Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut? [photo inside]

Little Green Footballs ^ | 8-5-2006

[Hadean]

OK, now things are getting weird.

This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop “clone” tool to add more smoke to the image. (Hat tip: Mike.)

It’s so incredibly obvious, it reminds me of the faked CBS memos. Smoke simply does not contain repeating symmetrical patterns like this, and you can see the repetition in both plumes of smoke. There’s really no question about it.

Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut’s suburbs August 5, 2006. Many buildings were flattened during the attack. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj

[ASA Vet]

[JLS]

mark

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

"dont you need the actual, original photo in order to claim another one is fake?"

That's a ridiculous argument. Based on your logic then no fake UFO pictures could be disproven which has happened more often than not.

[Blogger]

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

Burning buildings don't blow smoke rings.

[TruthWillWin]

Hum? What did Katie call it? Oh, I remember. It's "solutions" reporting.

[photodawg]

dont you need the actual, original photo in order to claim another one is fake?

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

With digital imaging, there really is no "original" in the sense of material existence. The image is transferred from light into digital information stored on flash memory, then downloaded to a processor. The original "copy" from the flash memory can then be copied exactly and infinitely. Or it can be immediately altered and copied infinitely. If altered, it becomes a new image in the same digital format. If altered subtly and professionally its can be difficult to prove it has been altered. The original downloaded information can be erased from the flash memory and from the hard disk or it can be immediately altered and saved eliminating the "original" image entirely.

[Sender]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." I would also like to see the original but this is just like having 3 identical faces in a crowd...it doesn't happen except at an Elvis convention.

[saquin]

Can those reporting seeing women's faces and skulls in the picture please stop? There's a serious issue with this picture appearing to have been photoshopped to add more smoke. The evidence for the use of the clone tool is pretty obvious. If we start talking about seeing faces and skulls and devils and whatnot it devalues the very valid argument and makes us all look like kooks.

[gotribe]

Can anyone find a photo of that scene before the smoke? There looks to be a lot of duplicate buildings, but maybe they just have unimaginative architects.

[AmericaUnited]

Burning buildings don't blow smoke rings.

Yes no kidding but the point was how an air movement, as in the case of blowing smoke rings, could cause what appeared to be, symmetrical smoke patterns.

[PajamaTruthMafia]

LGF just added an animated gif showing one of the repeated patterns:

[Sender]

Generally, unless the Photoshopped additional smoke was added on a separate layer, it is impossible to completely erase what was done.

However, a talented Photoshopper can do amazing things. It is hard to tell reality from lies these days, and that's in video as well.

The old saying "A picture is worth a thousand words" is still true, but it may be a thousand lying words.

[Blogger]

yep. you got it

[photodawg]

I also think it looks suspicous....but we need to have a side by side evidence
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Not true. Since the images never truly exists in analogue form we have to change our parameter for the term original. There is only digits representing relative values of light and dark and 16,000,000 colors that a processor copies to a disk. That information needs software to view. That software can enhance and alter the image changing the digital code forever, making the original code effectively cease to exist. To analyze the image it only becomes necessary to prove the existence of alteration of the code which can be done in a number of ways.

[ChadGore]

That same image at 4 times scale.

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

Looks like a kitty getting ready to perform a zot!

[Hadean]

Here's another one:

[Blogger]

It looks like he uses the sharpen tool and the smooth tool. Parts of the pixels look extremely sharp. Other parts very fuzzy, muddy even. Would you agree?

[photodawg]

Or this:


wasn't that the Iranian float in last years Macy's parade in NYC?