Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 27-05-2014

Hey dude, don’t lean on me man…

Quote of the Day:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace in a continual state of alarm (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H.L. Mencken

Editor
  1. HAARP no more
    Does this mean they stop the HAARP mind control program and we all can think and do what we really want to? That should make world a better place.

    1. I am a professional maker of
      I am a professional maker of orgonite who does not believe that HAARP and similar technologies “control the mind” to the extent popularly believed. I do think these technologies can control mood and feelings of fear and anxiety, but as for putting specific content in the brain I don’t think so. Orgonite short circuits the anxiety responses to electropollution both intentional and unintentional.

      The PTB would love for people to think that their thoughts are no longer their own – that they are owned by someone else, but it ain’t true although thinking so may make it so.

      1. fear
        actually, good point! controlling minds via fear is maybe the easiest of all methods. fear is hard to control for the owner of the brain and easy to put into brains.

  2. news
    Bigfoot: That old line “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” Has anyone ever has the thought that maybe they burry their dead? If magpies and raven hold funerals, what’s stopping something seemingly more advanced from also having a rite or two?

    250-year-old sex: does he have to wear a condom?

    Crypt goo: It could be the oils of the bodies as they slowly get digested by microorganisms. The Smithsonian has a collection of whale bones that are from 50+ years ago that still seep out gallons of oils every summer from the heat.

    Ants more efficient than Google: not surprising

    Fake photos: These are really kind of obvious fakes to anyone who knows design. You can tell the giraffes are fake, look closely at the left giraffe’s (the one looking down) front left leg and you will see it doesn’t reach the ground, hoof missing. They remind me of Lisa Frank folders. Some of the lighting and pixels are just so off it’s a dead giveaway. If you are going to make a composite and try to trick people into thinking it’s real, make sure you look out for mistakes.

    1. Fake!

      I get why people might point fingers at those pictures, since they have obvious flaws on a scientific, as well as an aesthetic point of view.

      But it reminded me of a recent discussion I had on Twitter, sparked by some night-time photograph of the Venice canals, and whether the picture was real or retouched on Photoshop. My argument with the folks on the other side of the discussion was that why should we care whether the image was 'shopped or not, since we would probably never go to visit Venice & see for ourselves anyway; but then this became a big philosophical debate, since the other folks argued how IF the image was real, then that would be an incentive for them to visit Venice some day, while I was more on the side of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" & how we humans inevitably color our perceptions based on our subjective bias —I guess the other folks were still trying to defend the notion that on some levels true objectivity can still be attainable…

      To me it's actually something more profound than whether the Italian Ministry of Tourism makes sure ALL the official photos of Venice don't show all the garbage & filth that is surely polluting their romantic-looking canals. Take for example this image taken by the Hubble telescope:

      We've all seen these gorgeous images of galaxies & nebulae, but I'm not sure how many people are aware that these photographs are enhanced & colorized by NASA engineers in order to add to them all those funky reds, greens & blues. Sure, the hues are determined by following mathematical & physical rules, not chosen nilly willy, but you are still left with a digitally altered image that is different from what the Hubble telescope took, or even what a human eye would be able to perceive, would the observer be situated in outer space.

      Are we then to accuse NASA of promoting a false view of Nature, then?

      (Yeah I know, the fact that I was willing to argue such deep shit over Twitter, is evidence that I need to get a life)

      1. retouch
        I’m not arguing against retouching OR even composite photos. I myself do this for a living and often make composite illustrations and photos for design. However, I find the problem arrives when these images, as you mentioned, get spread out on social media. Not to be mean here but (well maybe a little), people are stupid, especially a lot of the people on these social media sites. Now I’m not expecting everyone to have an education in design or even a copy of Photoshop on their computers, but you don’t need a college degree to tell that these are fakes, and shouldn’t be able to get past “Poster on the wall of a college dorm room” let alone something like a magazine. Take for example this photo, which one a National Geographic photo contest first place:

        It was faked.
        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/wolf-wildlife-photographer-award-stripped

        And the guy had to return his prize. This story actually made me sad, not because of my love of wolves, not just because he faked it, but because he had the audacity to insult all the other photographers out there who actually tried so hard to even get an honorable mention let alone a placing. That’s what pisses me off. I’m glad I’m not on twitter because I probably would have been in that fight against someone. I don’t car that these photos are retouched or even composites, I care if it gets taken too far and too seriously and then I’m yelling at the computer screen yelling to myself that IT’S FAKE!!! That’s why I had to stop watching Ancient Aliens, I kept yelling at my TV trying to explain logic behind archeological finds.

          1. indeed
            if you look at its right hind leg there seems to be a light source coming from somewhere but that wouldn’t be possible unless it was a set up or faked, as it was. I guess the “hope” that this perfect shot could happen was enough to convince the judges it was true. Sometimes even the experts are blinded by giddy childhood fantasy. Unfortunately if a photographer ever does manage to take a similar photo and it’s for real, they are going to think they are “crying wolf.”

  3. Retouching – another point of view
    Remember, the great Ansel Adams, one of the most revered of American landscape photographers, achieved his most iconic images through manipulations in the darkroom, not through the lenses of his cameras.

    Retouching can be art in the hands of a master.

    1. The Patterson_Gimlin film
      The Patterson-Gimlin film remains the gold standard. It is isn’t doctored, and it’s not a guy in a suit. It’s a sasquatch… right there in your face.

    2. Re: purrlgurrl
      I wish it was like that today. Retouching has lost it’s place in art and has become a way for anorexic models to look thinner. It’s lost it’s way.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.