|
But what am I thinking? CiC won't listen to science. This is the second time I've come with an explanation in a field I'm an expert in and I can already predict the response will be "Yeah but the Jews used their Jew magic on it!" |
Quote:
And I have to agree with Ronin. It's compression artifacts, nothing more. The same thing happens with video footage compressed in certain codec shells. |
uh wtf. if, and this is a BIG IF, the picture was in fact photoshopped, why would you be really comparing whats in front of him instead of concentrating on the visuals on the back? i dont' see how editing anything in front of him will affect what they wanted to photoshop out. and do a screen shot of your desktop CiC, and zoom in to the degree it was zoomed in on that picture. i guarantee you will start to see irregularities too. and your source, its a blog. not sure how legit that can be. |
To hide his hand holding the strap. Irregularities in the brick pattern tells you a lot too. |
Man as powerfull as the Zionists are they still manage to make simple mistakes that a 15 year old kid managed to find and write a blog about it. They might not be as powerful as we first imagined CiC. |
To be fair you don't see the same degree of jaggies/etc with those around him also running until you get to those further behind in the crowd and it also looks like a different set of bricks in front of his face; so i can understand why people would point to it and go "OMG PS!" But I don't think this is significant as said it just seems like typical jpg compression weird i thought i posted this message but left it without hitting reply |
Getting logic'd to death by people who pretty much do photography for a living (or work extensively in it) and CiC still tries to prove he's right, WHILE using the very slanted PressTV as a source for an argument. Typical. Jews invented photography so they can use their magic to hide this evidence and truthers have the "antidote" to reveal it right? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
:rukidding: |
I'm going to remove CiC's ability to fail. Because then he'll have to make an actual argument. I have no issue with him saying whatever he wants but if you're going to post this shit, you have to back it up or you're a troll. He doesn't make any arguments other than we're wrong because we don't agree with his view. And photoshop has convinced legions of women everywhere that Sarah Jessica Parker is attractive. You'd think the Zionists with their infinite power and resources would be able to hire a better photoshop guy than Cosmopolitan. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
By the way, CharlesIsCharge's fail button has been revoked. He will get it back if one of the following happens: 1. He completes an argument against JPEG compression, sensor dynamic range and resolution capabilities (y'know...science) being the cause of the irregular brick pattern around the suspect. 2. He admits that we're right and that he mistakenly took some moron's non-expert word (guy that wrote it is an Yale Econ grad...not a graphic designer or photo retoucher) as the gospel and that he will find more reliable sources in the future. If I deem your answer acceptable, I'll even give you a "Victor of Truth" title for a month. But until then, you're just an idiot that believed some dumbass' blog post that cites no references and it isn't even the author's field of expertise. Tell me I'm wrong. Most photographers are aware of the power of photoshop but the quickest way to tell us how much of a moron you are is if you believe EVERYTHING is photoshopped or fixable in post. |
Ive shown evidence, prove it be otherwise... lets see other photos that re-arrange brick work and significantly change in texture as much the photo did. |
|
Quote:
Quote:
Jpeg Compression - photo.net Plenty of other examples in that link for what causes artifacts around edges, especially around objects that are moving. Your move to prove it's an edited photo. :accepted: |
The distortion in my photo is not consistent to what you have shown me or what you guys are saying here. Please rebuttal or show decent material to prove your point. A few members on this page are already on my "people who dont have common sense" list so I dont see why I should even need to reply to them. |
|
Quote:
|
Arash, you want debate, you get it. Yet every time someone directly confronts you on one of your points and asks you for a response, you bitch out and find a way around it. Be it asking another question, or taking the current discussion down a completely different tangent hoping that no one remembers the original one. I've noticed this pattern. You HATE (or more specifically, never) admit you're wrong or you've been proven wrong by logic and facts. Here, you have two experts in photography against some conspiracy theorist and his claims. Instead of challenging the experts, you choose to leave the discussion and only go with your original evidence and that's it. You have NOTHING to support it. You know it, we all know it and yet you can't admit you're wrong. Common sense says to either back yourself up and give what's been asked of you after you've opened up debate after people have answered your queries in here. But, as everyone here knows, your common sense seems to "differ". I'm probably on that "list", but probably because I've asked you a question and you haven't answered it after I've already attempted to debate you (answering your original questions) in another thread. You'll never admit your wrong though, which is pretty sad. On topic: It's compression. |
Quote:
We don't need to prove anything. All the evidence points to JPEG compression and the photo being authentic. You're the one that didn't post any proof of it being fake. I know for a fact that this is what's happening because I'm an expert in the field while you just blindly followed the opinion of a random man on the internet like a child walking off with a guy that owns a white van. What you have is nothing except the opinion of one random person. What makes him an expert that you'd believe over me...someone with 15 years of Photoshop experience and could probably doctor that photo better than the Zionists have (which they haven't...in my expert opinion). |
By the way, this is what CiC considers "proof"... Quote:
This is the caliber of argument we always get from this guy. Quoting random nutbag nobodies stating opinion as fact and when he's faced with evidence to the contrary from people who actually know what they're talking about...well, you see what's happening here. Congratulations. I'm going to remove your thanks button in a second too if you don't either make an argument or admit you're wrong. |
Quote:
Using the picture that you provided, I took a quick look and found more anomalies. http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...ps6ffee351.jpg http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...ps22543b5b.jpg Feel free to open up your own copy of that picture and look at the spots I circled. You'll see even worse artifacts than that surrounding whatshisface. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
And your comment about it being degraded also proves the rest of our point. JPEG COMPRESSION degrades the image quality. Fancy that. |
The distortion in the original is nothing like its surrounding... or compression rate. http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/8/...arge/dz2aa.jpg 'edit - your post was still miss guided because the evidence your pointing was manipulated. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net