonstrable understanding of, or qualification in, the analysis and authentication of photographs. Here's a hint: if you're going to be a sculptor, you need to know more than just how to make a chisel.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,217

9th May 2012, 01:28 PM	#4
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,608	Originally Posted by JayUtah While Zebest clearly has some expertise in using Adobe products, she really has no demonstrable understanding of, or qualification in, the analysis and authentication of photographs. Here's a hint: if you're going to be a sculptor, you need to know more than just how to make a chisel. Well, this is the same woman who was the "expert" that proved Obama's birth certificate was a forgery for World Net Daily and Sheriff Joe's Cold Cuts Posse.
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris

9th May 2012, 01:39 PM	#5
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,217	Originally Posted by ANTPogo Well, this is the same woman who was the "expert" that proved Obama's birth certificate was a forgery for World Net Daily and Sheriff Joe's Cold Cuts Posse. Yeah I know who she is. She knows how to use Adobe's Creative Suite products, but she has no training, expertise, or experience in forensic forgery detection or authentication. She came to Sheriff Joe's camp with no prior expertise. One of the fundamental rules of expertise is that you must demonstrate proficiency before asking people to trust that your proficiency has solved the crime. There were composites before there was Photoshop. There was alteration before there was Photoshop. Using one of my favorite examples, at Bad Astronomy http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....spaceman/page3 we discuss the altered photo of Titanic http://www.lessons-from-history.com/...ages/H1557.JPG that was done in 1912, and as the thread proves, are still convincing today. BTW, my avatar there really is a pic of me.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,217

9th May 2012, 02:04 PM	#6
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,261
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

9th May 2012, 02:17 PM	#7
fourtoe Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Northridge, Ca Posts: 1,022	Originally Posted by jargon buster http://www.belch.com/blog/wp-content...5/obamaps2.jpg Haha, yeah, I loved the meme that came from this. What is the credibility on The American Thinker? I thought that Ron Wieck posted there.
	__________________ *My old username used to be knife fight colobus, but it was totally too long.* -Here's my YouTube Channel where I either debate crazies (Kirk Cameron, Westboro Baptist Church, Truthers etc.) or play Zelda -I sooo have a blog. -The thread for discussing/reviewing and posting any 911 related debates one can find!

9th May 2012, 02:19 PM	#8
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	And the thing - what does it matter or what does it prove. Did Obama being in that room or being in that room change the outcome - even it is a fake it means nothing

9th May 2012, 02:25 PM	#9
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,608	Originally Posted by fourtoe What is the credibility on The American Thinker? Zero, pretty much.
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris

9th May 2012, 03:45 PM	#10
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,217	Originally Posted by MG1962 And the thing - what does it matter or what does it prove. Did Obama being in that room or being in that room change the outcome - even it is a fake it means nothing It means absolutely nothing in terms of the validity of the bin Laden raid, which can be ascertained from other sources. However to birthers, it means yet another reason to despise the Obama administration. In the birther mindset, the Obama administration is so shameless in its need to bolster the image of an "illegitimate" president that they have to resort to grandstanding via Photoshop.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,217

9th May 2012, 06:10 PM	#11
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 22,028	Originally Posted by JayUtah In the birther mindset, the Obama administration is so shameless in its need to bolster the image of an "illegitimate" president that they have to resort to grandstanding via Photoshop. ...which is ridiculous on its face. How hard would it be to just get a photo of Obama actually watching the raid? Or, if that's impossible for some reason, staging a photo-op to simulate that shot? Why photoshop it?
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

9th May 2012, 06:29 PM	#12
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,424	Originally Posted by JayUtah I love how all those "Photoshop users" (i.e., including every teenager with a bit-torrent to a warez site) and "graphic artists" are patting themselves on the back. If they were photographic analysts, they'd notice a few things. First, depth of field. The focus plane appears to be right at Mrs. Clinton. Gen. Webb is slightly behind the focus plane but still in focus. Sec. Gates in the foreground is considerably defocused. And similarly, Pres. Obama is also out of focus, indicating he is considerably behind the depth of field. Second, juxtaposition cues. There is an ambient-occlusion cue where the President's chair can be seen to rest up against the far wall. The general whom many photo "analysts" seem to be using as a depth and scale reference is seated at the conference table, very near the focus plane. The lack of occlusion on the people standing behind the general's chair indicates some distance between them and the chair, and the faint occlusion on the wall behind them indicates some distance remaining. This gives us a rough estimate of the depth of the room along the optical axis. Further, Obama is visibly slumping in his chair, his forearm resting on his thigh. The placement cues are consistent with Obama being considerably farther behind the USAF general than the hoax theorists seem to believe. This is the same foreshortening "forced perspective" technique that was used in Lord of the Rings to seat Gandalf and Frodo in Gandalf's cart while making Frodo seem very small. http://marciokenobi.wordpress.com/20...d-perspective/ Regarding Tomason (the dark-haired woman) and Blinken (the blue-shirted man leaning), our illustrious "analyst" (and crusading birther) Mara Zebest can't seem to distinguish Tomason's blue-gray blazer from Blinken's blue shirt. So throughout her analysis she insists Tomason's hands are suspiciously in front of Blinken's shirt. The boundary, she argues is suspiciously indistinct, but in fact it isn't. There is a fair amount of chromatic noise from the compression, and a fair amount of lens blur, but there is a prominent medium-frequency boundary in both luminance and color. While Zebest clearly has some expertise in using Adobe products, she really has no demonstrable understanding of, or qualification in, the analysis and authentication of photographs. Here's a hint: if you're going to be a sculptor, you need to know more than just how to make a chisel. Look. If it confirms What I Know^TM, who cares if it's an obvious fake?
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

9th May 2012, 07:32 PM	#13
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,608	The White House today issued the following official response to this article:
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris

9th May 2012, 11:29 PM	#14
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,351	You know my "who farted" game works great with most the photos in this thread. It was clearly the Pres in most cases, and don't you just love him for it? Sorry, bit of a derail, but just as valid as most the pseudo-facts CTs believe about the ops room photos.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

10th May 2012, 02:11 AM	#15
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,739	Originally Posted by JayUtah ... http://marciokenobi.wordpress.com/20...d-perspective/... I was thinking about the Tower of Pisa thing that everyone does just before I scrolled down to it. Originally Posted by JayUtah It means absolutely nothing in terms of the validity of the bin Laden raid, which can be ascertained from other sources. However to birthers, it means yet another reason to despise the Obama administration. In the birther mindset, the Obama administration is so shameless in its need to bolster the image of an "illegitimate" president that they have to resort to grandstanding via Photoshop. There was also the ridiculous suggestion that Hilary is putting her hand to her mouth to draw attention to herself. She said that she doesn't remember when the shot was taken, wasn't really paying attention to the camera, and her sinuses were acting up.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

10th May 2012, 10:37 AM	#16
elbe Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: near a man named leroy brown Posts: 3,744	Originally Posted by Horatius ...which is ridiculous on its face. How hard would it be to just get a photo of Obama actually watching the raid? Or, if that's impossible for some reason, staging a photo-op to simulate that shot? Why photoshop it? Maybe someone, like the general, wouldn't be involved with a staged photo-op but they want his military cred to strengthen the image of the president! Isn't it obvious?!
	__________________ "If ever I stray from the path I follow take me down to the english channel, throw me in where the water is shallow, and then drag me on back to shore." realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...