No way was this photo taken any more recently than, say, 1975 or so:
Posted on 08/13/2006 7:00:42 AM PDT by bocopar
They're typical nimrods who think they can fool people like you! ;-)
Why is he holding a newspaper written in English?
Aha! Single-spaced fonts, with no superscript. The newspaper is obviously from 1973.
Oh, the first (at the top of this thread) pic of this the paper is not in English.
Good catch unless their press is having to use the antique stuff.
No way was this photo taken any more recently than, say, 1975 or so:
I think if Adobe went and ran the legible text on the newspaper through a program that can detect patterns and artifacts caused by the transformation and skewing of text, they'll be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the newspaper's text was photoshopped in.
I've spent the last half hour staring at the text under extreme magnification and played around with my own copy of Photoshop.
I have extreme doubts that a photograph of the text would result in the high degree of similarity between the pixilation I observed in my recreation and that of the pixilation of the text in the picture. But even more telling is the internal consistency with the pixilation within the text on the newspaper.
Go to a high magnification on the text and observe how consistent the pixilation is between any two of the same letter. That kind of consistency would only be possible if the text had been added in digitally. If the text had been part of the original photograph, the pixilation patterns should include a great deal more variety when comparing two occurrences of the same letter on the page. Perspective, lighting, irregularities in the paper, bends, folds, and lots of other factors should've guaranteed a higher degree of dissimilarity.
Try it. Use your digital camera to take a picture of a newspaper headline while someone else is holding the brand new, crisp paper, and do it from about 5-10 feet away. Then try and compare multiple occurrences of the same letter in the headline.
You're kidding, right?
Those two guys in the background look a lot like JFK and Nixon.
You're BOTH kidding, right?
Wouldn't Castro be in a nicer room than that?
Looks real to me . I think some of you guys are going a bit too far looking at the pics.
They must have started thawing him yesterday....look how long it takes to thaw out a Thanksgiving turkey.
When they showed the Castro photo this morning and FOX and Friends, my wife and both said "PhotoShop!" at the same time.
I couldn't believe FOX and Friends didn't comment on it. They seemed more enamored with his Adidas track suit.
ROFL - that is hilarious!
Same jacket, different year. It's just another weak attempt by the left wing media to pull-the-wool over our eyes.
I dunno....he looks a little more gaunt & wan than before. But maybe that is because I have seldom seen a photo of him in anything other than green fatigues. I do not see any signs of fakery though. Lets face it, the guy is as hard to kill as a roach
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.