http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Re-Ana-alarming-amount-of-image-manipulation-tp592857p592864.html
Is there anyway to get this crap off the list. The anti-semitic,
Robert J. Palmer Jr. wrote:
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal>
> Glad to hear that there is not the ghost of a chance that the Iraqis
> or the Americans don't "Reuter" things themselves (which in the Urban
> Dictionary is also defined as being "jewed" out of something - I guess
> that's using one urban term to define another). I think the fact that
> Colin Powell reportedly felt pretty dirty about the UN thing says a
> lot - biowarfare was only part of his guilt. Maybe he was feeling
> like he was involved in something like the story on your
> "Fauxtography" link about the Israeli chemical weapons. Also glad to
> hear we were prepared for anything from this dastardly enemy about to
> wipe US off the face of the earth using technology we supplied.
> Especially when we're the ones who will get blasted during our
> inevitable attack. Ye gads - this must now a possibility anywhere so
> one might be prudent and invest at least as much in defensive chemical
> and biological mitigators as one does in offensive delivery technology
> (General Dynamics may have to branch out a bit). I do however agree
> that politics has reached the limit in this thread so this is my last
> salvo on the monster I created. Maybe I should start blogging.
>
>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>>
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal>>
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Michael Cammer wrote:
>>
>>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>>>
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal>>>
>>>> Not sure if one can view this Washington Post web page without
>>>> creating a free user account, but give it a shot (pardon the pun).
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002709.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> So now the Iranians know that the West has sophisticated image decoding
>>> technologies. This was just a first test of many.
>>
>> Hah. Well no, it wasn't "sophisticated image decoding technologies."
>> It was Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs, who does it mostly by
>> inspection. See:
>>
>>
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30602_Reality_vs._Photoshop>>
>> See also:
>>
>>
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30606_New_York_Times_Belatedly_Credits_LGF
>>
>>
>>
>> Further, it's not the first test of many. It's one of a gazillion
>> that's come out of the region. For one list from 2006, see:
>>
>>
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22391_Fauxtography_Updates&only
>>
>>
>> This has become sort of a hobby for folk who hold AFP, Reuters, NYT,
>> et al in contempt because they are so willing to play useful idiots
>> for these guys -- when 13-year-olds are capable of seeing some of the
>> errors, but Reuters can't.
>>
>>
>> The most amusing was when the AP published a story of a US soldier
>> being held hostage (see:
>>
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1333909 -- the
>> original AP story is no longer easily available ).
>>
>> It turned out to be an action figure:
>>
>>
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1703>>
>> It's gotten so bad that "Reutered" is now part of the Urban Dictionary:
>>
>>
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Reutered>>
>>
>> When I worked for the military, this kind of thing was a repeated
>> problem. Al Quaeda and its affiliates regularly provided falsified
>> imagery as propaganda. More irritatingly, they kept providing videos
>> of *real* beheadings claiming they were killing American captives --
>> but they were actually beheadings of Russian captives from Chechnya.
>>
>> There are, in fact, some new methods in development for this kind of
>> stuff, but they are mostly of ancillary value. The work by Harin
>> Farid at Dartmouth is particularly intriguing. See:
>>
>>
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/publications/>>
>>>
>>> Somebody should do analysis like this on the pictures Colin Powell
>>> showed
>>> the UN arguing that Iraq had WMD.
>>
>>
>> Actually, though I don't know why you want to play these political
>> games in a scientific forum, our data were pretty good. The claim
>> that we knowingly projected wrong data is simply untrue, however
>> personally satisfying you find it to inject your perspective into
>> this forum.
>>
>> I was involved in planning for biological/chemical fatalities in the
>> invasion of Iraq. We were scared to death -- and planning for up to
>> 30,000 biological/chemical casualties. The biggest fear we had
>> involved smallpox, anthrax and persistent chem weapons. Smallpox
>> remains viable for as much as 13 years in cadavers, for instance, and
>> we simply could not return contaminated bodies back to the US until
>> they had been decontaminated. That is a nontrivial thing to do when
>> there are thousands of casualties. This wasn't a trivial political
>> game, no matter how much you try to reduce it to that. I won't bore
>> you with what we planned, but dealing with a few tens of thousands of
>> infectious bodies is a nontrivial task. You can't burn the bodies,
>> for instance, without aersolizing the agents. You can't fly the
>> bodies back in cargo holds because the change in pressure may cause
>> outgassing and contamination of the airplane.
>>
>> The bottom line, however, is if you look at the interrogation records
>> of Saddam after his capture made by George Piro, Saddam knowingly
>> mislead the US into thinking there were WMDs because he fundamentally
>> didn't think that Bush would invade.
>>
>> Oh, I know, it doesn't serve your taste to differentiate between
>> being fooled by another intelligence agency and "lying," but in most
>> of the rest of the world, folk can comprehend it.
>>
>>>
>>> Furthermore, perhaps the gov't should release all the raw data so
>>> that we
>>> may have the opportunity to reanalyze them using our favorite tools.
>>>
>>> Why stop at imaging in scientific research?
>>
>>
>> In fact, that's done all the time.
>>
>>
>> billo
>>
http://www.billoblog.com/billoblog>
>
John J. Lemasters, MD, PhD