About Tanoro

Christopher "Tanoro" Gray is a web programmer and science advocate especially concerned with resource management technologies, biology, and artificial intelligence. He is a student of epistemology and philosophy as well as an Atheist competent in Christian theology.
HOME > Photo Gallery  >  Statements

Photo Gallery

Fake Chemtrail Protest (18955 views)

I saw the photo on the left on Facebook this morning. The caption read, "100's of commercial airline pilots protesting in New York against chemtrails...they don't look like conspiracy theorists to me."

I wondered when this happened. Such a protest would have been big news and, yet, I have never heard of this happening. I did some searching and found the real story.

"The pilots want to draw attention to the lack of progress on negotiations of the pilots’ joint collective bargaining agreement ahead of the one-year anniversary of the corporate merger close date of United and Continental airlines."

They weren't protesting chemtrails at all and the photo has been dishonestly edited!

All the time, I hear people encouraging me to distrust the government, which I largely do. However, you don't have to be a government agency to have a biased agenda. One person with a copy of photoshop will do. Learn to evaluate evidence with skepticism. It's for your own good and everyone else's.

July 30, 2012 8:26am
Chemtrail Pseudoscience DVDs for Sale (3850 views)

People often tell me that I can't trust government or establishment information sources because they're all out for profit. I am often told to, "follow the money." I find this heuristic insufficient for determining honesty. Still, my observation is that such people never consider that being an anti-establishment maverick is a profitable situation when the gullible masses eat it up.

As an after-thought, I predict someone will see this graphic and attempt to call me a hypocrite because they presume that I accept the concept of the Resource Based Economy because of the Zeitgeist documentary series. Fortunately, this is not only a documentary series that is not being sold for profit, unlike above, but it is also not the basis for justifying what I believe about the RBE. On the other hand, upon asking for evidence of chemtrails, proponents consistently point me to Michael Murphy's documentaries...as evidence. Epic fail!

August 08, 2012 3:07pm
Photoshopped Mars Panorama (6718 views)

I found another piece of media on Facebook that warrants some direction for the conspiracy wackjobs. The author of this photo doesn't appear to be promoting any conspiratorial claims with merely a casual glance on my part. However, others have been pointing to this graphic and commenting with suspicion.

The title of the picture says that it is a panorama. There are a few ways to make panoramas. You can use a really stylish camera that rotates, capturing the whole 360 degree circle. If you're on a budget as NASA is, you can just use a simpler camera, a series of smaller photos, and stitch them together in photoshop to make what can be termed a "poor man's panorama." When you stitch photos together in this way, it is common to see some cloning artifacts around where the individual photos meet because it is hard to slice the various photos perfectly without some pixels showing up on both sides of a seam.

Looking at the original, you'll notice the overall photo appears to be plated with a few smaller ones at the top edge, so I'm guessing it probably was photoshopped a bit to turn many small images into one big one for the public to see.

So what I am guessing happened is that Curiosity took a dozen or so photos. Some guy wearing a tie on the ground handed a USB drive with the photos on it to a graphic artist and said, "We have lots of photos, but we don't want to bog down the website with a dozen almost identical shots of Martian desert, so stitch them together into one really nice panorama for the website."

August 28, 2012 1:23pm
Stop Pretending You Understand Science (3055 views)

If you think peer review is something that can be shilled and, thus, science isn't reliable, you do not know how the system works. Peer review is structured to weed out bias by design and profit bias is no more effective at puncturing it. Peer review forces you to tip your hand. If you publish bad data that is not repeatable by your peers, it doesn't get selected for publishing. If the journal makes an error and publishes it anyway (which happens), other experts can and do continue vindicating it. Only factual information has practical application, so if your bad data is useless to me, it will get replaced by something that works. It doesn't matter how much you were paid to fabricate that data. Even so, calling someone a "shill" only means, "You have a conflict of interest." That doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong.

April 01, 2016 6:38am