Malaysian plane crash

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I downloaded the picture and submitted it to a variety of integrity tests-- you can do the same as there are loads of them. As a control I used a photo of a known source as well. Several interesting conclusions:

1) it is a processed edited image.

2) information that is present with an image that came entirely from a camera is missing.

3) there are compression profiles consistent with editing software.

Look for yourself. Interestingly all the tests I did agreed on BOTH this image being fake and my control being real.

The long description saying why this image cannot be fake smells of BS.

Thats interesting... If I downloaded pictures from my camera into a editing program like Photoshop or whatever on my computer and use that program to reduce the size and resolution
of the picture so I can post it on the internet, tweet or e-mail it easier would that make the picture appear doctored like you found? Can you do tha tto your control picture and see what happens to it's data?

Just wondering. 

I did try that -- resizing did not produce the same profile. Still, I think when you touch contrast and brightness it could get harder to determine what the changes were. My pic retained the camera and other information that this one does not have when  I modified it. But since I don't know the exact software that modified this picture I can't know why that happened.

What I find interesting is that the analysis saying the picture is not faked appears to be baloney.

The picture is processed to the point where there is no apparent evidence left to authenticate it. It has all the markings consistent with a fake but I admit that processing for innocent reasons might produce the same result.

When you look at the data for the picture I noticed a couple things that I did not understand but perhaps others will.

First there were signatures consistent with two much older phones including a blackberry from about 10 years ago. Not many people use 10-year old phones. The second was that the profile of the picture had a date of 2009. I don't know what that means. It also had a creation date this month (August). The creation date could simply be a record of when it was "processed" and saved but I am not sure why the original date of the picture is not there. The 2009 profile could be from the camera or device that processed the picture. Again I don't know enough to interpret what these things mean so am not concluding the picture is fake or real. I am saying that I am not personally convinced of the value of the picture as evidence of anything.

The presumption I have made is the opposite from what that article stated: the picture is a shell such that you can't determine when it was taken or what it looked like at the time and there is no way I know of to tell if the picture has been modified to create the appearance of a missile launch or if that was in the original.

When you look at pixel size the clouds match the rest of the picture but this only means that a picture of one size was not imposed on one of another. Not convincing me of anything since I would not need a picture of a cloud to create the appearance of one in photoshop-- you can simply lighten existing pixels to create that effect. I would say if this is fake it is one of the easiest fakes to do.

I take the picture as non-evidence until someone can provide more expert opnion to explain the raw data.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Bec

There was something about that on CBC Day 6 this weekend. I didn't listen to it, but I did hear that they have software (linked to from the site) that can tell you if an image has been fucked with or not.

On the other hand, I don't even post a pic to facebook without opening it in GIMP and making it the right size, cropping and changing the brightness and contrast.

I don't think it is as clear as that. I think sometimes you get a trace of faking, sometimes you get original raw data proving it is authentic. But you can also get a picture where there is not enough data left due to processing to tell you what was done to the picture or what the person who took the shot saw. This is what I think we have here.

I personally would guess it is fake but I cannot extract information to prove it. However, at the same time there is no evidence proving it is authentic either which makes you wonder about those claiming it as evidence.

Quote:

Another top military official, Lt. Gen. Andrei Kartapolov, said at the same news conference that the jet came as close as 1.8 miles to Flight 17, which is well within the range of the air-to-air missiles it is usually equipped with...

Yeah, but not close enough to pick off the cockpit of MH-17 with it's Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 cannon... 1.8 miles is 2,900 meters, the SU-25s GSh30-2's 30mm cannon has a maximum effective range of 1,800 meters vs airial targets.

This is the Russians saying the jet never got closer than 1.8 miles... not the Ukrainians. The SU-25's cannon can't shoot that far. So whats next guys?

I thought the Russians said there was only a single SU-25 trailing behind the MH17? Now there is two of them?

Hamas did it. It's obvious. They did everything else.

eastnoireast wrote:

the missile launch picture (not picking on that one, it's just closest) is pretty heavily processed.  the "canvas" texture in the sky, the colors of the forground trees.  that image _could be made up of two layers of trees, the far field, and a horizontal jet trail turned sideways.  or, it could totally be the real thing taken on a cell phone and compressed 4 different times before we see it.

a 1 dimension digital image?  it could be built pixel by pixel to be anything, really.   mediocre work might be spottable with professional anylysis. 

any serious force could produce a credible picture of barney attacking the jet, with whatever extraneous camera-type data attached that they wanted.

there is a ton of processing and changes happening to digital images along the way as they emerge from the image sensor and end up on someone's computer, ie jpgs.

-

digital data is pretty fluid without:  independent 3rd party observation, earned trust, integrity of the information path. 

like, a serious independent press.

-

 

I agree with all this.

Should not run ahead of the facts that can be relied on.

Give them a few days with the black boxes and maybe we will see something-- that is if the truth is in line with wha tthey want to see. Otherwise we might have this remain inconclusive.

If I had to bet-- I would say we are going to get something more conclusive so better to wait...

Paladin1 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Hamas did it. It's obvious. They did everything else.

Hamas only point their rockets, they don't aim them.

Hamas has never targeted civilians before, why would they start now? 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There is evidence but from our perspectives without means or sufficient knowledge to examine the data first hand and all this amid a propaganda war from both sides, I see little to make me confident enough to believe one side or the other. I am convinced that there are no clean hands and that I have no reasons to trust either side. Unfortunately I don't see any unbiased third parties with information either. In fact it seems the whole world is lining up on one side or the other.

The stakes are high and there are massive resources being brought to convince people using any means that their side is right. I do not rule out massive disinformation from both sides.

This is why I argue that we must be very disciplined in what we accept is true and how we interpret what little information is available. I refuse to be categorical about what I think is uncertain.

I agree completely so of course I also think it is very well written.

Webgear wrote:

 

Hamas has never targeted civilians before, why would they start now? 

Sure they do. They aim rockets towards Israel knowing that it's going to land somewhere, likely wounding or killing Isralies.

Then Isreal counter-attacks with some kind of artillery, drone or airstrike targeting suspected Hamas locations which they put in the center of a populated area which Isreal doesn't give a shit if they hit civlians or not.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a dog in this fight. I think both sides hate each other and don't give a shit if they kill each others civilians or not.   Both gave up the moral highground a long time ago.

off topic though sorry.

scenarios

Was Putin Targeted For Mid Air Assassination?  -  by Robert Parry

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/08/was-putin-targeted-for-mid-air-assa...

"Official Washington's conventional wisdom on the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down blames Russian President Putin, but some US intelligence analysts think Putin, whose plane was flying nearby, may have been the target of Ukrainian hardliners who hit the wrong plane, writes Robert Parry..."

MH17 Brought Down by Air-to-Air Missile, Finished Off by 30-MM Cannon, Experts Allege

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140806/191783761/MH17-Brought-Down-by-A...

August 6, RIA NOVOSTI - The Malaysian Boeing that crashed in eastern Ukraine in mid-July, could have been brought down by an air to air missile and a cannon of the SU-25 fighter that had been 'shadowing it', The New Straits Times reported on Wednesday, citing experts..."

Flight MH17: Lies, More Lies, and Yet More Lies by Western Governments and their Media  -  by Graham Pick

http://www.maltanow.com.mt/?p=3262

"...it is becoming glaringly obvious that the account being espoused by western governments and media of what they say took place, has many inconsistencies and anomalies..."

I'll say, and funny we still don't have the cockpit voice recordings yet isn't it?

in regards to the upthread discussion of the reliability of digital images - here's an example of an altered image.

it's a pretty simple composite, it does't look quite right. process it like a cheesy cellphone image it would hide more.

they got it close, but the lighting is different.  the light on the scene is coming from 8 o'clock, the light on buddy with the flag is coming from maybe 10 'clock. it's lower also. he is more backlit, the shadows on the cloth show.  i wouldn't be surprised if the "shadow of the upraised arm" was added.

http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/08/07/was-isis-capture-of-mosul-dam-a-virtu...

not to say the dam wasn't eventually captured.

-

Western Neglect of Moscow's MH17 Evidence is Shameful  -  by Nile Bowie

http://rt.com/op-edge/179984-ukraine-malaysian-plane-investigation/

"In light of the evidence brought forward by the Russian side - as well as the questions raised by credible journalists and investigators - the Dutch led international investigation team should request that Kiev produce raw military radar data and missile battery logs recorded at the time of the disaster. Recordings of Ukrainian air-traffic control's correspondence with the doomed aircraft should also be made available for public scrutiny..."

Russia to Request MH 17 Report

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/08/18/375794/russia-to-request-mh17-p...

"We will ask for a briefing by the UN Secretariat on the progress of the implementation of Resolution 2166,' Russia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin told reporters at the UN headquarters in New York on Monday.

'Paragraph 13 of the resolution requires the secretary-general to provide the Security Council with investigation progress reports. We hope that this will happen already today,' he added.

In July, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 2166, which calls for a ceasefire and for a thorough  and impartial investigation into the Boeing tragedy."

For anyone interested in something other than spooky lights and fog machines, here's the actual latest news on the crash investigation:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28808832

Quote:

Wim van der Wegen from the Dutch Safety Board says they already have enough to prepare a preliminary report. "We are using the voice recorder, the black box flight data recorder, satellite images, information from air traffic control and photos taken by people who were able to visit crash site."

They expect to publish the preliminary report within two weeks. It will not attribute blame or liability.

ikosmos wrote:

What we see is a very deliberate silence on this issue by Western media and, in particular, an obstinate determination to ignore the evidence the Russian side has presented. Our press, our media, is owned and functions as a transmission belt for the views of the Western corporate cabal. It is Orwellian.

I agree with the slight correction. Never mistake the puppet for the master.

From the BBC article posted by 6079 Smith:

Quote:

They expect to publish the preliminary report within two weeks. It will not attribute blame or liability.

That should have been the type of language used all along. Governments and media puppets spouting crap about knowing what happened before the investigation even began was wholly unprofessional and purely propaganda imv.

Unionist wrote:

Exactly. And the same applies to the shameful speculation throughout this thread, where everyone picks their favourite ally/villain and generates uninformed theories and "evidence" accordingly.

Absolutely. Not that it's going to stop, of course. 

MH-17 'Investigation': Secret August 8 Agreement Seeps Out - Perpetrator Of The Downing of the Malaysian Airliner in Ukraine Will Stay Hidden

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/mh-17-investigation-secret-august...

"...So imagine a murder case in which there are only three suspects (here: Ukraine, the pro-Russian rebels, and Russia itself), and one of these three suspects has veto-power on the making-public of the 'investigation' into that crime.

Well: this is that murder-case, and the veto-holding 'investigator' and suspect is Ukraine. Neither of the other two suspects holds any such veto power over this 'investigation.'..."

Serious Conflicts of Interest in MH17 Investigation Led by Dutch Safety Board

http://nsnbc.me/2014/08/14/serious-conflicts-of-interest-in-mh17-investi...

"The Dutch Safety Board which is leading the investigation into the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 disaster in Ukraine published a press release on the status of the investigations.

NSNBC asked the Dutch Safety Board for the release of data to independent media and questions about serious conflicts of interest. The answers are not only politically relevant, they are deeply disturbing for the flying public..."

laine lowe wrote:

From the BBC article posted by 6079 Smith:

Quote:

They expect to publish the preliminary report within two weeks. It will not attribute blame or liability.

That should have been the type of language used all along. Governments and media puppets spouting crap about knowing what happened before the investigation even began was wholly unprofessional and purely propaganda imv.

It is standard practice for certain kinds of inquiry, like that done by a coroner, to not assign blame or liability. The purpose is to find out what happened. Assigning liability comes later.

That's not why I posted it, but rather in answer to the bizarre claims that MH17 is not being reported on, and that the story has been suppressed by the western media.

And you can all be as coy and cry shame as much as you want; you aren't actually fooling anyone because we all know our respective stances on this. The fact is that while we don't have proof of anything, the most likely scenario is that the rebels shot it down, thinking they were firing on a Ukrainian military plane. Even the conspiracy theories (which some of you have no problem posting) are along the lines of Ukraine orchestrating it to make it LOOK like that most obvious conclusion.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, I declined to post this one when it was published several weeks ago, because frankly, it was sheer speculation, and didn't make much more sense than the notion that Kiev downed the plane for some inexplicable reason. In any case, Ukraine's security chief claimed that the rebels were actually targetting a Russian airliner, which would have provided a good excuse for a full-scale invasion.  But they screwed it up.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/nalyvaychenko-said-that-separati...

If the western mainstream lapdogz media cabal is so determined to impose their anatomy of moral terror I have to wonder why they didn't jump on that little story right away and weave it into their Orwellian plan.

And @ SJ

Yeah, accusing us of not caring is uncalled for. Let's call people Nazis instead.

You can't recall? Really?  Well I haven't forgotten.

That's another danger in tossing around serious accusations like "Nazi", "fascist" and "genocide" indiscriminately, and without evidence. People just blurt it out without thinking, and forget what they have said just as quickly.

Look, I don't want to drag this out; I'm just a little surprised you don't remember. And curious at you taking offense at something like this given the personal attacks that have been going on here for months now on a regular basis.

I have been called a Nazi sympathizer in these threads directly at least twice (and had a heartfelt apology for it once), and had it implied indirectly more times than I can count - most recently last night.

In mid-June after I called someone for linking to sexist and racist slurs you compared me to a Nazi judge. I pointed out at the time that you might want to have more consideration for the very real atrocities committed by the real Nazis before using them as a cheap gag.

You think it is shabby to insult other posters and question their motives and intelligence? I agree; it doesn't feel very good. I'm glad you finally noticed.

So if someone disagrees with you it is their fault if they are attacked. If they want it to stop they should toe the party line.

I have a better idea. How about we all express our opinions on the subject of this thread freely without resorting to insult.

Yes I think the most likely scenario is that the rebels shot down that plane, because the Ukrainian army had no reason to be shooting at anything at all in the sky - so long as they are not openly invaded. All the conspiracy theories that implicate Ukraine are based on them making it want to appear that the rebels did it. Who else has been shooting down planes, after all?

All the media, including Russian media, and the Russian government, have been spinning this and making implications of guilt. As for what has been coming out of Kiev, some of the sources there claimed the plane was shot down from Russia. Do you see me repeating that as gospel?

For that matter, have I ever claimed (as some of the articles posted here have) an absolute certainty of what happened? No. So beyond that I am just as free to hold an opinion on this as you are.

Have I called you that, kropotkin? Have I said you're confused, and brainwashed? Or questioned your motives for being here or whether you belong?

You might notice that when I comment on a government's action, or coverage by media, I try to back it up with at least a bit of evidence, not just based on which team jersey they are wearing.