[stuck_in_new_orleans]

all im saying is if you dont have the actual photo then people sound just like any tinfoil conspiracy theorist. I also think it looks suspicous....but we need to have a side by side evidence

[saquin]

You don't really need side by side evidence with the "original" to see that the repeating patterns in this smoke do not appear natural in any way but I'll agree with you that no one will admit that there's definitive proof of this alteration until and unless and original is displayed.

[prion]

all im saying is if you dont have the actual photo then people sound just like any tinfoil conspiracy theorist. I also think it looks suspicous....but we need to have a side by side evidence

That certainly will be necessary to convince the "straights." I know from experience that many people don't automatically spot the repeating pattern.

But there's a reason so many Photoshoppers are jumping up and down here: this is a rookie mistake. It's easy to do, hard to overcome, and everybody who works with Photoshop has struggled with it. When you do this for a living, it SCREAMS out at you.

Kinda like the fonts thing on the CBS story.

[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.

[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.

[El Gato]

all im saying is if you dont have the actual photo then people sound just like any tinfoil conspiracy theorist. I also think it looks suspicous....but we need to have a side by side evidence

If you had a high resolution version, the artifacts would be obvious, or that there weren't any artifacts would be equally obvious.

[Dales]

No. If you can show that the same exact pattern is repeated, then you do not need the original to show that it is a fake.

Check the link over at LGF, because he has added some animated GIFs to show the exact sections of the photo that have been repeated. And you do not need the original to show it was doctored.

[Coleus]

stop being such a purist. can't you tell just by looking at it. Haven't you ever seen a fire before? did the smoke ever look so perfect?