Epitome of the Collectivist Soul

[Max]

8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As long as I am going on about this, let's amplify the statue.

The clarity of the double shadows from lights coming from different angles suggests closer overhead lighting, so I won't bitch about that, but what are those white holes in between the statue and shadow on the right (neck and base)? And what the hell happened to its mouth? What the hell is covering it? If that doesn't look like the effect of grafting on parts of an image and smoothing with a smudge tool (or whatever you call it in Photoshop), I don't know what is. 

That thing almost looks like a cut from the overcoat. 

I used to fart around doing this stuff in my bad days. 

Do you have a "good argument" against tampering that explains that thing?

 

Michael

Sure. That is the typical effect of sharpening of the image. That can be done automatically in the camera, or afterwards with the computer. You see that effect also around the dark hair and the dark suits against a light background. I can no longer upload any images, otherwise I could show you some other examples.

And what is covering his mouth? A beard, I think. It's unclear how much of the mouth would be really visible in that statue, but the fact that it has a beard, is all white and not very sharp in the picture is a simple explanation that you can't see the mouth. Further: what would be the sense of tampering with that statue? I suppose it's there for everyone to see, and it's not very useful for hiding something. Cui bono?

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Max said:

And what is covering his mouth? A beard, I think.

Max,

A beard that runs past the side of his eyes, up the side of his head, on up to the top and top-front of his head?

Man, do we see things differently. We definitely have different tastes in beards. Shall we call your version a hijab beard?

 

1 hour ago, Max said:

Further: what would be the sense of tampering with that statue? I suppose it's there for everyone to see, and it's not very useful for hiding something. Cui bono?

Here's what I see. You don't think like someone who has messed with this stuff. 

I'll try to explain it, but you seem to be predisposed to belief, not speculation and thinking outside the box. So this may be wasted effort. (By "belief in your case, I especially mean belief in science and logic models you're focused on even where they are not relevant, like when dissecting a persuasion example using the wrong criteria. An example is the predetermined outcome filter I mention later in this post.)

The only reason I'm even discussing this is because I no longer inhabit the dark side, but this stuff is also good for readers to learn about when talking about ideas.

So here goes. I'm not going to go in detail, but here is the general outline.

1. People who falsify things are, more often than not, in a BIG HURRY. A falsified document or image is of little use once the opportunity to be gained from its use (whatever it is) has passed.

2. This means, when the clock is ticking,  falsifiers use as many shortcuts as they can get away with. Especially if they have to falsify many documents or images for a specific opportunity. That leads to terrible mistakes at times. Believe it or not, most falsified things with gross mistakes pass for real anyway with no problem. (On a non-dark-side level, think about the constant continuity mistakes in famous movies that most people never detect unless pointed out. There are entire sites and books devoted to this.)

3. The overall emotional and perceptual impression of the target user for a falsifier is much more important than details. The purpose of a falsification is hardly ever precision of details (except in high-visibility cases like art forgeries or where there is constant checking like with counterfeit money). Instead, it is to trick someone into believing something. Once the belief is implanted, the falsified thing is generally tossed aside and the job is done.

You see, the way belief works, even if a falsification is later discovered by a target, a properly implanted belief based on the falsification does not die in the target's mind. In the case under discussion (RBG), you are tying everything to a verbal argument and a desire to expose a conspiracy theory as false. This is way too narrow. This is starting with the outcome in mind before even looking.

That RBG argument or conspiracy theory (either side) may not be the intended effect at all of the falsifier. It may be something as simple as enhancing the people distribution balance of the shot for better impact to accompany an article (because, maybe, the photographer did not take other shots), or something more complicated like someone in the picture needing to prove to his wife or husband that he or she was at the funeral and not fooling around with a lover.  Or it may have something to do with RBG. Or not. (And, remember, I am not stating as fact that the image was messed with--only that it looks to me like it was far more than not.)

From that perspective (including the squeeze from an opportunity deadline), without filtering through a predetermined outcome, imagine who would look at the picture as a falsifier's target and try to see it how they would see it. Not how you see it. Then try Occum's Razor again and see what you come up with. 

(Actually, I don't think it will be much because you don't think that way. But who knows? It's a big world out there and I, certainly, don't know everything...)

 

Michael

[Max]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Max,

A beard that runs past the side of his eyes, up the side of his head, on up to the top and top-front of his head?

That part on the top of his head we usually call "hair". I don't see anything unusual in that statue. Google statue + beard to see many other examples, often with even much more beard and/or hair.

 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

Here's what I see. You don't think like someone who has messed with this stuff. 

Oh, but I've unmasked photo forgeries in the past, and some of them were very cleverly done, so I'm not entirely green in that respect. Further I have some experience with steganography, a bit different kind of tampering, but very instructive.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'll try to explain it, but you seem to be predisposed to belief, not speculation and thinking outside the box. So this may be wasted effort. (By "belief in your case, I especially mean belief in science and logic models you're focused on even where they are not relevant, like when dissecting a persuasion example using the wrong criteria. An example is the predetermined outcome filter I mention later in this post.)

The only reason I'm even discussing this is because I no longer inhabit the dark side, but this stuff is also good for readers to learn about when talking about ideas.

So here goes. I'm not going to go in detail, but here is the general outline.

1. People who falsify things are, more often than not, in a BIG HURRY. A falsified document or image is of little use once the opportunity to be gained from its use (whatever it is) has passed.

2. This means, when the clock is ticking,  falsifiers use as many shortcuts as they can get away with. Especially if they have to falsify many documents or images for a specific opportunity. That leads to terrible mistakes at times. Believe it or not, most falsified things with gross mistakes pass for real anyway with no problem. (On a non-dark-side level, think about the constant continuity mistakes in famous movies that most people never detect unless pointed out. There are entire sites and books devoted to this.)

3. The overall emotional and perceptual impression of the target user for a falsifier is much more important than details. The purpose of a falsification is hardly ever precision of details (except in high-visibility cases like art forgeries or where there is constant checking like with counterfeit money). Instead, it is to trick someone into believing something. Once the belief is implanted, the falsified thing is generally tossed aside and the job is done.

You see, the way belief works, even if a falsification is later discovered by a target, a properly implanted belief based on the falsification does not die in the target's mind. In the case under discussion (RBG), you are tying everything to a verbal argument and a desire to expose a conspiracy theory as false. This is way too narrow. This is starting with the outcome in mind before even looking.

That RBG argument or conspiracy theory (either side) may not be the intended effect at all of the falsifier. It may be something as simple as enhancing the people distribution balance of the shot for better impact to accompany an article (because, maybe, the photographer did not take other shots), or something more complicated like someone in the picture needing to prove to his wife or husband that he or she was at the funeral and not fooling around with a lover.  Or it may have something to do with RBG. Or not. (And, remember, I am not stating as fact that the image was messed with--only that it looks to me like it was far more than not.)

From that perspective (including the squeeze from an opportunity deadline), without filtering through a predetermined outcome, imagine who would look at the picture as a falsifier's target and try to see it how they would see it. Not how you see it. Then try Occum's Razor again and see what you come up with. 

(Actually, I don't think it will be much because you don't think that way. But who knows? It's a big world out there and I, certainly, don't know everything...)

 

Michael

That's all fine, but the point is, that the arguments that I've heard that this photo would be a fake are not valid. Those perceived anomalies can be adequately explained by standard photographic effects. So far I haven't seen any compelling evidence for tampering. I get the impression that some people for some reason desperately want this photo to be a fake, and you see there an example of confirmation bias: every aspect of the photo that they can't explain immediately is grabbed as evidence for tampering with the photo, instead of checking if perhaps another explanation might be sufficient.

It reminds me of those UFO-people, who, when they see something in the sky that they can't identify, immediately jump to the conclusion that it must be space ship from Sirius, or perhaps from somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy, instead of accepting that it might have a more mundane explanation, like birds, aircraft, strange clouds, mirages, balloons, Venus, etc. Such a normal explanation is probably too dull for them. Aliens are much more exciting! 

[Ellen Stuttle]

20 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

There is no doubt [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] is dead or incapacitated.

Wouldn't a conspiracy to hide RBG's death or incapacity require the cooperation of the conservative Supreme Court Justices?  If yes, what motive would they have for cooperating?

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Max said:

That's all fine, but the point is, that the arguments that I've heard that this photo would be a fake are not valid.

Max,

Actually they are valid.

But think as you wish.

As I do. 

Have you ever heard of the "But Eraser"? It goes like this:

[Any statement whatsoever] but... 

It doesn't matter what you say after that "but," nor does it have to relate. It will be like starting to speak from the beginning. The word "but" erases everything that was said before.

 

When "fine" gets erased in a discussion like this, that's a signal that the value of continuing the conversation has dissipated. 

It's probably the UFO aliens making me disagree with you. But...

(See how that works  )

You stated your thoughts clearly.

I stated mine clearly.

You say I am wrong, my thinking invalid, etc.

I say ditto about you--with a little more nuance. I see you as one of the blind men feeling an elephant's leg and claiming it's a tree, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. In your case, maybe not totally blind, but (oops  ), still, just as dogmatic.

Now readers will decide for themselves.

Fortunately, you do not control that. Nor do I.

They do.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is for the reader.

That's a beard?

A UFO alien beard maybe?

But what do I know?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Wouldn't a conspiracy to hide RBG's death or incapacity require the cooperation of the conservative Supreme Court Justices?  If yes, what motive would they have for cooperating?

Ellen

Ellen,

Here's my two cents again (which always gets me in trouble  ).

If a body double has been properly prepared and coached and used sparingly with minimum up-close exposure, the other Justices would not have to know. Deep fake tech could do the rest. Granted, this would be extremely hard to pull off, but with today's resources, I believe it's doable.

We already know the Dems think this way. For example, AOC only became a politician because she answered a casting call. She was not chosen for her political beliefs, but for her ability as an actress. AOC as a politician is manufactured by an organization.

As to RBG, I lean toward her being alive, though. Not because I dismiss conspiracy theory thinking. As I've said many times, there is a place for this kind of thinking to root out what the powerful want to remain hidden. But in the case of RBG, I am aware of the ineptness of the Democrats in pulling off conspiracies these days. I believe it is possible (and likely) for them to try. I don't believe they have the capacity to pull it off without screwing it up beyond repair. Maybe at another time in history, but not now.

Michael

[Max]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is for the reader.

That's a beard?

A UFO alien beard maybe?

But what do I know?

Michael

Curious, I just see a beard, an ear and hair on top. No, it's not very clear, but that is due to the fact that the image of the white statue is rather bleached out by overexposure, and it isn't very sharp anyway. That seems to me to be a more likely explanation of what you see, than the notion that some evil conspirator has painted an extra beard on the statue or has removed some embarrassing details of the statue.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Max said:

That seems to me to be a more likely explanation of what you see, than the notion that some evil conspirator has painted an extra beard on the statue or has removed some embarrassing details of the statue.

Max,

"Likely" is an interesting word the way you say it. It sounds like, "the only, you dumbass."

It sounds like a barking dogma.

The picture is right in front of your eyes with the area highlighted, yet you claim you do not see it, and you do it with sarcasm.

I find this kind of mind an interesting case study. This is the way prejudice works. Prejudiced people see a story in their heads before they see reality (literally, in that order), and if there is a difference, they will not only insist the story is the only reality, they will get quite condescending, then insulting, to those who see the reality of their senses first and say what they see.

Anyway, I knew something like this would be your reaction, so I addressed the post to the reader. I bet most of them see with their own eyes, not yours or mine.

Like I said, fortunately, you don't control that. And neither to I. They do. So, at this point, I don't imagine them being too interested in what you and I say so long as it is merely repeating that the other is wrong.

As I said, erasing "fine" with a "but" is an indication of lack of further value.

Michael

[Max]

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Max,

"Likely" is an interesting word the way you say it. It sounds like, "the only, you dumbass."

It sounds like a barking dogma.

I just wrote that my interpretation seemed to me to be more likely than the tampering explanation. I think that is a quite reasonable statement, not a "barking dogma". Neither did I use terms like "you dumbass" or anyting similar. You're reading things in my words that aren't there. In German there is an apt word for that: "hineininterpretieren". 

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The picture is right in front of your eyes with the area highlighted, yet you claim you do not see it, and you do it with sarcasm.

I see it very well. That you see it differently I can't help, I just try to explain what I see. Sarcasm? No more than your: "That's a beard? A UFO alien beard maybe?" I answer in kind. Or is it Quod licet Iovi...?

 

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I find this kind of mind an interesting case study. This is the way prejudice works. Prejudiced people see a story in their heads before they see reality (literally, in that order), and if there is a difference, they will not only insist the story is the only reality, they will get quite condescending, then insulting, to those who see the reality of their senses first and say what they see.

Ah, are we going to psychologize? On the basis of perceived insults? When other people see something differently, that must be due to their prejudice?

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Anyway, I knew something like this would be your reaction, so I addressed the post to the reader. I bet most of them see with their own eyes, not yours or mine.

Like I said, fortunately, you don't control that. And neither to I. They do. So, at this point, I don't imagine them being too interested in what you and I say so long as it is merely repeating that the other is wrong.

I'm not interested in controlling anyone. I just tell it when I see a flawed argument.

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As I said, erasing "fine" with a "but" is an indication of lack of further value.

Is that a dogma? In this case it just meant "that may all be true, but it is beside the point". In my opinion that can be a valid argument. Or am I now barking again?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 minutes ago, Max said:

You're reading things in my words that aren't there. In German there is an apt word for that: "hineininterpretieren". 

In English, it's called subtext.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, Max said:

Ah, are we going to psychologize? On the basis of perceived insults?

No. On the basis of the story in your head.

The one where anyone who disagrees with you is defending conspiracy theory dumbasses. We talk about images, but notice that your posts always end there at your caricatures of conspiracy theorists.

I just give words to the subtext that becomes evident through constant repetition. 

That subtext keeps you from seeing obvious things right in front of your eyes that have nothing to do with the conspiracy theory story running underneath in your head.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

16 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Wouldn't a conspiracy to hide RBG's death or incapacity require the cooperation of the conservative Supreme Court Justices?  If yes, what motive would they have for cooperating?

Ellen

Being asked to by the Trump team would be enough.

The team's motivation could be simply to hold that weapon. The parties In a complex contest should not exploit every situation the moment they obtain. Some you hold over their heads because ithat is enough to contain it's usefulness to the enemy.

So, the deep state has a fake supreme writing and voting. Not great. But you can quietly show them your ability to bust them at will in an instant and this will sober them and limit their exploitation of their little trick.

RGB is just one of many frauds the deep state is juggling and the Trump team can explode without warning 

Their behavior appears increasingly directionless and irrational because their options are so squeezed. They don't have any promising or intelligent options.

[Max]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

No. On the basis of the story in your head.

"Knowing" the story in my head is the essence of psychologizing.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The one where anyone who disagrees with you is defending conspiracy theory dumbasses. We talk about images, but notice that your posts always end there at your caricatures of conspiracy theorists.

The discussion is about conspiracy theories, in this case the theory that the photo that we've been discussing was faked, to bring that old woman in it, who is supposed to be dead. The funny thing is that I hadn't realized that you had put those circles on the picture, to alert us on a supposedly missing shadow, as evidence of tampering. My impression was that you'd copied that photo with circles and all from some conspiracy site. Apart from my reaction, Mark and Anthony also dismissed that "shadow" argument.

You then brought up new arguments:

1. The walking people seemed to be "out of focus", in contrast to the standing and sitting people. I pointed out (and Anthony also implied) that that fuzziness was nothing but the motion blur of moving people. 

2. Then your next argument for tampering was that the fuzziness should only be on the backside of the walking person, and not on the front. I showed you why this notion is incorrect.

3. Your next argument was about the statue, the "white holes" between statue and shadow. I pointed out that this is a common effect of (often automatic) sharpening of the image. Further you asked where the mouth was. I replied that it was covered by a beard.

4. Then you tried to ridicule the picture of the statue, that it didn't have a real beard. I replied that I didn't see anything wrong in that part of the photo, other than that the statue was overexposed and therefore details were washed out. Anyway, I found a different photo of that scene, this time with considerably better resolution. The statue is obviously the same as on the other photo, only  with more detail. You can discern mouth, ear, beard and hair, and these correspond clearly with what the fuzzier image shows. Due to overexposure it is still washed out, but I think nobody will think this has (also?) been tampered with. 

 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I just give words to the subtext that becomes evident through constant repetition. 

That subtext keeps you from seeing obvious things right in front of your eyes that have nothing to do with the conspiracy theory story running underneath in your head.

Michael

If I'm prejudiced, then my prejudice is rationality, common sense and respect for reality (omg, now I sound like a real Objectivist). You never disputed any of my refutations of your evidence of tampering, but only came up with again another argument. What is your subtext, or don't you have one? Is the idea that these images are perhaps not tampered with really anathema? Because you once were sure that it had been tampered with?

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, Max said:

What is your subtext, or don't you have one?

Of course I've got one.

It's called independent thinking instead of accepting argument from intimidation. And especially using one's own observations and brains over the stories people want to impose on you through misrepresentation and other idiocies.

Like this crap (which is one of many examples from your posts I could have chosen).

4 hours ago, Max said:

Then you tried to ridicule the picture of the statue, that it didn't have a real beard.

No I didn't try to ridicule the picture of the statue. (And I never claimed it didn't have a beard--that's your invention, not mine--but that's beside the point I want to make.) If I was ridiculing anything, I was ridiculing you.

Actually, I wasn't ridiculing anything at first. When I posted the highlight, I was merely pointed out a real artifact (that you say doesn't exist) in the statue's face in the picture. Then I made a quip that included your own ridiculing of others for daring to see things like the artifact (your snark involving UFOs).

Not everybody who disagrees with you, or who sees the artifact, or even who who caused artifact, is a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist, but you have ended a lot of your posts with that claim or insinuation, always from a tone of snark, of course. (Granted, self-congratulations of the sort you do always comes with a hit of serotonin and dopamine--and that feels pretty damn good. But there are better ways to get your fix where you can provide value instead of putting others down based on your own errors and digging in.)

Even when I told you of other potential scenarios for altering a picture, you blanked them out and repeated snark about conspiracy theorists (a fundamental part of the story in your head) as the only alternative in your flawless elocutions of technique and what other people think.

And speaking of that, you worry a lot about "psychologizing," yet can't imagine why anyone would alter an image unless they were "evil conspirators" (your words, not mine).

The artifact in the statue's face in the picture is real. Real like in reality. That kind of real. You not only don't see it (I believe you do, but pretend you don't), you just now stated that pointing to it is ridiculing a friggin' picture of a statue.

Nice and rational, right?

Who's psychologizing now? 

(Like I said, that's just one example of many--in this thread alone--I could point to.)

Here's the deal. I don't live in the story in your head. Nor do other readers. So fortunately, you don't control what they think. They do. Instead, your perception of me--and of them--lives in that story. And that perception, going from what your write, seems to be hopelessly flawed.

I live out here in reality, separate from your opinions and stories of heroically trouncing conspiracy theorists and proving to yourself your own superiority and belonging to the right scientific (rational, etc., etc., etc.) tribe.

But out here in reality, not only can I alter pictures in the manner I stated using image altering programs, I can show how the idiots who altered that picture screwed it up (as I already pointed to a few times). Just repeating I'm wrong like a duck quacking doesn't mean anything to me other than showing you have some knowledge of image manipulation, but also have some pretty severe limitations about the hows and whys.

In other words, your opinions and blank-outs do not remove my skills nor my past.

As I said when I first pointed to some of the screw-ups (to be precise, likely screw-ups), you probably won't agree with what I write because you don't think that way. And, lo and behold, here we are.

Now let me psychologize for real. I know enough about life to know you have been conned big-time several times (in love, in business, or both) and it hurt like hell. Yet you never questioned your own dogmatic method of thinking as the weakness that allowed the con to occur. Your craving to be right and above the other was too strong for you to question what you may have done to create vulnerabilities. My guess is that you hate the person or persons who conned you to an unhealthy degree and can't get them out of your head once you start thinking about them in waves of cognitive dissonance. I don't know the details, obviously, since I have never met you except online, but I do know that this happened. That's why you constantly put down others right at the outset of any discussion. Human nature doesn't change for anyone.

But I tire of trivialities.

Answer me this, Mr. Rational Dogmatist. I've tried to bring the following up a few times indirectly, but indirect doesn't work with you. So let's do it the direct way.

What value are your current comments to me or to most readers right now? You know, value for the people who want to discuss RBG? Or who want to discuss her and the collectivist soul (like in the title of the thread)?

I'll tell you if you can't figure it out.

Very little to nothing.

That's the value of your posts right now. Nobody cares about your wounded vanity.

You have a great brain, but you constantly use it for this shit.

So if you don't want to move on, let me help.

I will move on from interacting with your wounded vanity. Have at it and rejoice to the sound of one hand clapping.

For me, it's a big world out there. So much to see and learn...

 

(To the reader, the smiley is for happiness and good vibes, not sarcasm aimed at Max. And, man, are good vibes needed after that.  I really do feel happy when I think about the big world out there and going out to look at it. So time to move on.  )

Michael

[Max]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Of course I've got one.

It's called independent thinking instead of accepting argument from intimidation.

What intimidation? Do you find it intimidating when someone points out an error in your argument? Apparently you've no answer, as you every time come up with new arguments, ignoring the previous one.

Quote

And especially using one's own observations and brains over the stories people want to impose on you through misrepresentation and other idiocies.

Like this crap (which is one of many examples from your posts I could have chosen).

No I didn't try to ridicule the picture of the statue. (And I never claimed it didn't have a beard--that's your invention, not mine--but that's beside the point I want to make.) 

Now who is misrepresenting an argument? You never claimed it didn't have a beard? Well, neither did I say that you did, I said that you claimed "that it didn't have a real beard". Is that so strange after you wrote: "A beard that runs past the side of his eyes, up the side of his head, on up to the top and top-front of his head?" and "That's a beard? A UFO alien beard maybe?"

Quote

If I was ridiculing anything, I was ridiculing you.

Yes, I could have expected that, I suppose.

Quote

Actually, I wasn't ridiculing anything at first. When I posted the highlight, I was merely pointed out a real artifact (that you say doesn't exist) 

in the statue's face in the picture. Then I made a quip that included your own ridiculing of others for daring to see things like the artifact (your snark involving UFOs).

The only artifact there is, is the low resolution and the overexposure. There isn't any evidence of a deliberate, human-made alteration in that picture, you're imagining things that aren't there, and therefore the comparison with UFO's that some people see as evidence for traveling aliens, is justified.

 

Quote

Not everybody who disagrees with you, or who sees the artifact, or even who who caused artifact, is a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist, but you have ended a lot of your posts with that claim or insinuation, always from a tone of snark, of course. (Granted, self-congratulations of the sort you do always comes with a hit of serotonin and dopamine--and that feels pretty damn good. But there are better ways to get your fix where you can provide value instead of putting others down based on your own errors and digging in.)

Sure, doc.

Quote

Even when I told you of other potential scenarios for altering a picture, you blanked them out and repeated snark about conspiracy theorists (a fundamental part of the story in your head) as the only alternative in your flawless elocutions of technique and what other people think.

You don't have to tell me potential scenarios for altering a picture, I've a lot of experience in that direction, more than you, I'm sure. However, the point is that you don't have any evidence that such scenarios have been used here. Any argument you brought up, I've refuted, and you blanked out all those refutations.

Quote

And speaking of that, you worry a lot about "psychologizing," yet can't imagine why anyone would alter an image unless they were "evil conspirators" (your words, not mine).

This thread is about such evil conspirators, who for political purposes pretend that a dead woman is still alive. We're not talking here about altering images for fun or for artistic purposes.

Quote

The artifact in the statue's face in the picture is real. Real like in reality. That kind of real. You not only don't see it (I believe you do, but pretend you don't), you just now stated that pointing to it is ridiculing a friggin' picture of a statue.

That artifact exists only in you imagination. I think no one else sees it. Look at the second picture that I showed, where the same statue can be seen, only much sharper. Also an artifact?

Quote

Nice and rational, right?

Who's psychologizing now? 

(Like I said, that's just one example of many--in this thread alone--I could point to.)

Here's the deal. I don't live in the story in your head. Nor do other readers. So fortunately, you don't control what they think. They do. Instead, your perception of me--and of them--lives in that story. And that perception, going from what your write, seems to be hopelessly flawed.

I live out here in reality, separate from your opinions and stories of heroically trouncing conspiracy theorists and proving to yourself your own superiority and belonging to the right scientific (rational, etc., etc., etc.) tribe.

But out here in reality, not only can I alter pictures in the manner I stated using image altering programs,

I can also alter pictures, and I'm sure that you also can put a figure in a photo by using a clone tool. But that is totally irrelevant, the question is: has this picture been tampered with? You haven't given any valid evidence for that.

 

Quote

Now let me psychologize for real.

Yeah, that is what you really crave to do, isn't it?

Quote

I know enough about life to know you have been conned big-time several times (in love, in business, or both) and it hurt like hell. Yet you never questioned your own dogmatic method of thinking as the weakness that allowed the con to occur. Your craving to be right and above the other was too strong for you to question what you may have done to create vulnerabilities. My guess is that you hate the person or persons who conned you to an unhealthy degree and can't get them out of your head once you start thinking about them in waves of cognitive dissonance. I don't know the details, obviously, since I have never met you except online, but I do know that this happened. That's why you constantly put down others right at the outset of any discussion. Human nature doesn't change for anyone.

Well, you do have an enormous fantasy, I must grant you that. Alas, I can't remember having been conned ever. At least not big-time, because then I surely would remember it. You'll have to read some more self-help books to improve you thought-reading skills.

Quote

But I tire of trivialities.

Answer me this, Mr. Rational Dogmatist. I've tried to bring the following up a few times indirectly, but indirect doesn't work with you. So let's do it the direct way.

What value are your current comments to me or to most readers right now? You know, value for the people who want to discuss RBG? Or who want to discuss her and the collectivist soul (like in the title of the thread)?

I'll tell you if you can't figure it out.

Very little to nothing.

I'm not interested in what value my comments have to others. I just have to to correct invalid arguments, whether they are about Aristotle's paradox of tampering with pictures, that's all.

 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That's the value of your posts right now. Nobody cares about your wounded vanity.

Ha ha, in psychology that's called projection. I think your vanity has been wounded, as you've several times been shown to be wrong in your pompous statements about that picture being tampered with. Time to exit for you.

[Ellen Stuttle]

5 hours ago, Max said:

This thread is about such evil conspirators, who for political purposes pretend that a dead woman is still alive. We're not talking here about altering images for fun or for artistic purposes.

The story seems to have changed from pretending that a dead woman is still alive to pretending that an incapacitated woman is still compos mentis.

I'm not among the "most readers" for whom Michael thinks your comments have very little to no worth.

Ellen

[Max]

Thank you, Ellen.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The story seems to have changed from pretending that a dead woman is still alive to pretending that an incapacitated woman is still compos mentis.

You're missing the point, too, Ellen.

On 7/24/2019 at 7:22 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Just my own 2 cents, I find something really odd about the picture.

I have been told there is nothing odd at all about the picture. Even after pointing out the oddities, I am told this is conspiracy thinking of the UFO variety. I object.

That is the point. At least my point.

This kind of arguing reminds me of the early days of SoloHQ where people were thirsting so much to engage a villain to "trounce" for collectivism and communism in a Randian fashion, they were frustrated because interaction with the world wasn't working (no feedback), so they started accusing each other. (Remember all those Saddamites threads and similar?)

Look at this right here:

18 hours ago, Max said:

The funny thing is that I hadn't realized that you had put those circles on the picture...

The guy wants to debunk debunk debunk before he even knows what he is looking at. And he posts debunking debunking debunking...

(The story in his head thing.)

This is a perfect example of judging first, then identifying later to try to make the judgment fit (normative before cognitive). 

People in O-Land do this all the time. God knows I've done it enough before I started working on it.

If you want to see this form of epistemology in use on a massive scale, the anti-Trumpers are wedded to it--so much so they involved Congress, the mainstream media, etc., to debunk debunk debunk Trump and, even after millions of dollars in investigations over years by highly motivated top-level investigators with nothing found, many are still going at it. It's the story in their heads clashing with reality and they won't leave the story long enough to look.

About RBG being MIA but faked, I don't have much of an opinion except to say this kind of stunt, if true, has been done before by those in power, so I don't discount the possibility. I like to have fun with the idea because it is plausible. Obviously, this is a high stakes situation so there is plenty of motive by the bad guys. Read my posts and you will see this hasn't changed. (Hell, I even said I think the bad guys too inept to pull it off correctly.)

Crusades-wise in the trounce wars, I, for one, do not thirst to debunk before I look.  

btw - I don't find someone saying "dead or incapacitated" (as Jon did above) to mean the same thing as changing the story from dead to incapacitated. I don't think Jon's intent at all was to dismiss the possibility of RBG being dead and change it to incapacitated. At least, I don't read anything in his posts that convey that meaning to me. Adding a possibility not thought of (or mentioned) at first is not the same thing as replacing one with the other.

6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I'm not among the "most readers" for whom Michael thinks your comments have very little to no worth.

I'm glad for your solidarity. I like to see this. (Seriously.) But just to be clear, I wasn't talking about ALL of Max's comments. I find value in many. I was talking about the silly oneupmanship bickering. If you find value in that, I say enjoy yourself.

 

I doubt most readers do when that kind of crap gets rolling. It's true that people like to stop and look at a train wreck at first, but when time goes on and nothing changes, they soon they get bored and drift away.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have been told there is nothing odd at all about the picture. Even after pointing out the oddities, I am told this is conspiracy thinking of the UFO variety. I object.

That is the point.  At least my point.

Michael,

You do more than object.  You start psychoanalyzing and knowing the motives that lurk in the mind of a person who doesn't agree with you.  Then you get more elaborate augmenting the story which you know is in the other person's mind.  Etc.

(As to the picture, I think that Max has well accounted for the "oddities" you see.  And as to the UFO comparison, I think you interpreted that as an accusation which wasn't made.)

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

btw - I don't find someone saying "dead or incapacitated" (as Jon did above) to mean the same thing as changing the story from dead to incapacitated.

On another thread, Jon wrote:

Originally (some months back), the claim was that RBG was definitely dead.

I haven't been following the RBG developments, but the progression in Jon's wording looks like his sources have gotten evidence that Ginsburg is still alive.

Ellen

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

You start psychoanalyzing and knowing the motives that lurk in the mind of a person who doesn't agree with you.

Ellen,

You mean like he does with people whose motives and mental stability he constantly disparages as conspiracy theorists? Something like that kind of psychoanalyzing?

   

But what do I know?

I'm just a psychologizer...

 

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

As to the picture, I think that Max has well accounted for the "oddities" you see.

Not to me.

Not when he can't even see a face-covering artifact that is right in front of his eyes and hasn't even looked at the picture correctly before he sounds off.

I also dispute his technical explanations as the only ones valid. Also, I'm not even convinced of the validity of some of what he said. But I don't want to spend long hours delving into this. I merely keep at it a bit because I want to make sure readers know there are different views--valid possible and plausible views--that they can consider. That way they can come to their own conclusions. Independent thinking and all...

Other than that, what do I know?

I'm just a psychologizer...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I haven't been following the RBG developments, but the progression in Jon's wording looks like his sources have gotten evidence that Ginsburg is still alive.

Ellen,

As you said, that quote was on a different thread. I only looked in the current one with that focus. Even so, I'm not sure Jon means that the possibility of RBG being dead is off the table for him. After all, in the way he said it, "They need to keep delaying admission of RGB incapacity...", and being dead sure fits that context.  

But I'll wait until Jon clears this up if he ever does.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Douglas MacArthur: "So Roosevelt is dead; a man who never told the truth when a lie would serve him just as well."

I thought this was a humorous thread. Now I'm sure of it.

---Brant

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

32 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I thought this was a humorous thread. Now I'm sure of it.

Brant,

You sure know how to hurt a guy...

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The guy [Max] wants to debunk debunk debunk before he even knows what he is looking at. And he posts debunking debunking debunking.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You mean like [Max] does with people whose motives and mental stability he constantly disparages as conspiracy theorists? 

I don't know what your referents are for those statements.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Somehing like that kind of psychoanalyzing?

It isn't the same kind, even if you have referents which I haven't seen for Max's posting "debunking debunking debunking."

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Not when he can't even see a face-covering artifact that is right in front of his eyes and hasn't even looked at the picture correctly before he sounds off.

Max posted another shot of the scene, in which the statue also appears.  The statue has a beard.

Ellen