It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WARNING: Wikileaks CIA Document May Be FAKE

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
They need to get Adobe Photoshop CS5 when it comes out, the new "Content-Aware Fill" feature would fix this problem in a few seconds.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 26-3-2010 by tooo many pills]




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Why shouldn't I? I told them I believed the Wikileaks document was a fake, and asked them if they would please authenticate it.

What, are they going to put me on a terrorism watchlist or something, just for that?

:shk:

They probably get requests like this all the time. Now to be honest, I am just curious what THEY say about the wikileaks document.

I never said I was going to believe them.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
why if wikileaks is trying to be more credible would they fake a CIA document that someone like you could decipher as a fake? try harder.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
why if wikileaks is trying to be more credible would they fake a CIA document that someone like you could decipher as a fake? try harder.


I never said wikileaks faked it...I am suggesting the person who submitted it did.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


What, are they going to put me on a terrorism watchlist or something, just for that?


Maybe, I don't know ... what I do know is that this is rather high on their radar, and that the way intelligence agencies operate and think is that the only thing they will care about is what YOUR interest is. And if they care enough they will turn your life upside down just to satisfy their curiosity.

Is that really worth it?

Especially if your position is:


I never said I was going to believe them.


Then what is the point TA?

Oh buddy, it's ok to be wrong on a thread ... no need to call teh spooks!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
lol @ jpeg.

anyway, if the docs were BS, the CIA would just outright disprove them instead of how they are handling the situation now, which is behavior indicative of fear/guilt. or completely ignore wikileaks and give them no attention, like how celebrities don't react publicly to the stupid tabloid magazines, cause they know it's just made up.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


I have to agree with you.

My company isnt even a super secretive government agency, and we have a half dozen different letterheads and logos, depending on the purpose, and the medium. Hell, we usually update our logos every year anyways.

If you were to see our fancy letterhead from this year, compared to one from say.. 5 years ago, you would surely think that the 5 year one was faked, and the document it sits on top of was a fraudulent one.


I kind of think the OP's theories are correct in a few respects, half of the supposed government docs on wiki look forged to me. The supposed report on the website, written by the DoD even states thats their fear. Not so much having stuff leaked, but if people start believing everything that wikileaks produces, some one can easily start WWIII or some major public unrest if they put together a crazy document that supposedly "blows the lid off the government cover ups!"

Definitely something to keep in mind.

I guess its like that old saying goes..."dont believe everything you read"

[edit on 26-3-2010 by WhiteDevil013]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by WhiteDevil013]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


The logo is just a starting point. There are many other ways they can authenticate the document.

But they will probably not comment at all, and don't think I am the fool to expect a response. Because really they are caught between a rock and a hard place on this.

If they say yes, it's real...then they are admitting the content. If they say no, it's fake because of x y and z, then we will need to consider WHY they are saying it is fake.

But going into a weekend here, not likely I will hear anything at all from them until next week, if ever.

At this point though I am just sick and tired of dealing with less than original sources on anything. And I have nothing to hide- so if they want to come after me because I asked them to authenticate a document, which is a reasonable request, then so be it.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 
I think you shudda went to Specsavers.

this is the official logo,
upload.wikimedia.org...



[edit on 26-3-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Even if it was a fraud, why would someone recreate the logo rather than simply copy a real one. Also, you're magnifying the thing like 500% or more and it's probably already well compressed. Ever heard of compression artifacts?

Sure it could be a hoax but all in all, this is a laughable case for calling it one.
Negative star and minus flag.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I don't believe the logo to be fake at all. I've been doing a lot of research on the case about my friend being killed by the FBI, and I have gotten a few letters back from the CIA regarding my FOIA requests.

I'm staring at my letters right at this moment, and because of the paper it was printed on it looks different then other pictures of the logo, including ones in this threads. But, I know for a fact mine are real because they are sent directly from the CIA, literally! No one would process my FOIA request and send me a fake letter - they may send me fake information, but the seal is legit.

Different paper makes the pixels look different, I can attest to that as well since I've worked with photoshop a lot, and I've also worked with many different paper types. For example, try printing a picture of the logo out on glossy photo paper, then on normal [white] computer paper, and take a micro-fine glass to the logos and you will see the differences.

IF, and I say IF very strongly, the logo is a fake, then it is a deliberate hoax to make wikileaks look bad - simple as that. I trust wikileaks because I have worked with them on trying to raise money, and I have spoken to some of the editors through email and they are not people trying to make a quick buck here, well know that. They are legit as it comes and they only release information after it is thoroughly examined.

On a side note, is it legal for me to scan my documents containing the seal? I have no problem scanning my official CIA documents I've received to help prove this as legit. Please someone let me know if this is legal or not - simply U2U me or reply to my post.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by highlyoriginal
 


Well, if your seal is different than the ones on this thread already, then maybe we should see it. Since everyone is screaming that it's different because it's meant for print- well hey, you've got a real printed one- clearly meant for print.

Yeah, post it please.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
delete, double post

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Faiol]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
That was a good call mods, thank you.


That post did nothing whatsoever to advance this thread, and only directed ridicule in a general sense to no one in specific.


I may be dead wrong on this, and I'll be the first to admit it. But to me it appears, from previous photo analysis experience, that this logo was carelessly done. And that is a sign of fraud. I am fully aware of what compression artifacts can do, thank you.

So if that comment was directed at me, you are barking up the wrong tree man. Not to mention, if you're such the computer wiz, have you taken the sources I linked and done this comparison for yourself? If so, then where is your analysis that shows why I am wrong? Or did you think you were just going to be cute and get a bunch of stars antagonizing me?

No one here has even taken the time to do what I have simply done here on their own, and yet everyone is so ready to tell me I am crazy. It fricken figures.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
www.nefafoundation.org...

There is a declassified red cell document to comapre to.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
what a joke

people here can create threads without having any knowledge about the subject, I just find it amazing that you cant give your opinion about that, since his post clearly shows that the OP doesnt understand anything about computing, so it takes all credibility of his theories

its hard, but it looks like in this board if you dont explain exactly what u are saying, your post is viewed as junk and deleted; sorry, but ignorance is not a blessing;

reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I wont do any analysis, since we just dont know how many softwares they use for each application, its not like they have 1 software that does all logos in all CIA things, it would be crazy to think that, it just dont make sense if you are into computing;

another thing

each logo goes thought so many processes like compression, conversions and whatever, that you cant compare 2 different files from different sources like they use the same process;


[edit on 27-3-2010 by Faiol]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


how do you know it was used the same source image to the logo;
how do you know it was used the same software to produce that;
how do you know it was used the same compression in both files;
how do you know if PDF was the original file, they may have done some other conversions with other third party softwares;

I could go on the whole day, I am just saying, it doesnt make sense for you to try to compare without knowing the process and if both files did go thought the same process;



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Faiol
 


Ok Dr. Wizmo. do you understand how wikileaks documents are submitted?

secure....__._/

Upload a file. That's right. Upload a file. Now you think about that a minute. The source document is a mere 135 Kb in size.

file....__._/file/cia-afghanistan.pdf

Now what does it say at the Wikileaks site:


Please choose a file for upload:
To upload multiple files please compress them as a file archive.
Please split files lager than 200MB into smaller files. Thanks.


200 MB. Now seeing as you're such a wizmo, I don't suppose I have to explain to you that this source document is tiny. TINY, and nowhere NEAR their size limit. A bare FRACTION of their size limit.

So what does that tell us? That wikileaks had to reduce it's file size down to 135 Kb? Why? To save bandwidth? I don't think so. The point is that wikileaks likely received this as a source PDF, just the way it sits. BECAUSE THAT'S HOW DOCUMENTS ARE SUBMITTED.

And I am saying that given that likelihood, the quality on that logo should be better. WAY better. Those compression artifacts are not uniform, and as I just explained above, it makes no sense for them to be that bad.

[edit on Sat Mar 27th 2010 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Faiol
 


Take a deep breath and calm down...
All i said was


There is a declassified red cell document to compare to.


I made no claim that the document was real or fake...

[edit on 27-3-2010 by zaiger]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join