Posted on 08/05/2006 3:52:31 PM PDT by 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.)
Its 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. Theres really no question about it.
Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beiruts suburbs August 5, 2006. Many buildings were flattened during the attack. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj
The general rule is; be highly sceptical of any report(now days this includes photographs) emanating from a war zone. Especially a report from one of the belligerents or their close allies. The warring parties are attempting to move neutral public opinion in their favor. (Example, England during WWI.)Also, there can be good reason for misinformation such as concealing military moves, potential or on going. Quite often what is not said is more important than what is in fact being claimed. That being said the smoke does appear 'funny!'
The perspective of the two images is very different. The background image is much more of an upward vertical view.
You can see the buildings repeated in the smoke because they didn't fix all the pixels.
You just made my day!
You may be seeing JPEG compression artifacts in the first picture - the second photo may have been scanned with less aggressive compression algorithm settings.
This is the same photog that took the staged photos of green helmut guy. Reuters must know what this guy is up to by now. Plus, you'd think they'd have photo editors that could spot this obvious fraud. Reuters is abetting this sham. The only way they could be innocent here is to be completely inept and unprofessional. Reuters is guilty too.
I'm glad you saw that building appearing more than once. I believe there may also be a 3rd one of that building further in the background.
Another possible reason would be to cover up something that the photographer doesn't want you to see.
are you actually comparing a burning building to that of frankenstein?
Excellent
Add biased and I'll buy that.
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.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
This cut line is editorializing and should be labeled as a photo illustration. By not stating the image was enhanced they are deceiving the public and that is a total violation of the ethical standards of photo journalism.
UFO= not real....burning building=real....that much smoke coming from this burning building=unknown. Got any other asinine generalizations?
When I said good I meant good from the photog's perspective. Good as in, more likely the freelance photog would have a better chance at selling future pictures to Reuters/AP/etc. Or maybe the photographer is a hamas supperter. I have no idea.
WOW! Over 150 posts on a Saturday night?
This will be mentioned by Rush on Monday and be worldwide hours later.
Reuters just nuked themselves here. Watch them blame the messenger and fire a lackey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.