First, is it really the strongest appraisal?
In 2007, Zhou Zhenglong took a series of photos of the South China tiger, which was later identified by experts as fake. Zhou Zhenglong was also sentenced to prison for fraud and illegal possession of ammunition.
Originally, this matter has already been conclusive, the fake tiger photo incident was boiling over, it is already known to the world, and after so many years, there is no need to take this matter out to hype up.
However, in 2020, a surprising news suddenly emerged: some people claimed that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT for short) made an appraisal, saying that Zhou Zhenglong's photo of the South China tiger was true. In the past two years, netizens have continuously forwarded or quoted this article on the Internet, which has made many people believe that it is true, thinking that the incident of tiger photos is about to be overturned. What are the facts?
The person who made the announcement released the so-called MIT appraisal report under the title of "The Strongest Appraisal For the First Time: MIT Identifies the South China Tiger As True".
This article was published by Liu Liyuan on June 12, 2020 at the "Forum on Buddhist Studies in Science". What is this "Forum on Scientific Sinology and Buddhism"? At first glance, the name is quite scary, thinking that it is an organization or institution similar to an international summit, but it cannot be found on the Internet. After some investigation, it was found that this is just a self-media public account, and the registered subject is an individual.
Let's take a look at how this "strongest appraisal" is identified:
Author Liu Liyuan said that the appraisal was submitted by Chinese students at MIT to the tutor of the Image Science Laboratory. It is said that it is independently tested by two laboratories and reached unanimous conclusions. The conclusion is that the animals in the tiger photo are mobile, three-dimensional and warm, and are not ink paintings or plastic products.
What means did they use to identify them? There are four types:
1. Examining the movement aspect, with unique software, it was found that the tigers in different photos had leg and head movements, called biological movements, which were living features.
However, when Zhou Zhenglong took a total of 71 photos of the tiger that year, it took 25 minutes, and the naked eye can analyze that there is no change in the posture and expression of the tiger in all the photos.
A live animal, with two big eyes open and its head raised, can remain motionless for 25 minutes?
Moreover, Zhou Zhenglong was so close, he kept changing the angle and orientation to take pictures of the tiger, and for more than 20 minutes, the tiger was so indifferent? Isn't this tiger a fool?
Isn't the so-called "biological movement" in the MIT appraisal report the relative displacement of the surrounding branches and leaves and the tiger caused by Zhou Zhenglong's shooting from different angles?
2. Perform spectral analysis by means of special equipment. It was determined that there was no ink or plastic material in the image spectrum of the tiger, nor was it paper.
3. Through the extraction and analysis of the infrared spectrum of the entire photo, it was found that the tiger had infrared radiation higher than the environmental level, indicating that it was a fever body, that is, a warm-blooded animal body.
4. Calculate through astronomy to obtain the position of the sun when the tiger photo was taken... It shows that the shadows on the top and back of the tiger's head are naturally formed and change with time and shooting angle...
In the appraisal report, a whole bunch of professional terms in optics and photography were included. Anyway, most of you can't understand it, people say what you believe, who makes the family authoritative. The appraisal made by such an authoritative institution is definitely the "strongest" appraisal.
Second, the strongest or the weakest, is the MIT appraisal certificate true or false?
On this issue, I have the following questions:
1. Why is there no date for the appraisal on the appraisal certificate? Is it possible that such an "authoritative" academic institution as Lao Mei has no habit of writing a date when making an appraisal report?
Also, should the title of the report or certificate be capitalized in English? At least the first letter of each word must be capitalized, right? Such an authoritative report you actually gave me all lowercase?
As mentioned earlier, this certificate has no date, but on the left side of the certificate, there is a string of numbers that are "project code", and the last 8 digits are "20140215", which is a bit like a date. But the American habit of writing dates is different from ours, they put the year at the end. Therefore, this string of numbers cannot represent a date.
2. The appraisal report is accompanied by information on two photographs, which show that the two photos were created and modified at "8:07 p.m. on October 7, 2007" and "8:09 p.m. on October 7, 2007".
Zhou Zhenglong said that the time of shooting the tiger was more than 4 p.m. on October 3, 2007, so the time when the photo was identified in the United States was October 7, 2007 local time (October 8, Beijing time)?
After Zhou Zhenglong took a photo, it was not until October 12 that the Shaanxi Forestry Department announced the news to the outside world. After the tiger photo was posted on the Internet, it began to arouse doubts from netizens.
People who take the photo to the United States for identification, on the 4th day after the photo is taken, they know that someone will suspect it? Sent to the United States for identification?
Let's say that even if they really did the identification, maybe the time of the photo information displayed on the report is not the time of identification, and this will not be mentioned.
3. The statement about "the strongest appraisal for the first time" released by the public account in 2020 is also untenable. Because as early as 2018, some people already claimed to have the MIT appraisal report in their hands, which can prove that the photo of the South China tiger is real. It's 2020, you're still making it public for the first time, and your "first" is too late.
4. Why is the report issued by the United States written in Chinese, who is the person doing the appraisal, and can it be contacted to say that he appeared?
In 2018, Liu Liyuan said in an interview with the media that he got the MIT appraisal report last year (that is, 2017), which was a PDF version. When asked about the name of the professor who did the appraisal, he said that because the student in charge of contact had graduated, he could not be contacted, nor did he get the original certificate.
As for why it was written in Chinese, some people said that the report was originally in English and was intended to be published in academic journals, but it was denied by the school, saying that it was afraid of affecting ZM relations, but it was actually afraid of technical leaks. Oh, a technique for identifying fake tigers, what is secret.
5. Is there a link to check?
So, is there any link to the appraisal report issued by such an authoritative university to query? Not really.
In addition, I would like to ask a question: Who told you that MIT's appraisal report is the strongest?
Third, the strongest truth
Go to the "Scientific Sinology Buddhist Forum" public account to check and find that the article published on June 12, 2020 about the "strongest identification" has been deleted, but there is another article about the south China tiger photo, published on June 16, 2020, entitled "Shock: Nianhua Tiger Boss Admitted to the Court, Tiger is PS".
For the fake tiger photo incident in 2007, some experts have identified it as fake, and there is a conclusion, that is, a tiger year painting is posed. However, the article on the public account of the "Scientific Sinology Buddhist Forum" said: The owner of the New Year painting admitted that the tiger photo in the New Year painting was fake and was PS. From this, he began to cry out for Zhou Zhenglong.
This logic is very strange, even if the tiger photo on the New Year painting is fake, it is PS, and what does it have to do with Zhou Zhenglong's photo? The tiger in the New Year painting is fake, which can prove that the tiger photographed by Zhou Zhenglong is real?
It is reported that in 2006, Zhou Zhenglong was a guide for the South China Tiger Survey Team in Shaanxi Province, and it was said that if he could take photos of live wild South China tigers, he could get a reward of more than 1 million yuan. So Zhou Zhenglong looked around for people to look for tiger paintings, saying that he was useful.
On October 3, 2007, Zhou Zhenglong took 71 photos of the "South China Tiger", which he took face to face with the "tiger" for 25 minutes.
On October 12, 2007, Zhou Zhenglong attended a press conference held by the Forestry Department, and the relevant units announced that wild South China tigers had been found in Zhenping County, Shaanxi Province. Zhou Zhenglong received a prize of 20,000 yuan on the spot.
When Zhou Zhenglong's tiger photos were posted online, it immediately attracted questions from a large number of netizens. Someone later found exactly the same New Year painting as the tiger in the photo, and the expressions, postures, and patterns of the two tigers were exactly the same, which was also too coincidental.
Later, after 6 experts from different fields, it was concluded that the tiger photo taken by Zhou Zhenglong was fake, and it was posed with the New Year painting provided by netizens.
On June 28, 2008, Zhou Zhenglong was arrested on suspicion of fraud and illegal possession of firearms and ammunition (for hunting).
On June 29, 2008, police found a tiger new year painting and a wooden tiger claw mold from Zhou Zhenglong's home.
Subsequently, Zhou Zhenglong admitted that he was trying to cheat money and used the New Year painting to take fake photos of the South China tiger. As a result, Zhou Zhenglong was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months in prison, suspended for 3 years.
Having said all this, is there anything I don't understand? Don't mention the "strongest appraisal", I don't know who the report came from, but it is estimated that even the author of the report himself will not believe the conclusions in his report. If you let the professionals analyze it, it may be full of things that are not marginal and nonsense, and you can fool us, the ordinary people who are not professionals.