1 posted on
08/05/2006 3:52:32 PM PDT by
Hadean
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 last
To: Hadean
IMHO, I think the story is quickly becoming that yahoo still has the foto up. They've no doubt had a volley of truth thrown at them.... and, yet, here it is 7a.m. EST and they still are defiantly showing the reuters lie.
Reuters is no friend, we've known that for a while. And, 2, we've known for a while that yahoo's got china's buck to suck, so we know they aren't exactly pure as can be.... but somewhere, sonehow, overnite you'd a thunk somebody at yahoo would have pulled the plug on further displaying the foto.
Yahoo continues to spread lies as of 7:10a.m. EST
470 posted on
08/06/2006 4:11:37 AM PDT by
FreeRadical
(Find Terrorists Here: islamicFinder.com)
To: Hadean
478 posted on
08/06/2006 5:04:11 AM PDT by
YaYa123
To: Hadean
It's absolutely appalling that the people in charge don't look out for this.
Do they care is the real question. What's getting by as "news" is really upsetting.
You would think that it would be part of the job to find out if pictures are authentic, especially in this day and age when it's so easy to doctor anything by using photo-shop.
Let the reader beware!
It seems it would be feasible to take any picture and alter it to portray whatever you want and submit it to a news agency and some one, some where, would print it.
Scary!
483 posted on
08/06/2006 5:33:19 AM PDT by
enufisenuf
(This is happening all too often)
To: Hadean
![Image Hosted by ImageShack.us](http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8161/picturekillsmwj0.jpg)
PICTURE KILL FOR LBN20 TRANSMITTED AT APPROXIMATELY 1408GMT ON AUGUST 5, 2006. PHOTO EDITING SOFTWARE WAS IMPROPERLY USED ON THIS IMAGE. A CORRECTED VERSION WILL IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THIS ADVISORY. PLEASE REMOVE THE IMAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEMS. WE ARE SORRY FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE. REUTERS LBN20
![Image Hosted by ImageShack.us](http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/1153/reuterscorrectedsmcu3.jpg)
ATTENTION EDITORS: THIS IS A CORRECTED FILE OF LBN20. REUTERS HAS ISSUED A KILL OF THE PREVIOUS VERSION. Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. Picture taken August 5, 2006. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj (LEBANON)
![Image Hosted by ImageShack.us](http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/2280/r1119244085wp6.jpg)
486 posted on
08/06/2006 5:54:54 AM PDT by
bc4gwb
(http://bamapachyderm.com)
To: Hadean
I would think action would lie. The Israelis should sue Reuters in US court for defamation. The Israelis know whether they dropped bombs in a way which could not have caused that smoke pattern, and they will have after-action recce photos which will prove or refute the suggestion that multiple bombs were dropped at the indicated location.
I would also think that the CIA would know if whether or not this photo is fraudulent, and it is the business of the govenment to substantiate its own policy which is to support Israel diplomatically. So the US government should sue Reuters in that case. Either way, the damages sought should not be limited to money but to the cancellation of the propaganda effect of the fraudulent image.
And if the MSM stonewalls, hit them with RICO. Crippling damages for collusion.
493 posted on
08/06/2006 6:45:37 AM PDT by
conservatism_IS_compassion
(The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
To: Hadean; Slings and Arrows; King Prout
Maybe Reuters just wanted to make things look 'disproportionate'!! :P
496 posted on
08/06/2006 6:54:17 AM PDT by
Irish_Thatcherite
(A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!|The IRA are actually terrorists, any questions?)
To: Hadean
Anti-Reuters Sarcasm Torpedo ARMED. FIRE!!
I see the smoke, but where are the mirrors?
To: Hadean
I found a little more on the photoshop stuff re Reuters. Another picture taken at almost exactly the same time. Which brings into question why the shot was used at all. See my comparison here at my
STICKY NOTES blog
To: txflake
Take a look at this ping!
537 posted on
08/06/2006 11:42:53 AM PDT by
Arrowhead1952
(The media and the democrats are the biggest supporters of the terrorists.)
To: Hadean
Ok....pardon my ignorance re: these matters....
but to what purpose would Reuters 'add' plumes of smoke to these pictures? To what gain or purpose??? What could their motive/agenda have possibly been?
Much like the conspiracy theory wackos that claim that Bush had the twin towers blown up (or down) with explosives.....
I just don't 'get' the reasoningm, motivation, or gain in doing so.
Please explain and enlighten me.
568 posted on
08/06/2006 5:12:08 PM PDT by
XenaLee
To: Hadean
Great work by LGF and all you FReepers. There's a wealth of knowledge on FR!
569 posted on
08/06/2006 5:48:19 PM PDT by
Cedar
To: Hadean
To: Hadean
I did not see the story on the news until late this afternoon. The doctoring was REALLY lame and laughable. The conclusion I came to after Reuters admitted it was that they let it go by and did not give a damn because they KNEW that the hundreds of papers in the muslim world would buy it and the masses of barely educated citizens would accept them as real. The damage is already done.
600 posted on
08/07/2006 6:48:05 PM PDT by
Bogtrotter52
(Reading DU daily so you won't hafta)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson