Another Kemper/Axe FX debate...

[forum_crawler]

What an interesting thread. Philosophical debates, mudslinging, evidence tampering, forensics, photoshopping... it has it all.

It makes me wonder about how far the axe police is willing to go.

 

[forum_crawler]

I'll act like and adult now and ask what you think the image you posted proves? What are you seeing in the ELA analysis that gives it away as fake?

By discrediting his photo he discredits the user's opinion that the Kemper was the better sounding machine.

I am not sure what is worse, that someone was "lying" about it, or that someone thought it necessary to spend the time analyzing a photo to see if it was real or not.

I wonder if hearing tests will follow for those who do prefer the Kemper.

 

[Scott Peterson]

May I ask what you think the image you posted proves? What are you seeing in the ELA analysis that gives it away as fake?

The image is fake. Period. He took an existing photo, stripped the metadata and photoshopped the paper on it. He even went as far as to do three of them. His profile here was an alt created to hack away at anything Fractal.

Given the two posts above this, his job was time well spent.

It makes me wonder about how far the axe police is willing to go.

By discrediting his photo he discredits the user's opinion that the Kemper was the better sounding machine.

I am not sure what is worse, that someone was "lying" about it, or that someone thought it necessary to spend the time analyzing a photo to see if it was real or not.

I wonder if hearing tests will follow for those who do prefer the Kemper.

To the gentleman with his fists raised - this has nothing to do with any of that sort of crap. It has everything to do with how different people will do things to such extremes to make their point. Some LEO friends contacted me with the information about the photoshop, verify it yourself. People here are smart and know people; ask someone with knowledge of photoshop.

This has NOTHING to do with more endless 'hey Peterson, you hate Kemper... Fractal police... " and you know it. If you really believe the sort of stuff you are posting... well, there you are. Believe whatever you want; but the things posted above are fully BS. What you use or anyone uses bothers me no more than it bothers you. If lying is better than truth, then analyzing a fake photo that insults everyone here including you must really give you fits. If you want to go with the liars and alt ego pot stirrers, then go for it.

Hearing tests not necessary; acid test for honesty unfortunately sometimes is as this little episode shows.

 

[db9091]

If the forensics proves the photo was not real, it means either Bateman is a troll or was toying. Probably the former. But it's not decisive. If it was known, if there were enough evidence, his account would have been terminated, right?

My opinion is, it's still not cool to judge someone without the convicting evidence.

Being Right for the wrong reasons is still... Wrong.

At least, in Christian Ethics, that's what I was taught: You have to have the right means on your side to justify the right ends. They go hand-in-hand. You don't get to have being right in the end somehow clean up your line-crossing along the way.

 

[ejecta]

The image is fake. Period.

I understand you believe that it's faked but what are you seeing in the ELA analysis picture that proves that it's fake?

 

[sksmith66]

May I ask what you think the image you posted proves? What are you seeing in the ELA analysis that gives it away as fake?

frankly it proves nothing and I have no idea why he keeps pounding the drum insisting that it proves anything.

Scott what credentials do you have in digital image analysis?

 

[Scott Peterson]

frankly it proves nothing and I have no idea why he keeps pounding the drum insisting that it proves anything.

Scott what credentials do you have in digital image analysis?

I don't have any credentials. My LEO friends do this as part of their living and I trust their opinion though.

What you need to look at is the background. You can do a google search to find out what an ELA analysis shows. The photo, if it was real, would have a uniform look throughout. It does not, which is obvious to even the untrained eye. Look at the paper; see how 'black' it is compared to the rest of the photo? That's the tell.

Look it up. Verify it yourself.

I don't need to convince you of anything, the truth is self-evident.

 

[hippietim]

The image is fake. The image is real. The dude is a troll. The dude is not a troll. Scott is good. Scott is evil. Whatever.

It doesn't matter. This whole thread is a bad joke and nobody with any common sense would make a buying decision based on it.

 

[Scott Peterson]

If the forensics proves the photo was not real, it means either Bateman is a troll or was toying. Probably the former. But it's not decisive. If it was known, if there were enough evidence, his account would have been terminated, right?

My opinion is, it's still not cool to judge someone without the convicting evidence.

Being Right for the wrong reasons is still... Wrong.

At least, in Christian Ethics, that's what I was taught: You have to have the right means on your side to justify the right ends. They go hand-in-hand. You don't get to have being right in the end somehow clean up your line-crossing along the way.

It's convicting evidence. I'd not have shared it if it wasn't.

It's also a shame that people won't take the time to verify it for themselves before they'll just cast aspersions at me. A simple Google search about ELA analysis or anyone with a background with Photoshop can verify it personally for themselves direct from bateman's photobucket account. The date of the photo and all the other metadata was stripped intentionally from all three photos.

This doesn't require NCIS level knowledge to understand.

Two points: it's telling what 'side' of the fence this occurs; in the last year it's been from one 'side' if you will. It's also telling that people will over look what what these people do in the rush to shake their fist at me. IMHO, being blunt - the KPA ownership group should be the most pissed off people about this. This is inexcusable behavior from a select few individuals and should not be excepted by ANYONE let alone the group it reflects on.

The next alt-ego will arrive and do the same thing. My one hope is that people will recognize the pattern, the syntax of their posts and the similarity in their posting habits the next time. These people are smart, they are determined and they are persistent. It's time that these extreme sorts of opinions and posts are not just accepted as valid because they tend to agree in general with your opinion.

The games need to stop. Even if that is not going to happen, it is time for people to at least be aware these things are going on and have been.

 

[ejecta]

I don't have any credentials. My LEO friends do this as part of their living and I trust their opinion though.

What you need to look at is the background. You can do a google search to find out what an ELA analysis shows. The photo, if it was real, would have a uniform look throughout. It does not, which is obvious to even the untrained eye. Look at the paper; see how 'black' it is compared to the rest of the photo? That's the tell.

Look it up. Verify it yourself.

I don't need to convince you of anything, the truth is self-evident.

I agree with the bolded.

Since I've used Photoshop for about 18 years as a computer artist I thought for chits and grins over lunch I'd run my own experiment. This topic and ELA tool really peaked my interest.

Here are links to the two photos I used.

This is the original photo.



http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w204/ejecta_2007/Orig_photo_zps0743eec7.jpg

This is the original photo that I used to get the paper with writing from to Photoshop in on the original.



http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w204/ejecta_2007/BlahBlah_photo_zpsd67de035.jpg

Here is the ELA of the original photo



http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=a7945217ac186b306d5d8f08b13d30cb0a34ad3b.265555

Here is the ELA of the picture with the "blah blah" paper Photoshop'd
in.



http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=543d5711ea599358ca3642614696b2192c5cbacb.264921

Judging by these pictures I'm not sure I agree with your assessment.

http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php

"An original digital photograph (Source: Hacker Factor) has high ELA values, represented by white colors in the ELA. The sections that are black correspond to the solid white book and the black 8x8 squares in the original image. Solid colors compress very well, so these are already at their minimum error levels."


With emphasis on "solid colors compress very well, so these are already at their minimum error levels". This has nothing to do with the darkness of an image being fake and everything to do with solid colors compress well....like the paper in the original photo. Like the paper and monitor in this picture. Note they are dark, and they are not fake.

 

[sksmith66]

Look at the paper; see how 'black' it is compared to the rest of the photo? That's the tell.

Look it up. Verify it yourself.

I don't need to convince you of anything, the truth is self-evident.

actually that's not a tell at all, and if you had ANY idea what you were looking at you would know that. hell if you had even spent a few minutes on the terrible website that you linked you could have figured it out for yourself. but you didn't because frankly it's probably over your head.


here is a direct quote from the site you linked on how to look at ELA analysis for an image. i include the UNPHOTOSHOPPED from the site you linked, the ela analysis, and their explanation of that analysis.

The sections that are black correspond to the solid white book and the black 8x8 squares in the original image. Solid colors compress very well, so these are already at their minimum error levels..

notice how the white book on the left looks very black in the ELA? notice the photo isn't photshopped? notice how they explain why it looks so black? So you don't know what you are talking about and accusing the guy of lying and fraud is disgusting... and the word you used to describe yourself earlier seems pretty darn accurate. frankly i think the only person that might be lying here is the guy claiming he had a qualified law enforcement officer look at the ELA anaylsis of a picture that he got off an internet forum so he could sling some mud at a guy with an opinion he disagrees with. I'll await my infraction for whatever rule you decide I violated.

 

[Scott Peterson]

Judging by these pictures I'm not sure I agree with your assessment.

No, it makes my point even stronger.

The contrast in bateman's photo is even more extreme compared to yours; which shows his photoshop job was worse than your work. I have more information than I can share also; I will not violate that trust. Some of the developers of Photoshop have this site also: http://fourandsix.com/ ... some of the people use this and some other very sophisticated stuff that isn't available to the public are the ones that came to me with this stuff.

Using the same site look at the meta data from your photo versus the photoshopped version. Check the date and camera information in particular. http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=a7945217ac186b306d5d8f08b13d30cb0a34ad3b.265555

Check bateman's and compare.

There is far more than one layperson's opinion of one metric guys.

 

[Scott Peterson]

I'll await my infraction for whatever rule you decide I violated.

...and when you don't get one will you admit that you didn't?

 

[trazan]

It would be just sad if the guy is full of bull and actually manipulated that pic. However, is it as obvious as you claim?

Look at the paper; see how 'black' it is compared to the rest of the photo? That's the tell.

Look it up. Verify it yourself.

I don't need to convince you of anything, the truth is self-evident.

I looked it up myself. The darker area of the paper is not a tell at all. It shows that jpeg compression i more severe in that area, which it will be on that uniform colored paper.

The date of the photo and all the other metadata was stripped intentionally from all three photos.

Metadata will be stripped automatically when e.g. saving "for web" in Photoshop.

 

[Scott Peterson]

actually that's not a tell at all, and if you had ANY idea what you were looking at you would know that. hell if you had even spent a few minutes on the terrible website that you linked you could have figured it out for yourself. but you didn't because frankly it's probably over your head.


here is a direct quote from the site you linked on how to look at ELA analysis for an image. i include the UNPHOTOSHOPPED from the site you linked, the ela analysis, and their explanation of that analysis.

notice how the white book on the left looks very black in the ELA? notice the photo isn't photshopped? notice how they explain why it looks so black? So you don't know what you are talking about and accusing the guy of lying and fraud is disgusting... and the word you used to describe yourself earlier seems pretty darn accurate. frankly i think the only person that might be lying here is the guy claiming he had a qualified law enforcement officer look at the ELA anaylsis of a picture that he got off an internet forum so he could sling some mud at a guy with an opinion he disagrees with. I'll await my infraction for whatever rule you decide I violated.

See the uniformity between the blacks throughout that ELA image?

It isn't how black it is in the ELA, it is the consistency throughout the image that matters. In the sample shot, look at the blacks (which correspond to the white in the sample photo). They are consistent throughout.

Now look at bateman's photo. There is a lot of white in the silkscreening on the Fractals in particular but the whites there do NOT show as black, they show a stark contrast between the paper and the rest of the photo. The white.

Now compare the metadata. I'll wait for your expert analysis there. (Hint: bateman's has his stripped out. Look at ejecta's - his meta data is NOT and it tells you the whole story between his two images even if you find the ELA not convincing).

 

[ejecta]

No, it makes my point even stronger.

The contrast in bateman's photo is even more extreme compared to yours; which shows his photoshop job was worse than your work.

For the record all I did was trace the outline of the "blah blah" paper and past in the original picture. Nothing else. That's hardly using highly educated Photoshop skills.... anyone can do that. I have no clue how he could have done a worse job than that.

By your conclusion my fake should be as blaring as you say his is but it's not. There are other signs that it's been pasted in there but you aren't even catching those which makes sksmith absolutely right about your experience in this.

What I don't think you are understanding is that how "black" something is'nt proof because solid colors (ie the white paper) compress well as is evident in my untouched photo.

http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php

"An original digital photograph (Source: Hacker Factor) has high ELA values, represented by white colors in the ELA. The sections that are black correspond to the solid white book and the black 8x8 squares in the original image. Solid colors compress very well, so these are already at their minimum error levels."

 

[KJR123]

IMHO, being blunt - the KPA ownership group should be the most pissed off people about this. This is inexcusable behavior from a select few individuals and should not be excepted by ANYONE let alone the group it reflects on.

Yes!!!! Those KPA owners should punish this guy....a whipping, stoning...or maybe easter eggs thrown at his house.

You are the one who set yourself up. For what, some comments that may not have been the most favorable regarding Axe-fx, though were not necessarily false? In the meantime you've managed to call yourself an asshole (more than once), then said you weren't an asshole. Geez, what are we supposed to believe, are you or aren't you? Maybe the axe-fx group should be ashamed of you.

Seriously man, who cares about the pic? Were his original comments false or were they his opinions? You should have just ignored them....but nooooo, you had to call him out. Look what it caused you....2 weeks of grief. But hey, it was interesting.

 

[ejecta]

It would be just sad if the guy is full of bull and actually manipulated that pic. However, is it as obvious as you claim?



I looked it up myself. The darker area of the paper is not a tell at all. It shows that jpeg compression i more severe in that area, which it will be on that uniform colored paper.



Metadata will be stripped automatically when e.g. saving "for web" in Photoshop.

Yep! If he did fake it... it was great job.

 

[Scott Peterson]

It would be just sad if the guy is full of bull and actually manipulated that pic. However, is it as obvious as you claim?



I looked it up myself. The darker area of the paper is not a tell at all. It shows that jpeg compression i more severe in that area, which it will be on that uniform colored paper.



Metadata will be stripped automatically when e.g. saving "for web" in Photoshop.

There are more tools in play here - they showed me this site as an example of what they do with things.

If you truly believe he took the three units, stacked them on a gray draped backdrop and took the photo as presented then go ahead.

I know he didn't.

 

[Scott Peterson]

Yes!!!! Those KPA owners should punish this guy....a whipping, stoning...or maybe easter eggs thrown at his house.

You are the one who set yourself up. For what, some comments that may not have been the most favorable regarding Axe-fx, though were not necessarily false? In the meantime you've managed to call yourself an asshole (more than once), then said you weren't an asshole. Geez, what are we supposed to believe, are you or aren't you? Maybe the axe-fx group should be ashamed of you.

Seriously man, who cares about the pic? Were his original comments false or were they his opinions? You should have just ignored them....but nooooo, you had to call him out. Look what it caused you....2 weeks of grief. But hey, it was interesting.

I care. There's no grief here.

When the next alt ego comes along and plays the same reindeer games, you'll perhaps question why a new member here has the exact same tune as the last one.

At that point, just maybe, you'll see.

Maybe not.

It's worth it to call attention to it.