Skip to comments.APRIL FOOLS' DAY PICTURES: Four Historic Science Hoaxes
Posted on 04/01/2009 9:09:50 AM PDT by JoeProBono
click here to read article
I tend to view it as Hey, we’ve got all the Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen laying around, let’s make some stuff.
God used regular materials to make the irregular (us).
1. It's Pterodactyl
2. You were the one who identified the Archaeopteryx fossil in post#36 as a "flying reptile"
My mistake incorrectly identifying the photo.
Understandable. The Archaeopteryx skeleton does look dinosaurian for some reason.
> The Archaeopteryx skeleton does look dinosaurian for some reason.
Yes, and Obama’s frame looks like that of a gibbon, but that doesn’t make him one.
Photo #1 is pretty good, especially if it’s actually antique. As far as the people, the barn and the vegetables, perspective is not off much, shadow and highlight do not disagree much, I’d give it an A.
Photo #2 is hilarious. Everything that can be wrong in a manipulated image is present here. If it weren’t so funny, I’d give it an F.
Photo #3 actually is two men carrying a giant shoe, in my opinion. Where viewers no doubt go wrong is in the assumptions made as a result of the image. I know cobblers and shoe repair shops used giant shoes to advertise their services in the past, so I’d assume that’s what we’re looking at in the photo. Awfully light, though. Papier maché maybe.
Photo #4 isn’t as funny as the giant locust in a duel with a man, and it’s not been cobbled together quite so badly. The main problem is that the “wake” of the fish is unrealistic, and not on the same plane as the rest of the water. So, I’d give it a D-.
I have a book on details to look for in photo photography. It references techniques used by the CIA and national security to determine false images circulated by the Soviets and others.
I cannot find this book on Google though because of all of the tinfoil literature attacking the CIA for faking photos.
Meanwhile Al Reuters engages in such trickery commonplace (as does the LA Times, National Geographic, and other “respected” media outlets).
I’d tell you the title of the book if I could look it up at this time...
It’s now possible to put together a fabricated image that’s all but undetectable. You’d have to get down to the individual pixel level to be able to tell, and a determined forger could throw a monkey wrench into even that. That’s when you start looking at the code generated, by the various software. We’re down to steganography now, as far as sophisticated fraud. On the flip side, steganography has been used to conceal communications, too. It’s possible to encode a message into a picture, and next to no one would have a clue.
It took me a minute, but LOL.
Bogeymen of the C02 hoax losing ground
Canada Free Press | 3/30/09 | Tim Ball
Posted on 03/30/2009 4:25:16 PM PDT by pissant
No Fooling: There’s a Hoax Museum
The Kansas City Star | Tue, Mar. 31, 2009 | Edward M. Eveld
Posted on 04/02/2009 1:46:33 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Hmm, weird prosecution, eh? :’) Painting’s not horrible though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.