A document you may want to look at

@labasta:
You are not actually buying this "picture" from the first post, are you!?
Everyone can just copy'n'paste himself something like that together, write some text, etc.
It's just writing some text about the future taken a step further.

Actually, what I see when I invert the original image is this:
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4646/evidence01.jpg

Can you see these artifacts? (EDIT: I brightened it up a bit, so it's more discernable).
Granted, the big ellipse could be just jpeg artifacts.
But the two smaller circles tell a whole different story.
They are telltale signs of cut'n'paste. And they are all over the place.

And another question:
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/1179/evidence02.jpg
Why is this blurred out?

Let me make an educated guess here:
Because if it is fake (and I say it is), then you'd have to take already existing pictures from this time, yes?
But maybe if a half-way intelligent person would actually zoom in and could read what's written there, then he might come
to the conclusion that this picture is actually a picture from the PAST and not from the FUTURE?

And these are only the two biggies.
How can you believe in an image? Seriously I could make something like this and I'm not even a pro with photoshop.
No offense, but you should be a little bit more skeptic and use more rational thought.
I can understand that one has to have an open mind or else he won't see the truth, even if it's staring him right in the face.
But in this specific case about pictures: Nothing is more easily fabricated nowadays than this!
And it's not a matter of not believing it for the matter of not believing. You can expose amateurish work like in the given image like I did very easily.
Just a healthy dose of doubt and a little forensics.

I mean, generally spoken: would you rather risk believing in a lie, or rather know the truth, no matter how boring or sad it might be?
Another way to put it: Would you rather be Cypher or Neo?


EDIT: Repaired Link 2
 
dimaggio: Nah, I was on the fence.

I like to keep a middle ground on all things. In fact, it's probably best to outline the discrepancies and let other people make the conclusions.

The fact that it is quite shoddy points to fake. I also noticed the blurred-out background of the image and found it strange (fake).

I want verification on the camera tech. If someone can recognize the equipment that would prove it once and for all.

I am more of a skeptic than most here as I didn't believe the John Titor thing for a moment when it first appeared. I also pretended to be a time traveler in 2003 on the other now defunct tt forum and fooled most of the posters there even though what I wrote was completely ludicrous.

It was also interesting that they used "this reveal has struck much confidence" (bottom right). Either the faker has English as a foreign language (or deliberately put that in) or the English language structure has changed 73 years in the future.

Thanks for the cut and paste discrepancy. I wouldn't have found that. However, I did the same thing for the guardian newspaper (29 Aug 2009) and found similar discrepancies. I inverted it and brightened it up in Photoshop. I'm not sure what I am supposed to be looking at as I am not experienced with finding cut and paste discrepancies in images. Here are both images:

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8771/uktoday.jpg
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/509/guardian1.jpg


To the other poster:
Anyone can make a typo. I stand by my reasoning of the Google date. Getting it wrong is less likely made today, than 73 years in the future, period. That is plain to see, is it not?

My logic is fine thank you. Personal attacks belittle the argument. I also don't know what you mean about statistics and such. Statistics of what? Is it that you don't believe newspapers get facts wrong? Is that it?


EDIT: I looked at the blurred-out image again in order to determine how the faker blurred it out, and just realized that the blurred out bits seem to come from some plastic coating hanging from the top of the drapes. Drat, I was hoping it to be the conclusive evidence.

Also, dimaggio, I noticed you use the term "generally spoken" instead of "generally speaking". Is this American English (I'm from the UK)? Or maybe a local slang. On that note, then maybe "this reveal struck much confidence" might be a fakers local dialect and not English as a foreign language.
 
These are just usual compression artifacts. But what I pointed out in the 2 small circles was an artifact which had its pattern broken.
And that can only happen if you cut it out from somewehere else and place it on another background.
It's a bit hard to explain the difference but ask anyone who has experience with graphics, especially about image compression.
Or if you enter something like "detect image forgery" into google, you get pretty good results. Take a look at the first .pdf files appearing.

I don't see any indication of a plastic coating. And why should they WANT to blur it out themselves?
I mean, why place such a wall there if you don't want people to see it? That doesn't make much sense to me.
Anyways, you said you tried to find out how he blurred it out, and that's actually pretty simple.
You just have to know a little bit photoshop-fu (or any other program like e.g. gimp, etc.):

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/5588/test01i.jpg
See the blurred area? And I only did very amateurish work here.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/2005/test02.jpg
This is the image without the blur.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8268/test03.jpg
And here you can see that I even put another face on one of the depicted actors.

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5695/test04original.jpg
This is the "original" image, but still with heavy compression.
The reason for this is so that the image (after its manipulation) will get an even compression "overlay".

The real untouched image I used was this one:
http://www.scifiscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/fringe_comic_con_panel_2009.jpg

And the face I used was from here:
http://www.creationent.com/past_events/farscape2005/IMG_2983.jpg


So as you can see, even with only 10 minutes of time and amateurish work it's not that hard to fake an image.
Now imagine if I would've taken the time AND had some motivation to trick other people, I would've been able to
produce a fake image that's much harder to detect when you merely look at it.
So if someone posts a picture to prove anything, it's always best to do a thorough image forensics.
Nowadays you just can't trust pictures anymore.

And about "generally spoken":
Hehe, no that was just me having a weak moment of language feeling, if you get my meaning.
 
I am sure almost everyone here thinks at one time or another that they could come up with a better claim than what has been seen so far...and some make the attempt.
Click to expand...

It's actually quite tempting, and I'm sure I could put together a good story. But there's a difference between 'could' and 'should'. Not knowing whether an issue is genuine, because there are so many fakes and hoaxers, is really quite disappointing. So why add to that ? One could I'm sure have a little laugh at people's gullibility.......but ultimately for any hoaxer the joke is on them.....because I'm sure THEY TOO would like to know if the phenommenon is genuine, and all they are doing is confounding the issue.
 
Twighlight:

Yeah, when I did the tt fake thing myself I deliberately went overboard as a pisstake, but was amazed at the number of people who thought it was real. lol. I pretended to be dogman, half man , half dog if you can believe that.

Diaggio:

I agree, it's dead easy to fake a photo and I am not at all knowledgeable on how to fake it. Without analyzing the photo properly I wouldn't have noticed the fake background or man. I would have noticed the fake background if looking properly, but not the fake man as all the people look cut and pasted.

If I were doing a fake newspaper page I would download the images from the original website and use Indesign to make a mock-up, no cut and paste there.

I still think the fuzzy background is a sheet coating. You are right that the reason for that seems strange (fake). The reason I think it's a coating is that I can see folds in it and where it hangs.

BTW: I'm a little biased towards a tt who claims ww3 and a new currency as I think that is what is going to happen within 10 years. I see no way out for America to pay its debt. I think the dollar will be replaced in order to get America out of their balance of payments crisis. I thought it would be the Amero, but ww3 would allow a global restructuring in order to allow a much stronger UN (world government) and a world currency. The currency would have to be backed by taxes so I don't know how that would work out.

I see the economy (the finance part) going up a lot (government stimulus) and then down more, and continuing this pattern on the way down to ww3. This wouldn't happen if the banks didn't own the politicians. Let's hope I'm wrong.
 
Ah, now I see what you mean with the plastic sheet.
Yeah, at first sight (well, second for me^^) it seems to be a plastic sheet overlay.
But then again when you look closely the top of the heads of some of the people sitting in front of it look blurred as well.
And if you then take a look at it again, it could very well be that what looks like a plastic overlay is the blue background itself.
But that wasn't the main reason for me calling it a fake anyway, so it can also be a plastic sheeting if it likes.^^

About the money problem: The problem is how money works. Collapses have to occur sooner or later in such a system.
I mean, having more debt than money on the world? And now guess what has to be done to pay the debts? Right, loaning more money.
Money just HAS to be a creation of the devil, hehe. :P
 
I work all day with magazine and directory layout and I can assure you, this was the most amature
layout I've seen in a long time. I'd never hire this whacko. The basic laws of layout are all broken--it was not layed out by a real newspaper website, obviously.

---wrong font sizing and text wrap around pics
---UK mag logo background covers header border (huge no-no)
---written like a broadcast report with mini sound bites, (no employed journalist writes like that)
---obviously had probs pasting all the pics and most of the header, incredibly sloppy job
---faces of panelists were blurred using a brush tool--and not very well
---there is no plastic sheet overlay, that's the background that he couldn't hide
 
Actually....the single biggest giveaway that the whole thing is a hoax has been missed :-


The newspaper refers to a 'President' of the UK. Now that is mighty odd, as UK stands for 'United KINGDOM'.....and of course a President would be president of a republic. So...why would we Brits boot out the monarchy, install a President, and then still call the damned place the United Kingdom ???
 
Twilight,

The newspaper refers to a 'President' of the UK.
Click to expand...

Good pick up. I saw it, questioned it but don't give it much critical thought. I was looking for trees and missed the forest.


Not only would they have to have tossed out the Royal Family they would have had to completely overturn the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, eliminate Parliament, the House of Lords, fundamentally change their entire governmental structure and replace it with a representative republican democracy, void their treaties with Scotland and Ireland...and still keep the name United Kingdom.
 
Good evening all!!!

You've probably all forgotten about this by now but I just had to post. I'm sorry.

First of all, I'm not a time traveller, and this newspaper was something I knocked up in paint shop pro and ms paint in about 10 minutes (including writing time).

The reason I posted this as an experiment, because I was curious to see how people would react to something like this. I don't want to say it is an obvious hoax, so as not offend the people who believed it, but it's pretty poor considering I didn't even use photoshop. I must say, however, the results were fascinating.

There were generally three groups of responses. One group dismissed it almost immediately as yet another hoax, and posted what was obviously a routine list of questions. The second group were open-minded towards it, but perhaps a little blinded (as I admit I sometimes am) by their want for this to be real. The final group also had an open -mind, but had a "glass-is-half-empty" kind of view (which in this case was probably the healthiest view) and set forward dissecting it.

The third group were most interesting (although labasta, a member of the second group, also provided very fascinating reading). In order to provoke this group, I put several purposeful somewhat obvious inconsistencies in the paper. In my opinion, the fact that "UK" wouldn't actually mean anything if Britain had a president was the most obvious, and I was very very surprised that it took so long to see that one. Impressively, people tended to concentrate on the pictures.

The picture of the press conference was taken off of Google Images. I googled "Press conference". I blurred out the ads using paint shop pro. Took about 4 and a half seconds. I was impressed at the amount of detail people went into to try and disprove this. Fashion and hair was discussed at one point. labasta mentioned something about "strange cameras". Obviously they are existing technology, but I was very impressed that someone could take this into account. However, it was extremely fascinating how labasta (no offence to you, by the way) stood by his claim that the blurring was a plastic sheet. This just illustrates that psychological paradox that the closer people look at something, the more they only see what they want to see.

Quite amazingly, people actually made observations as (hoax proofs) that I had not even noticed. Someone fairly early on said that the names of writers were just the names of existing writers reversed. I don't know where that came from? If that is actually true then it's an amazing coincidece.

On that topic, I do have several questions. First of all, what is this "cut and paste" scandal that poeple mentioned? Secondly, I thought that someone said that one or some of the men in the picture were faked. Did people actually say this or did I just misread? Because that is certainly not the case and it is very interesting if people actually made such non-existent observations.

Anyway, thank you for everyone who participated. I am sorry if I wasted anybody's time. If people could reply with their opinions on this, I would find it most facinating. And thank you again.

P.S...The american flag has 5 stripes, not 11 (only the red ones were relevant) and corresponded to the five regions of a divided USA, as described by John Titor.




P.P.S. Nobody pointed out that Samuel Titor would not have been able to get something like this past the strict security measures around his journey. Of course, even if he did, the agency would have of course had to send someone back to fix what he broke. But of course, this post is definitely not that. Definitely not.
 
Back
Top