I've never said anything to anyone who hates me. It's mostly women, as far as I can tell, and I have an inkling they think I'm a snob or a bitch because of my social anxiety. I've also had it get back to me that people (women) think I'm "trying too hard" or "showing off" (in terms of intellect), neither of which is true, so fuck 'em. I don't relate well to a lot of women as I'm more masculine in some of my interests and a very low maintenance type of person who doesn't like to talk on the phone. Oh well.
Tea can be much more affordable if you buy in bulk. MOM's has a pretty awesome selection of bulk teas, but I don't know if you have one of those around. As our British rector has told me, Americans don't drink as much tea so you need to make sure that your supplier has a decent turnover to prevent it from being stale. Stale tea is nasty. Invest in a nice tea pot.
And Mr. Withers, that's exactly how I feel about it. Why bother with all the bullshit? It wouldn't be hard to find a few people who would be completely willing to fly some planes into some buildings and then set off some pre-planted bombs. WTF. Also, LOL at me "having the intellect of a child". Oh, dear, sweet, really dumb people. I feel ashamed that I attempted to explain myself for so long. I can't figure out why, in his ever so great knowledge of CGI technology that he can't comprehend the use of a post-mortem photo to come up with something that looked like a school photo. Obviously, that's not what happened, but it's certainly plausible if you didn't know (as I previously didn't) that stock photos are generally used. Ah, that was cathartic. This is classic Dunning-Kruger Effect as far as I'm concerned.
This is the convo. The background is that Brian (the aforementioned 911 guy) posted the news story about the little girl who was found in the water and had a CGI police sketch in order to help identify her. I've edited out a lot of extraneous posts and only put the ones between him and myself:
This is maybe 20 min from my house maybe half hour but read the first paragraph. Thats interesting. They are releasing a "Computer Generated Image" of the girl. I guess it makes sense if they body was pretty decomposed and they couldnt id her. The CGI aspect on a victim in a murder certainly has to catch your eye right away though doesn't it? Take a look at the picture.
So this picture is admitted as CGI. Pretty life like looking hey wouldnt ya say???
Alison: I don't think it's 100% cgi. They most likely took at post mortem photo and then cleaned it up. I can also tell that it has been doctored, but I am a professional portrait artist, so I guess I'm more sensitive to the subtleties.
27 July at 14:59 · Like
Brian S: they ADMITTED its CGI Alison, thats not specualtion. The MAss state police will even tell you tha t photo is 100 percent computer genrerated image of what they THINK she looked like in real life. It wasnt speculation on our part. It was a rather stunning admission to the level of CGI tech even the State Police have access too. It is CGI unless there is some agenda im not seeing and they are making that up but i dont think that is the case. The reason I posted it,is cuz it is so relevant to many topics we discuss with fake victims, photoshopped victims and obviously NOW they DONT EVEN NEED actors and then photoshopping them around. they can completely render a realistic looking person on a computer. Look I mean Im even telling u its CGI and you cant believe it cuz its sooooo realistic looking. TYhat pic and one other are complete CGI. not any photoshop brushups of a real pic. they didnt know who she was so had NO REAL PICS so they made a cgo to try and spread and help ID her. 100 percent admitted CGI though. Oretty real looking huh???? Look again.... and thas FAKE!!! imagine the technology the military has if this shit is this good. It already looks as real as any photos I have.
Alison: They do have real photos of her body. That's what the artist used to make the rendering. From all reports, she had only been dead a few days, so not beyond all recognition yet. I guess my point here, really, is that this isn't a huge revelation to me. If you give an artist who is knowledgeable about anatomy good tools to work with and a decent reference, it's not surprising that such a quality image can be reproduced. I know people who can make photo-realistic paintings with oil paints. It just takes a lot longer than using a computer.
27 July at 16:33 · Like · 1
Brian S: yes of thebopdy but that picture above is one percent cgi
27 July at 16:40 · Like
Brian S: i knowits not that suurprising but when try to explain fake events to ppl and how easily they can fake ppls identities it is very useful info!
27 July at 16:41 · Edited · Like
Brian S : nopw the technilogoy is so caught up its hard to see thedifference and with what we always talk about it has to be brought up. I never said they didnt have any REAL PICS but that main one above they are using to help find her and one more are complete CGI
Brian S: just read the article or any of the dozens of other sources with it. ITs a computer generated image 100 percent
here is the USA Today version and its in all my local papers as its close to home. Just read the first paragraph. its CGI
Help pours in to identify girl, 'Baby Doe,' found in Mass.
27 July at 16:44 · Like
Brian S : you can go to the mass state police website,any news agency in massachusetts etc. its well known that is 100 percet CGI and being that realistic its scary stuff. That wasnt there angle but they tipped their cap a bit as to the technology they got
27 July at 16:47 · Edited · Like · 1
Dan: MSP have confirmed its not Maggie, she's alive and well in another country.
27 July at 16:50 · Like
Brian S: ITs Computer
Generated thisis from Washington Post. I think its a good idea BTW. IF doing this helps ID her or solve the crime they should use alll the tools at their disposal. But its worth noting the quality so when we analyze other events we dont write off pictures as real cuz they show ZERO signs of photshop. time to learn what traces these CGI pics leave behind.
27 July at 16:52 · Like
Brian S : well glad they found here. Still everything i said i stand by. and that is a computer generated image not a photo ogf her
Brian S i know.its this girl in the thread above me sayin she doesnt believe its CGI.its been admitted for a week.
Brian S i dont kno wwhy she is so against the idea.
Brian S it makes perfect sense to help ID her
Brian S the top right pic here is a CGI of her also.
ADMITTED right from the bat.Those are the TWO CGI pics they have of her.
Alison: I never said it wasn't CGI, I said that it likely wasn't manufactured out of whole cloth. I'm also a woman, not a girl, and still active in the thread.
Dan: Mentions briefly at the end about maggie
27 July at 17:01 · Like
Brian S: im not tryin to come at you.relax. and you DID say tg=at you didnt think it was 100 percent cgi so dont make me look like a liar just admit what u said
27 July at 17:03 · Like
Brian S : before it gets deleted
Brian S:'s photo.
27 July at 17:03 · Like
Brian S : not tryna be a dick but you saying "i never said it wasnt CGI" is makin it look like me putting words in your mouth. Its EXACTLY what you said and the premise of the whole conversation
27 July at 17:05 · Edited · Like
Brian S : So you lied there to make me look bad and :"I am a woman not a girl" Sorry i didnt go check your age. Many women would take that as a compliment. Calling you a girl is offensive?? James Sloan get the feminism police
Brian S: We are in a forum where ppl converse quickly if someone refers to you as girl and not trying to demean you and say like your ineperiencd or some shit if that offends you, Facebook isnt the place for you., But back to my point the whole reason this thre...See More
27 July at 17:11 · Edited · Like
Alison : Um, I'm not sure what your issue is. Me saying that I didn't think it was 100% CGI isn't remotely the same as me saying it isn't CGI at all. I also don't think you were "trying to come at me" but merely pointed out that grown women don't generally like being referred to as girls in such a context. What do I need to relax about?
27 July at 17:11 · Like
Alison : You want me to refer to you as a boy? Not likely.
27 July at 17:12 · Like
Alison: I think your reading comprehension needs some work, dude.
27 July at 17:13 · Like
Brian S: about the whole after your upset about the other comment coming at me with the whole Im a women not a girl bullshit. Ok Next time ill make sure Icheck ppls profiles and get their age befre replying. Being called a girl offends you?
27 July at 17:13 · Like
Brian S : you said they most likey took a post ortem photo and cleaned it up. That is not CGI. and they dmitted its CGI. its not a post mortem photo cleaned up. Its 100 percent CGI
27 July at 17:15 · Edited · Like
Brian S : all im doin is tryin to tell you that an you ARE saying its all these other things then denying that you are disgreeing. mind boggling
Brian S: my reading comprehension doesn't need work. A post mortem photgraph cleaned up is a real pic or a real pic photshopped after to clean it up right.. Its not a Complete computer generated image. Its started with a real pic. This was an ADMITTED completely computer generated Picture. Your reading comprehension needs work. So you saying that a REAL PICTURE of a dead body then the pic cleaned up with photoshop or whatever is the same as a 100 percent CGI picture and it is not. PERIOD.
27 July at 17:21 · Edited · Like · 1
Alison : Women, in general, don't prefer to be referred to as "girls" by people whom they don't really know any more than you, as a man, would prefer to be referred to as a "boy". In the context above, it was used in a diminutive manner. You've also now accused me of lying and putting words in your mouth and said that my "panties were in a bunch". I'm not sure why anything I said was construed in such a manner, so I'm just going to end it here.
Alison : Just for the record, and to clarify what I meant by "not 100% CGI". The reason it looks so photo-realistic is because stock photos were used and manipulated. The artist did not start with a blank screen and a Wacom tablet: http://www.cnn.com/.../massachusetts-dead-toddler-forensics/
Forensic artist of 'Baby Doe' image: Eyes are turning point - CNN.com
cnn.com|By Ray Sanchez, CNN
27 July at 17:26 · Like · Remove Preview
Alison : I was incorrect in my speculation that they cleaned up a post-mortem photo, but was correct that it was constructed from photographs and tweaked.
27 July at 17:28 · Like
Brian S : your really stretching to make this this femnist bullshit against you. i woulda said panties in a bunch to any guy in here as well. Its not like i called you a bitch or a cunt. I called you a GIRL!!!!!!!! OMG excuse me! and no matter how many times i told you its ADMITTED 100 percent CGI you came up with like three other reasons then when i would rtemind you its ADMITTED CGI you would deny you said those things and say I never said it's not CGI! but yes you did repeatedly!!!! . Then you played the I called you a girl not a women thing right after. Geez , like that was my intention. I said to someone, the girl in this thread.Im sooooooooo sorry I didnt say the WOMAN even tho you seemed have the intellect of a child, I', Sorry I Said the girl in this thread n not the woman. I am just sooooo sexist
Brian S: and then you would lie and say i never said it want CGI. You even toldme it was an artist rendition post mortem. Thats NOT saying it s not 100 percent CGI?? yes it iI coulda called u a million things, I wasnt even tryna be a dick to you andwas bringing your comment to someones attention if the fact i didnt stalk your facebook page first and check your age bothers you and i callled you a girl; , nevermind Facebook, id say the internet as a whole is too sensitive for you. I'm sorry I called yu a girl. DEEPLY DEEPLY UP THERE. that ranks right up there with owning slaves
27 July at 17:33 · Like
Brian S: Do you think the kid had real pictures in her pocket???!!! OMG!! Read the story you just posted tryna prove me wrong . you say the artist didnt start from scratch??
She started from scratch, studying autopsy information and morgue photos of the unidentified remains of the little girl, found in a trash bag along the rocky shoreline of Boston harbor. Andrews worked on Adobe Photoshop to recreate the toddler's big brown eyes, chubby cheeks, hair reaching just below the shoulders, her earrings. Such composites generally take about a day to produce.
"This was a rush request," said Andrews, who works for the Virginia-based National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. "I tried to get this out as soon as possible."
Thank you for posting this and FURTHER proving my point
she DID start with Morgue photos not real pics. Just accept its 100 percent CGI.
Brian S Staveley im goin to eat you just keep talkin out two sies of your mouth tryna outsmart me with an article and you read it nadit says EXACTLY my point and proves you wrong AGAIN. WTf is wrongwith you?? This is beginning to look like delibrate disinfo
27 July at 17:42 · Like
Alison : Andrews uses stock photos to fill in the facial features. She likens the process to building a Mr. Potato Head. The eyes are the turning point.
27 July at 17:42 · Like
Alison: ^^^ Put quotes around that as it's from the article.
I should post the thread that got my dander up on FB the other day. I'll cop to being somewhat of a 911 truther, but the guy I was arguing with is completely off the deep end and thinks the entire thing was fabricated and didn't really happen. Besides the fact that that in and of itself would be a very stupid and inefficient way to pull off a false flag operation of that magnitude, his evidence is laughable (lots of doctored photos that aren't actually doctored). Let me see if I can make a coherent post of it here...