[stuck_in_new_orleans]

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

[prion]

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

No. I've used the Clone tool since before there was a Photoshop. That thing has been altered. I'd bet the farm.

[jbstrick]

No. I can guarntee this photo is a fake. I am a professional photographer and use Photoshop daily. These patterns happen when an inexperienced person is trying to 'clone' something.

[sneakers]

I've retouched old family photos - to repair stains and tears. If you copy and past a section of a photo using the same section you copied, it's very obvious. This photo definitely looks doctored.

[Shimmer128]

So, you are saying that the picture of Monsieur Jean Francois Kerry as the frankenstein monster has to be considered real since we haven't seen the original?

[Harpo Speaks]

There is no question that this is faked. It is obvious to me from the first moment I saw if, for the same reason that it was obvious that the TANG memo was also a fake -- personal experience.

Anyone who was alive in 1977 and using a typewriter and who was also alive in 2004 and using a word processor, knew that the TANG memo could not have been typed in 1977. It was just not possible to match the spacing, kerning, font, etc. as LGF so easily demonstrated.

This is the same thing. I've been using the clone tool for years, always trying to minimize the repeating pattern effect that's seen in this photo. I could have done the job a lot better, too.

No quesion about it -- the photo was manipulated with more smoke being added.

And you know what? It won't make a bit of difference to anyone in the MSM.

[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.

[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.

[DCPatriot]

I use that clone tool many times in removing unsightly items for curbside photos of real estate listings.

Green cable boxes, utility meters, hoses, bad lawns, cracked driveways, etc....all gone.

Pretty sad when the media do it to slant their bias.

[Enchante]

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

Not at all -- in some cases, yes, but not if there have been obvious manipulations that put in repeating copies of certain clusters of pixels, etc. Just as with the fake TANG documents, some kinds of fakes make themselves too obvious..... even if the "experts" at See-BS, Roto-Rooters, et al can't seem to spot them (or more likely don't care as long as the fakes serve their agenda).

[Hadean]

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

I did my best trying to get an answer on that one. Here's what I found:

I actually discovered another picture of the same spot of the city. If you look at both pictures side by side, you'll notice the buildings in the lower right corner of the left photo and the buildings in the lower left corner of the right photo (the photo in question on this thread), you'll see the buildings match up. I cut those corner sections out and placed them side by side. Notice anything?

[King Prout]

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

actually, no - depending on the crudity of the fake, of course. high zoom analysis, contrast filtering, and some other automated analisis techniques can make things like repixellation in a digital image REALLY obvious.

[darthfocus]

As a photojournalist I can honestly say that my 2 year old could have used the clone tool with more grace than this moron. This is clearly the worst doctored photo ever. This raises an even bigger question, what moron photo editor let this slip by? What was he thinking when he saw the foot prints of the clone tool? This is such a joke, but it makes you wonder how many skilled retouchers are doctoring the photos and news presented as journalism today?