Real MI6 job-ad, need Photoshop experience :)
- Thread starter GRiM
- Start date
That's quite interesting. That's proably why the controlled demolition explosions don't show up in much/any of the World Trade Center pictures and only in the videos. I could just be imagining things, but when I heard about that theory, I wondered why I could never see the 'explosions' in the pictures.
JonnyRadar
The Living Force
interesting! seems CIA has positions like this as well:
_https://www(dot)cia(dot)gov/careers/jobs/view-all-jobs/graphic-designer.html
_https://www(dot)cia(dot)gov/careers/jobs/view-all-jobs/graphic-designer.html
Azur
The Living Force
Quite a range in that position, salary-wise. Guess they're casting their net pretty wide.JonnyRadar said:
To those who think this is an opportunity, read on.
They're looking for those people who don't actually notice the effect or real nature of their work, self-absorbed in their pursuit of "living the dream" and those who are willing to "just making a living", with the all important goal of upgrading to the next, bestest IPod.
Here's a tip: If in the course of an interview, they ask you to imagine this scenario: "You come across a turtle in the desert, and you flip it on it's back, knowing it will die. Why?" And you say: " I dunno, it doesn't matter". You're in.
Enjoy your empty, manufactured status. (But I'm sure you don't see why there's a problem here.)
*sigh*
N
noise
Guest
Strange it is funny yet has a hint of the sheer terror of the situation.
"Graphic Designers provide traditional printing (help make propaganda into visually stunning sensations),
Web and multimedia support to the CIA's intelligence efforts (work with/for Al-CIAda).
They use the latest technology to provide high-quality products utilized by policymakers throughout the federal government (work with antagonists, psycho-neuro-narciss-paths),
including the President of the United States (and liars).
Or break up the last sentence: They use .. technology to .. utilize.. policymakers throughout the federal government, including the President..
Sorry gettin' my kicks. :)
"Graphic Designers provide traditional printing (help make propaganda into visually stunning sensations),
Web and multimedia support to the CIA's intelligence efforts (work with/for Al-CIAda).
They use the latest technology to provide high-quality products utilized by policymakers throughout the federal government (work with antagonists, psycho-neuro-narciss-paths),
including the President of the United States (and liars).
Or break up the last sentence: They use .. technology to .. utilize.. policymakers throughout the federal government, including the President..
Sorry gettin' my kicks. :)
GRiM
The Living Force
Syrian envoy says CIA fabricated evidence By PAMELA HESS , Associated Press Writer last updated: April 27, 2008 07:12:35 AM
WASHINGTON —
Syria's ambassador to the United States said Friday that the CIA fabricated pictures allegedly taken inside a secret Syrian nuclear reactor and predicted that in the coming weeks the U.S. story about the site would "implode from within."
"The photos presented to me yesterday were ludicrous, laughable," Ambassador Imad Moustapha told reporters at his Washington residence.
However, he refused to say what the building in the remote eastern desert of Syria was used for before Israeli jets bombed it in September 2007.
Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they believe it was a secret nuclear reactor meant to produce plutonium, which can be used to make high-yield nuclear weapons. They alleged that North Korea aided in the design, construction and outfitting of the building.
Syria bulldozed the building's ruins a month after it was bombed and constructed a new, larger building in its place, leaving little or no evidence of what had been on the site.
Moustapha would not explain the purpose of the new building. But he said the lack of military checkpoints, air defenses or barbed wire fences around either building should show that it was not a sensitive facility.
So far, Syria has not allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the area.
Syria's ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Ja'afari, pledged on Friday to cooperate with the IAEA and suggested that "the main target of the American CIA allegations against Syria is to justify the Israeli attack against the Syrian side."
In a message to employees, CIA Director Michael Hayden praised the agency's "outstanding" work, calling it "a case study in rigorous analytic tradecraft, skillful human and technical collection."
But some outside nuclear experts were questioning some of the CIA's analysis, though not disputing its conclusions.
David Albright, president of the nonprofit Institute for Science and International Security, analyzed commercial satellite imagery of the bombed facility last fall and surmised then it was a nuclear reactor. He questioned the intelligence agencies' conclusion that the reactor was within months or weeks of completion.
[note to self: google Science and International Security]
"It's not clear-cut it was ready to turn on," Albright said.
He also took issue with the Bush administration's assertion that the reactor was solely intended to support a nuclear weapons program. Officials said Thursday the reactor was ill-suited for electrical generation - it lacked distribution wires or substations - and did not bear the hallmarks of a research reactor. They concluded the plutonium was therefore meant for weapons but acknowledged they had no direct evidence of that.
Almost all reactors produce plutonium, even those dedicated to peaceful purposes, Albright said.
"Civilian uses are possible and cannot be dismissed out of hand," he said. "I think the CIA and the White House have not shown that the only possibility for this reactor is that it was to make plutonium for nuclear weapons."
"It very well could be true," he said, "but it is far less than ironclad, absent other information."
According to the CIA, the Syrian reactor was modeled on a small North Korean reactor built at Yongbyon. That facility produced a small amount of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Albright said that facility was also a research effort to determine if the North Koreans could scale up the model to produce electricity efficiently.
Siegfried Hecker, the co-director for Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, said the evidence strongly suggests Syria's intention was to produce plutonium. He agreed with the assessment that the plant was not well-suited for generating electricity.
"On the other hand, it was the best path to bomb-grade plutonium," he said. "That was most likely the primary purpose of this facility."
One piece of evidence that casts doubt on Syrian intentions to produce plutonium for weapons was the absence of a reprocessing facility, necessary to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel.
But Anthony Cordesman, a military expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that may not have been a serious impediment. Syria could quickly build such a reprocessing capability, he said.
Cordesman also said the CIA undercut its case against Syria by not explaining how a plutonium-producing reactor would fit into Syria's "long history" of suspicious activities that suggest it is trying to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
WASHINGTON —
Syria's ambassador to the United States said Friday that the CIA fabricated pictures allegedly taken inside a secret Syrian nuclear reactor and predicted that in the coming weeks the U.S. story about the site would "implode from within."
"The photos presented to me yesterday were ludicrous, laughable," Ambassador Imad Moustapha told reporters at his Washington residence.
However, he refused to say what the building in the remote eastern desert of Syria was used for before Israeli jets bombed it in September 2007.
Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they believe it was a secret nuclear reactor meant to produce plutonium, which can be used to make high-yield nuclear weapons. They alleged that North Korea aided in the design, construction and outfitting of the building.
Syria bulldozed the building's ruins a month after it was bombed and constructed a new, larger building in its place, leaving little or no evidence of what had been on the site.
Moustapha would not explain the purpose of the new building. But he said the lack of military checkpoints, air defenses or barbed wire fences around either building should show that it was not a sensitive facility.
So far, Syria has not allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the area.
Syria's ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Ja'afari, pledged on Friday to cooperate with the IAEA and suggested that "the main target of the American CIA allegations against Syria is to justify the Israeli attack against the Syrian side."
In a message to employees, CIA Director Michael Hayden praised the agency's "outstanding" work, calling it "a case study in rigorous analytic tradecraft, skillful human and technical collection."
But some outside nuclear experts were questioning some of the CIA's analysis, though not disputing its conclusions.
David Albright, president of the nonprofit Institute for Science and International Security, analyzed commercial satellite imagery of the bombed facility last fall and surmised then it was a nuclear reactor. He questioned the intelligence agencies' conclusion that the reactor was within months or weeks of completion.
[note to self: google Science and International Security]
"It's not clear-cut it was ready to turn on," Albright said.
He also took issue with the Bush administration's assertion that the reactor was solely intended to support a nuclear weapons program. Officials said Thursday the reactor was ill-suited for electrical generation - it lacked distribution wires or substations - and did not bear the hallmarks of a research reactor. They concluded the plutonium was therefore meant for weapons but acknowledged they had no direct evidence of that.
Almost all reactors produce plutonium, even those dedicated to peaceful purposes, Albright said.
"Civilian uses are possible and cannot be dismissed out of hand," he said. "I think the CIA and the White House have not shown that the only possibility for this reactor is that it was to make plutonium for nuclear weapons."
"It very well could be true," he said, "but it is far less than ironclad, absent other information."
According to the CIA, the Syrian reactor was modeled on a small North Korean reactor built at Yongbyon. That facility produced a small amount of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Albright said that facility was also a research effort to determine if the North Koreans could scale up the model to produce electricity efficiently.
Siegfried Hecker, the co-director for Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, said the evidence strongly suggests Syria's intention was to produce plutonium. He agreed with the assessment that the plant was not well-suited for generating electricity.
"On the other hand, it was the best path to bomb-grade plutonium," he said. "That was most likely the primary purpose of this facility."
One piece of evidence that casts doubt on Syrian intentions to produce plutonium for weapons was the absence of a reprocessing facility, necessary to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel.
But Anthony Cordesman, a military expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that may not have been a serious impediment. Syria could quickly build such a reprocessing capability, he said.
Cordesman also said the CIA undercut its case against Syria by not explaining how a plutonium-producing reactor would fit into Syria's "long history" of suspicious activities that suggest it is trying to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
GRiM
The Living Force
...and the old 2006 story:
_http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/05/the-worst-photoshop-ive-ever-seen/
VS original:
Ps. if anyone is interested in writing a story about the photoshopping, and seems to be many "incidents" when I did a superficial search ie. not spending so much time, I will gladly help with material and or co-write.
<--email
_http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/05/the-worst-photoshop-ive-ever-seen/
VS original:
Ps. if anyone is interested in writing a story about the photoshopping, and seems to be many "incidents" when I did a superficial search ie. not spending so much time, I will gladly help with material and or co-write.
Tigersoap
The Living Force
I found this article with Dr Hany Farid who developped tools to check the authenticity of digital images.
_http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0802/digital-forensics-an-interview-with-dr-hany-farid.html
You can see a panorama of various tampered images through time here :
_http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/
His other research areas are over here if you're interested
_http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/
Note :
On further reading on Dr H. Farid I found this :
Farid, whose research is funded by an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, the
National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, also works with law enforcement officials, government
representatives, and corporate leaders on this issue of authenticating
digital images. This research is part of Dartmouth's Institute for
Security Technology Studies.
uhm.
_http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0802/digital-forensics-an-interview-with-dr-hany-farid.html
You can see a panorama of various tampered images through time here :
_http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/
His other research areas are over here if you're interested
_http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/
Note :
On further reading on Dr H. Farid I found this :
Farid, whose research is funded by an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, the
National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, also works with law enforcement officials, government
representatives, and corporate leaders on this issue of authenticating
digital images. This research is part of Dartmouth's Institute for
Security Technology Studies.
uhm.
JonnyRadar
The Living Force
interesting find tigersoap! just found this article that also mentions farid's research:
_http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/07/13/popsci.digital.photos/index.html
_http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/07/13/popsci.digital.photos/index.html
since farid does work with the DHS, it doesn't seem that far a stretch that his research could also be used to create extremely convincing forgeries.
dant
The Living Force
Is it possible to create a "genuinely fake" images if one works directly
at the "bit-level" given very powerful image programs perhaps available
only to 3-letter-agencies? Never mind programs such as Adobe and other
similar programs as they are given for commercial use - but what about other
proprietary programs (in-house or external/compartmentalized sources) and
systems that are much more powerful and available only to certain government
agencies?
Can images be created/manipulated "at-will" by other sources, digitally photographed
with a common dig-camera afterwards, then get converted into various public formats
into "diluted form" and for public consumption? Would this process or other processes
preserve a standard "statistical trail" if done in a proper way, thus erasing/diluting any
traces as to it's original source?
As to the photos of the "nuclear" site in Syria, is it possible that the US provided
photo was not taken from Syria but created elsewhere? Hard to pin down locality
with a single photo inside a building and it is hard for me to believe that the Syrians
did not take pictures inside/outside the building before/after the bombing and offer
"proof" countering the US claims, assuming if they had, but choose not to due to
some sensitivities we do not know about?
Seems that there are too many possibilities to consider and that picture alone,
may not sufficient, in and of itself, without other supporting evidence?
FWIW,
Dan
at the "bit-level" given very powerful image programs perhaps available
only to 3-letter-agencies? Never mind programs such as Adobe and other
similar programs as they are given for commercial use - but what about other
proprietary programs (in-house or external/compartmentalized sources) and
systems that are much more powerful and available only to certain government
agencies?
Can images be created/manipulated "at-will" by other sources, digitally photographed
with a common dig-camera afterwards, then get converted into various public formats
into "diluted form" and for public consumption? Would this process or other processes
preserve a standard "statistical trail" if done in a proper way, thus erasing/diluting any
traces as to it's original source?
As to the photos of the "nuclear" site in Syria, is it possible that the US provided
photo was not taken from Syria but created elsewhere? Hard to pin down locality
with a single photo inside a building and it is hard for me to believe that the Syrians
did not take pictures inside/outside the building before/after the bombing and offer
"proof" countering the US claims, assuming if they had, but choose not to due to
some sensitivities we do not know about?
Seems that there are too many possibilities to consider and that picture alone,
may not sufficient, in and of itself, without other supporting evidence?
FWIW,
Dan
JonnyRadar
The Living Force
i seem to remember a session where the Cs spoke of how many years the PTB's technologies are ahead of technologies in the public sector. (don't have the sessions with me now though, does anyone know which one that was?) sufficiently skilled graphic artists can already forge almost anything in a digital format, so, taking that into account, what you said doesn't seem unreasonable:
this seems to correlate with the psychopath's constant "creation" of their preferred reality. with the ability to generate images pretty much at will, the PTB are quite literally able to "make it so" in the eyes of the public!dant said:
Trending content
-
-
Thread 'Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?'
- wanderingthomas
Replies: 30K -
Thread 'Mass Shooting at Bondi Beach, Sydney, targets Jews celebrating Hanukkah'- Rhythmik
Replies: 145 -
