posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:46 AM
originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: AlphaStrike1001
Ok, so you do not refute the fact that russia faked the dates of the sat images.(that was the method of using google earth
It matters because i am not going to take a "russian bolgger"s word for it.
The belingcat report doesn't claim the ELA is the smoking gun, they present it in probabilistic terms and the way that video tries to debunk it only
shows a misunderstanding.
It is saying that some original parts of the wedding image have a bright value while it expects the un-edited parts to be dark. This is not really how
it works, an original image can have lots of error values and areas with continuous colors will start rather dark because they are easy to compress,
so they have little compression errors.
However, as you save the image over and over it gets more and more smudged so the error values of the entire image will fade to black. Now if you add
a new part to the image, then the added element will stick out in the error analysis because it has not yet been smudged as much as the rest. If you
check the Bellingcat report you will find that this is what happens with the military vehicles in that image, which suggests that they were edited
Hence my questions about parts C and D. Even if you can answer these questions you will still have not proved that these sat images are the real deal.
edit on 4-6-2015 by AlphaStrike1001 because: (no reason given)