Finding the proper source or originals BTW is very similar to the insistence of appraisers in the show Antiques Roadshow. As soon as a piece on the chain of proper ownership for an item is missing the appraisers dismiss the item or reduce the item in value a lot, because chances are: the item is fraudulent or obtained illegally.
This is an article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the newspaper of record in Omar’s district and certainly a sane and credible source: as I noted upthread they have won 6 Pulitzer Prizes, including two as recently as 2013.
Really taking that “fighting ignorance” credo to heart, eh? :rolleyes:
Ding ding ding!
I never said they wouldn’t! :smack: Did you really miss my point that badly? I stated it pretty clearly: the crazies well never give up regardless of what evidence is proffered, but people who could go either way will no longer listen to the crazies once evidence is provided to definitively refute an allegation.
That’s what you call “making it go away”? Not so much.
In any case, why would supposedly sensible people be “listening to the crazies” in the first place, if the crazies have not managed to provide any evidence in support of their allegations? Gossiping about what hypothetical “hinkiness” in a politician’s personal life might be true even if nobody’s come up with any evidence that it is true is the behavior of shallow-minded scandalmongers, not sensible people.
When shallow-minded scandalmongers demand that the targets of scandal “refute” completely unsupported allegations, they generally just want to keep the shitkettle bubbling, not to have the issue definitively settled. The makers of the unsupported allegations will never concede that the issue is definitively settled if it involves admitting their allegations turned out to be untrue.
Oh, and by the way:
Not if “those of you Democrats” are trying to get anyone to actually respect your position. “Let’s attract more people to moderate centrist liberal-Democrat views by demonstrating that moderate centrist liberal Democrats are manipulative shitheels encouraging unsupported scandalmongering about left-wing progressive Democrats in order to damage their reputation and influence in the party!” Like I said, how principled of you.
You lost me at the “Republican Troll”. You are really dumb about not knowing that trolling does happen world wide and it is not an exclusive republican thing?
And all of what you posted there does not counter what I said about the chain of evidence, produce the original sources and full resolution images or shut up.
It would not bother me if you read what I wrote to say “political troll” or some other nomenclature where I wrote “Republican troll”. If we’re both looking at a picture of a blue Jeep and I tell you, “That is a blue Jeep, not orange”, and you tell me, “Actually, they said that it was chartreuse”, then the Jeep is still blue. I don’t really care what the mostly technically accurate nomenclature is for what he isn’t. Choose whatever term you feel fits best.
You would contend that, at a higher resolution, the screenshots of people swapping messages written in Somali would switch over to being in English? I am personally unaware of that compression technique and question its value to the tech community.
I will also note that usually the best way to detect a fake is through inconsistent lighting and shadows. If the sun is on the left and the shadow is falling to the left, regardless of whatever resolution you’re at, that picture is still photomanipulated.
I’ll also note that if you download an image and it is a full screen, high res picture which has clear signs of photomanipulation, then you have successfully identified a fake. Positing that the images have all been down-rezzed and re-compressed, a priori of actually looking, is not evidence that the images were faked. It’s just avoiding the topic. Likewise, I could decide that the local supermarket would never carry eggs and thereby declare that it’s a waste of time to even go look and thereby be a lazy asshole who wants to get out of having to cook breakfast. My decision that the store has no eggs has no bearing on the reality.
There is a difference between proving that an image is faked and handwaving. The handwaver may well turn out to have been correct, but he was still engaging in handwaving.
No term fits, lack of original images or revealed sources testifying where they got the images is not there, you were trolled in many languages.
You are really deluded, I’m not referring to screenshots of internet posts, I’m talking about the original images and sources of them who are willing to come forward to establish their bona fides.
Stop teaching grandma to suck eggs, and that is not the requested information.
More evidence about your delusion. You still think that I’m looking for original Facebook posts you can get images in the posts, but those are not the original images (If you can not get this I do doubt that you have proper knowledge of how images are processed and the need for originals with the people who took them available to testify), I’m referring to the original pictures that a person who took them can produce and after revealing who they are we can establish how trustworthy they are.
And that is coming from you really, if you can not see the difference between an internet post with an image and an original image with a person who has knowledge and possession of that original, one can not even begin to do any proper research or vetting, you might as well believe in the moon hoax were the ones that fell for the hoax denied also that checking the original images was needed when the hoaxers relied on compressed images full of artifacts to claim that there were UFO’s or other nonsense there.
Remember too that there is a reason why the chain of possession is very, very important to establish how reliable or valuable an item is.
While modern examples are digital, one can still demonstrate that they have original images by showing the device the image was taken, the time stamp, signatures or the usual higher resolution an image has before it is usually reduced in quality for a post on the internet.
I fail to see how you just switched topic from AhbdiJohnson to the topic of photomanipulation. While he did post a couple of pictures of the two of them in college together, the grand majority of what he posted were links and descriptions of what could be found at those links.
He says, for example, that Omar’s dad has a second name and links to Facebook to demonstrate it. You have a mouse and keyboard. If you do not believe that her dad has a second name, you are completely capable of traversing to the man’s Facebook account.
You might even look at the URL.
My statement that Omar appeared likely to be guilty of something is based on things that I was able to independently verify. I stated what those things were. Everyone is free to repeat what I did and they will find the things that I said are there, assuming that they have not been deleted.
I cannot verify the images, ergo, I cautioned about how much credence to given if using them and said that I could not independently verify them.
It is, in theory, possible for the images to be proven to be falsified. If they are overly compressed or otherwise mauled than, yes, it won’t be possible but you would have to try in order to make the determination. Nothing that you have said negates. I have not claimed that any nor every image can be proved to have been falsified.
If I can’t prove that the images are genuine and you can’t prove that they’re faked, then they are exactly as I have described: “I cannot independently verify the substance of what these images are said to contain.”
Now if I say that and the response that I am given is, “Those images are falsified.”, when I have not rested anything on the images, then I am of the opinion that that person has neither read what I have written nor actually taken any look at jack doodle, let alone having any place to declare that something was falsified.
And as the person who is making the greater claim: “That is falsified” Where I made the lesser claim: “I cannot independently verify the content of those images.” I feel comfortable saying to the other person, “You are a lazy asshole, suffering from denialism who cannot even read simple statements like ‘There is wide open room for Omar to be innocent of everything’. You need to get your head out of your ass and either accept that there is such a thing as evidence in the world which is not conclusive of anything, there is evidence in the world of questionable provenance, and in that light it is possible for there to be a wide spectrum of explanations. But any hypothetical must at least explain the evidence which we can be certain of. And if you want to claim that a particular piece of questionable evidence is distinctly false, then you need to prove that claim. If you cannot, than you have to live with, ‘It is of questionable provenance and cannot be independently verified.’ You may hate that, but suck it up and learn to be an adult.”
That is nice, nowhere I did say that they were falsified, only that to become evidence they need to be confirmed in context and with the testimony of the persons who took the original images. As one example of the Buffalo Bill images in the Antiques Roadshow shows, if there was no person claiming ownership and testifying about the origins of the pictures there would be no appraisal at all. And this is what we got now.
Let’s see, can you as an adult go to the Antiques Road show and use copies of a post on the internet and demand that an appraiser declare you have a real Rembrandt? Would they give even you the time of the day?
What we have seen from you is that you would behave like a little kid indeed and demand at least candy from the appraisers, but it is more likely that the police will be taking your family from the premises and not appearing in the show at all.
Great, then why are you complaining? If you did not make the claim and I didn’t make the claim, then move on.
Others did make the claim. I have provided information for how one can, in theory, make an attempt to prove his claim. Yes, they will likely fail.
Your information about the Antique Roadshow aside, if I give you a picture of myself standing on the surface of the sun, it is a falsified image. You can argue otherwise, but impossible things are impossible, and particularly when there is no chain of evidence nor documentary record for that image.
I do understand your point, but you are being silly and talking about proof not disproof.
That is what you need to do.
They already did fail. The longer the anonymous ones that made the claim on the internet don’t come forward with how they came with the images and the dubious interpretations of them, the more one has to dismiss their “evidence”
No, you are being a willful ignorant that is spreading a conspiracy with even less evidence than the moon hoax. In this day and age, direct testimony from the ones that took the pictures and finding the originals is crucial, that they are hiding now does put the extreme burden on the accusers, not the accused. The process that a group like Antiques Road show does apply to give value to images and other items is a very good explanation of how inadequate and ridiculous is to demand that we give any attention to the sorry “evidence” presented by you and others so far.
And you are the one still acting like a child.
I’ve been in climate change debates with you. A statement that I have made in those debates is, “If you do not trust the Michael Mann hockey puck graph, then throw that information away. It doesn’t matter, because there’s the hockey puck graph created by China and Brazil and Canada and NASA and various other groups, based on other data and other models. Whether Michael Mann is reliable or not is irrelevant.”
I say the same here. Discount the images. Throw them away. It does not affect anything.
I did [move on]. As said, people kept calling me to come back and were derailing other threads.
One more thing, when I said “can you go to the Antiques Road show and use copies of a post on the internet and demand that an appraiser declare you have a real Rembrandt?” the point was not that the images were fake. (that could be found later after getting the originals and the contextual testimony of the ones who took the images)
The point was that anyone can say the picture shows a real event, or a real Rembrandt, and it would be meaningless unless an intrepid guy can lead the authorities to the place this Rembrandt is located as he would then report when and where a shot of that was taken.
So it is crucial to get context, as in: original images together with a testimony from the owners/the ones that took the pictures telling us the status of the people who had their picture taken, when the images where taken, etc; to see if the dubious affirmations from an internet poster that refuses now to show how he got the images or source has any value.
Tell me about it, the sealioning never ends. And neither your childishness.
Actually this shows that you do not know jack about how evidence works, one factor is that the less evidence is there then one has to give a theory like the Omar one you posted** even less value. **
As it was clear, you are willing to ignore that when procedures, like the chain of possession and context from witnesses are missing, the Omar conspiracy theory is dumber than the moon hoax.
As I have said, if you read through what I actually did and said, rather than stopping at the first thing that you can think of to object to, you will find that my conclusions are based on things which can be independently verified.
I largely agree with what you say, but it is better addressed to the same people that I am addressing.
My position was to take the things that I could not independently verify with a grain of salt. I made no claim that anything was real nor faked (though I did say that I could not detect any fakery in the images and that it seemed to beyond the capabilities of the people being discussed). Importantly, though, I based my conclusions on things that I was able to independently verify through sources free of AhbdiJohnson, Powerline, and Alpha News’ reach.
Nope, because they are not coming from direct evidence nor direct testimony.
And still missing the point painfully, you have worthless evidence, regardless of how you did “verify it”, because in the end, you really did ignore proper procedure. You only verified that you took the bait from dubious sources, hook line and sinker.
Same reply to that, where is his original image, his testimony from a credible source, location when the picture was taken and what was the status of the persons then that appeared in the picture?
Not to mention that now you are falling for the same tactic of the ones that ensnared you by not providing proper context.
I presume that you mean the profile photo. The one with a like on it from Omar’s husband. As said, I did independently verify this and it is not difficult to do so.