Saturday, January 5, 2013

Seeing is believing

Some people pictured are not really there.
WaPo reports:  Pelosi defends altered photo of Democratic women.  The four women somewhat noticable at the back of this group shop were Photoshopped in.

This would be a perfect opportunity for a high-minded and strongly-worded editorial of reproach, but I'll skip the fancy indignation and sum it all up in one word:  "No."

Good or neutral intentions aside, digitally altering photos of this nature and in this manner is a false record.  It is a lie.  Any attempt by government to jigger the historical record should be vigorously denounced.  If  Pelosi wrote that Senatrice X was present for an event and she wasn't, that would be false, either a lie or an error.

Why should the standard be different for photography?

I've long wondered about the increasing irrelevance of photography and video as evidence in a court of law, given the increasing quality of Photoshop and the skills of its users.  Maybe as evidence images will inevitably go the way of the dodo, but I'm not sure allowing the government to accelerate that evolution is such a good idea.

Actually, I'm quite sure.  Fail.  Remove.  Do not repeat.

There are certainly more outrageous and offensive things going on in Washington, but this paranoia-ratcheting mechanism seems relatively easy to fix.

BTW, know what a ratchet is?  A little bit bigger than a mouse shit.


  1. Going along with the subject matter, you may want to check out the September Clues online Forum (Clues Forum) for more speculation on altered photos and videos.

    1. Hey thanks for the link. I've browsed it a little, sure I'll check it out further.

      Just curious, and I don't want to pose the question over-simplictically, but how much stock do you place in this site? Meaning, are you more of a "truther" or a skeptic of 911 conspircy theories, for example?

      The idea of a cryptocracy is pretty much taken for granted these days. I tend to think of it as a lot of hidden powers at work behind the scenes, but I'm pretty dubious when it comes to an over-arching belief that everything is orchestrated, like the school shootings. We do know from the MKULTRA docs that the CIA capable of some horrifying deeds, but mass-murders on this scale? Again, I think of the Maine, which led to the Spanish-American war, the media fabrications that led to the Mexican-American war, etc., so it's neot entirely beyond the realm of possibility that current events are a mix of staged events and media manipultion.

      Just hard to swallow that false flag ops of such a scale are par for the course these days. Obviously have some mixed thoughts on the subject, especially as the conspiracy theory genre can be such a lucrative game to play.

      Also, are we acquainted or did you come to the blog from another website or online search?

      If you ever feel like you'd like to write post on just about anything, don't hesitate to let me know. i've asked so many people and besides The Gid and I, we've only ever had one other contributor, but it was a good post! Sausages in Suitcases: A visit to the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.

  2. I don't know you, but came to your sight via a comment you placed on another blog - I think it was either Loren Coleman's or Hoffman's.

    As for 9/11 - I don't believe the official story, as it's spawned so much bullshit and fantasy that has unfortunately cost many innocent lives, and many more to come. As for various theories, even official ones, I like to take each one on their own merits and let it stand or fall. When it comes to Sept Clues, I'm not an expert in video and photo media and therefore keep their theories at arms' length, however it seems possible and indeed feasible that much of the television coverage was faked. If so, why? Your post raises an interesting question about the increasing prevalence of fakery due to rapidly progressive technology, which is why I made the connection. Why even try to fake the above event via photo? It seems like an exercise in contempt for the audience.

    Back to Sept Clues, there are many convincing inconsistencies their documentary exposes. Shouldn't there be a new, independent investigation? However, in this winner take all climate no investigation is forthcoming as anyone doubting the official story is labeled a "conspiracy theorist," the death knell for credibility. And yet, as you point out above, events have been faked to spark large scale, worldwide conflict - especially in the modern era; and yet we're supposed to believe what we're told from on high despite all previous lies. Now that's a tall order.

    As for lucrative games, the Establishment blows the conspiracy market out of the water. The WTC attack was used to launch false and illegal wars that have generated hundreds of billions for the beneficiaries. The top conspiracy researcher has probably yielded less than 1% of that figure (generally measured as a "smidgen"), and generally supplement whatever income they glean with another job.

    Anyway, thank you for the invite to author a post. I generally hate my own writing and find that others say things much better than I, who am an expert on nothing (bad grammar to boot). If I can get over that, then perhaps I'll submit something.

  3. Jason, yeah, the war launched post-911 is definitely more lucrative that the conspiracy market. I was referring to one or two sites which I think are basically commercial ventures to exploit the situation. It drives me a bit nuts, to be honest, because it muddies the waters and does nobody any good. I've had material ripped off, recycled and repackaged as more conspiratorial than I'd intended, so it's a sore spot. I even found an essay I wrote on Scribd, transformed into a PDF and offered for sale! That's where my animus comes from....

    That said, I have a lot more contempt for the warmongers who baldly used this as an excuse to invade two countries that had nothing to do with it.

    As for 9/11. Yeah, the official story has some holes in it. Honestly, I've seen truther and anti-truther stuff out there that raises good points and ultimately, I don't know what to believe. I just have a hard time swallowing that it was a govt. false flag, maybe I'm just naiive. My biggest qualms actually are with the Pentagon attack. A perfect lawn before the hole in the wall, precise hole like a missile, no plane debris, no video, all this by a pilot with minimal training. Very fishy.

    I'd like to see another investgation, but like you, I'm no expert in video or engineering or demolitions. Some guy comes along and say the WTC story is impossible because of x and another says it is because of y....I can't deny either one! There's a ton of stuff I've read though, that made me lift a quizzical Spock eyebrow and wonder wtf!

    Anyway, bad grammar is no impediment here on Los. If you've got a hobby horse, ride it on over; like I said, it'd be cool to have another voice. You don't even have to agree with us, which is even better!

  4. "Why even try to fake the above event via photo? It seems like an exercise in contempt for the audience." I thought the same thing.


Thanks for taking the time to comment!

Need to add an image? Use this code: [ximg]IMAGE-URL-HERE[x/img]. You will need to remove the the boldface x's from the code to make it work.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.