The real story and lesson of the Lcpl Boudreaux picture.

[DarkPhenyx]

NO, I'm not going to offer definitive proof either way as to the veracity of the pic. No matter what any of us say some are going to believe one thing, and some another.

The only thing we can learn from this is that the time when you could believe what you see is long gone. In this modern day and age not only can pictures lie to you they can be made to lie. It isn't just stills either. Some of, I am sure, will remember the minor stink surrounding the movie "Contact" and the scenes in it where President Clinton seemed to be talking about the "alien signal" at press conferences. The manipulation of stock footage to get the story the "authors" wanted came of age then.

Is it going to be long before we have something like "The Running Man" scenario happen where video footage is altered to completely change the context of the events and it is used to convict someone, or worse?

*sadly shaking head* It's disturbing when you can't even trust your own eyes anymore.

Just want to ask that, next time we see an image, and it seems "designed" to be inflammatory that we step back and think for a sec. You might be exactly right. It may very well be "designed" for that purpose. Even our own people have an agenda. There are lot of people outside of that who are as equally willing to use that agenda against us as we are to use it against ourselves.

Just a thought. I could be wrong.

[DemLikr]

1. Ummm...what picture are you talking about? n/t

[DarkPhenyx]

3. The version of it whch is making the rounds of the internet...

...is the one where the Marine is standing with two Iraqi boys who are holding a sign printed on cardboard. The message on this particular version is very inflamitory and has become an international incident. It is also very likely a photoshoped pic.

[Dover]

46. The press has already been caught "enhancing" photos,

though nothing yet quite this blatant as far as I know.

So yes, perhaps all the potential "lies" out there will eventually force us more and more to rely on our sixth sense and inner knowledge when making decisions, because our usual five senses can be so easily manipulated.

[DarkPhenyx]

52. Unless, of course, you believe the more extreme tin hatters.

:) In that case the government alreay had mind control devices to amke you think and feel what they want. Damn...that would explain the little voices in my head. :)

Seriously though. Anytime someone stats telling me what to think and feel I get suspicious. If they show me somethign and start telling me waht it is? Same effect. Particularly when what they are showing me, telling me, and the little voices conflict. The little voices are going to win everytime. Nicely enough, for me, they are usually right.

[bobthedrummer]

112. American Technology Corp. of San Diego has the US Patent on the

tech that puts voices into skulls, they have had this since at least 1974, this is the same company that holds the US DoD contract for the sonic weapons deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan based upon their HSS product.
HSS Weapon
http://www.raven1.net/hssweapon.htm

American Technology Corp.
http://www.raven1.net/atc-ag98.htm

American Technology Corp. executives have engaged in inside trade
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/14/1529.html

Mind control in the US was championed by Richard McGarrah Helms, whose final days as CIA Director were spent destroying documentation of MK ULTRA and related mind control projects. An investigative journalist won a federal court order in August 2002 granting access to CIA mind control operational files.
http://www.rcfp.org/news/2002/0819kellyv.html

There are reputable US mind control advocates and activists
http://www.mindjustice.org/

I fail to see that you can still be in denial about the reality of previously classified, but no longer, information important to all citizens of America.

[DarkPhenyx]

114. *quickly, if late, runnign the humor flag up the pole*

Sorry, forgot to fly my joke colors.

[bobthedrummer]

117. Here's some more US Patents on the kind of tech that puts voices

into skulls, for real, Dark Phenyx.
http://www.raven1.net/5159703.htm

There is a long overdue response from the mental health profession about the use of diagnostic criteria for psychosis in light of the state of mind invasive technology, Dark Phenyx-specifically about hearing voices inside the head and the many folks that complained about government harassment in various forms
http://www.adacomp.net/~mcherney/NewCrit-JPSS-CS2.htm

No joking matter imo.

[DarkPhenyx]

118. Everything is a joking matter.

Remember...sometimes if we don't laugh we scream. I don't like screaming.

[zbird]

2. Unfortunately, the picture is apparently authentic.

"Investigating officers have spoken with Boudreaux and are working to determine whether the claims on the sign are true and what, if any, charges to bring against him, Pool said. Investigation results were not expected to be released for another week or two, Marines Forces Reserve spokesman Capt. Patrick Kerr said April 8."


from: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2810106.php

If the picture were indeed photoshopped, I'm pretty sure there would have been an indication of such in this article.

[DarkPhenyx]

6. Unless they haven't made a determination yet.

There is an equally believable, and far less inflamitory, message on another picture. There are only two words difference between teh two pics.

However the purpose of this thread is not to discuss the validity of one version or the other. It is to discuss how even video footage is becoming unreliable.

[ParanoidPat]

96. Except they printed THAT photo WITH the article.......

......That shoots that theory down! :evilgrin:

[DarkPhenyx]

104. No it dosen't.

Dosen't really do anything. THe photo is the begining of the story and the one everyone is upset about. Of course they used that pic. Please! You can do better than that.

[whatelseisnew]

4. Seeing is no longer believing (Real-time video alteration)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22seeing++is+no+longer+believing%22

Yes , events , people, objects can now be add/removed from a live video feed.

Also search DU forums for "hearing is no longer believing" about

audio that can be undetectably alterred

[Occulus]

127. The best and most obvious example

is the line that's being shown on football fields during NFL games. The player's bodies occlude the line, and it's digitally drawn in real time. I saw a show on how that was done once, a while back.

Then they showed something that made my jaw drop.

It was a figure skating event, and they removed the skater. They claimed it could be done during a live broadcast. You could hear all the crowd noise, but the skater just wasn't there.

Oh, the joys of high technology!

[Goldom]

5. Those crazy Iraqis!

From bottom of that link, quote:

" “This picture and sign directed towards a Muslim family is inexcusable,” he said via e-mail. “Inexcusable because if this lance corporal was given a basic class on Islam, he would have known that remarks such as ‘knocking up’ a Muslim Arab woman is not tolerated and violates the honor of a Muslim woman and her family." "

As opposed to... everyone else in the world.. who it's okay with? What the heck does this have to do with her being Muslim or Arab, yeesh...

[DarkPhenyx]

7. Yeah, dumb quote but...

...I am going to actively try and keep this thread on track.

What are your comments about the belivability of picture and video records in this modern age?

[Dhalgren]

8. I am not very computer savy,

so I am in total agreement with you. I find it very daunting to realize that "seeing is no longer believing". But, tell me (again, very basic computer skills, here) is there any hope that technology might "catch-up" with itself? I mean is there any software out there that can be used to determin whether a picture or video has been "shopped". That may be our only hope for simply not believing anything, anymore.

[DarkPhenyx]

10. Not that I am aware of.

Somsbody else might have a better line on the technology. My opinion, however, is that this will probably run the same race as other, similar, technologies. THey will develop a way to make undetectable changes, then they will counter that and make them detectable, then there will be a new undetectable technology, ad infinitum.

[Occulus]

47. Nope.

Software like Maya can add photoreal effects and objects that are very convincing to real-time video, or such can be added after the video is made. The "live" module of Maya is intended to do just that... but you have to render the video, and that takes TIME. Lots of it.

"The Matrix" is a great example of how convincing it can look.

[DarkPhenyx]

54. Which compared to the old school "blue matting"....

...is another good example of just how far "trickery" has come. Imagine taking the matrix back 40 or 50 years and showing an audience. Ya think we thought it was cool? I think of the scene where Dr. Evil shows "Independence Day" to the 1960's president.

[Occulus]

59. Oh my, yes

For certain things, there's no need for a bluescreen; Maya, for example, can splice digital artifacts into existing video, and can also use the existing video to track motion and use specific objects as reference points for the software.

A good example would be taking a video clip of someone holding out their hand and the camera circling around them. Then, in Maya Live, you could, say, put a glowing irange ball in their hand, and make it do all sorts of fun things.

To learn more about what Maya can do, go to www.aliaswavefront.com and get Maya Personal Learning Edition. It's a free version of Maya Complete, with a few limitations.

[Warren Stuart]

9. Dear Mr. Phenyx:

Having served in the military as a "grunt" I would like to dispell the notion that these fine young men are the arbitors of good taste in our society.

Their humor can be vulgar at times, sometimes all of the time. To hold them up to some country club standard, while they are getting their butts shot at is not fair.

I remember a fellow with a camera, who was going to send the film home for development, he left the camera unattended, some of his buddies took some rather amusing pictures. It was stupid and crass, but for the participants it was one of the funniest things they did in a long while.


I'm thinking the Lcpl Boudreaux photo may fall into this category. It's beyond stupid, which was the point to begin with.

[DarkPhenyx]

12. Having also served in the military...

...I am well aware of the level of humor among our soldiers. However we have a situtaion where we have two, multiple actually, versions of the picture. Some are as equally believable, and one in particular is very believable.

However the point is not, as you said, that the pic if real is stupid. THe point is that we simply don't know which picture is right. It is easy to lie to us.

Now, on a side note, if you insist on using false civility please address me properly. It's Mr. Darkstar. Phenyx is my first name. :)

[Warren Stuart]

15. Dear Mr. Darkstar

Sorry for the false civility, I'm usually not this civil this early on a Monday.

Anyway I am aware of the multiple versions out there, some are obvious fakes, but the one that probably caused the furor, would be very difficult to fake. It would have to manipulated at the pixel level to get that quality of image.

This is something best done by professionals with a lot of time on their hands.

This is the version that states that "Lcpl Boudreaux killed my dad then knocked up my sister".


This version is probably authentic.

[DarkPhenyx]

16. Then you obviously haven't seen this.

Tell me that this is any less authentic looking, ok?

Please. If you want to continue this discussion, the veracity of this pis ot the other, please go to this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1435431#1435615

I really want to discuss my topic in this thread.

[charlie]

68. Unfortunately for the Corporal

the exculpatory photo has far more compression artifacts than the other one. Which is the obvious thing to do if you were trying to hide manipulation of a jpeg. If all things are equal, this is the more suspicious pic.

[DarkPhenyx]

70. but all things aren't equal...

...and they rarely are.

[charlie]

75. Without other evidence

except the two pics, I'd say they are equal.

I'm guessing the Corporal's culpability is necessarily going to hinge on something other than these photos. Reliable eyewitness testimony or a verifiable chain of possession of the original digital media. Or it may be decided on political implications. Bottom line, I fear, is that we probably will never know if he did it or not.

[DarkPhenyx]

79. Entirely possible.

Which is why I'm waiting on the report.

As far as the pics go remember this...the copy of a fax, of a fax, of a copy, of a fax has a lot more artifacts in it than the original and both are equally accurate. It's entirely possible that either or both of the pics in question have had things done to them which have nothing to do with any intentional alterations.

[charlie]

85. Except it doesn't work that way

The incriminating photo is a clear shot. Even if it was altered, it had to be drawn from a source at least as clean. The other photo is munged, which naturally raises doubts. It's either the base photo the first was made from (which means it should be clearer, but certainly not worse) or it's an alteration that came from the same pic as the first (which means it shouldn't be dirtier than the first).

[DarkPhenyx]

87. Unless the incriminating photo...

...has been "handled" less.

[charlie]

92. You mean

both photos manipulated, with the exonerating one altered to a greater extent? That doesn't bode well for his defense, since that photo should be the one with greater fidelity to the original. In fact, since it's a digital reproduction, it ought to be indistinguishable from the original.

[DarkPhenyx]

101. No, not that.

Something more along the lines of something e-mails 5 or 6 times, compressed in there someplace. That sort of thing. Yeah, it's a reach. Small one though IMO. It's also not something I'm hanging my hat on mind you. More of a Devil's Advocate kinda statement.

[charlie]

109. Oh, I see. Yeah

That could happen. But the absence of a copy in circulation that matches the clearness of the nasty pic makes it very unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. As you say, it's a reach.

Again, the scenario I'd bet on is that is was a staged joke. No hard crimes, just some callous stupidity.

And I'll say again, I really doubt we'll get the definitive evidence to claim vindication of any of our views on the matter. If the topic comes up 5 years from now, I expect we'll still argue about it.

[DarkPhenyx]

110. Which I think I kinda said...

...at the begining of this mess. :)

[charlie]

120. So?

You expect to deny me a fine time of hollering and fighting because we just have a hair of difference between us? You new to this interweb thing, son? :)

[DarkPhenyx]

121. Hell no!

Not new at all. I remember when computers had punch cards. :)

[Occulus]

86. I forgot all about artifacts

produced during compression. That would make it even harder to spot it as a fake. And if you save it with low-quality compression- which is what a digital camera might use to save space on the stick, or to make the emailed photo small- it would have those, and not necessarily be faked.

Or it might be faked with the artifacts, or it might not be faked at all.

[DarkPhenyx]

107. Or my head might spin around and go pop.

this is why I went into Biology and not Computers. At least I cna figure out why my cell culture died. :)

[Occulus]

50. not even half correct, actually

this didn't need to be done on a pixel-by-pixel level. In fact, if you used a simple digital sketchpad and the GIMP or Photoshop, you could whip one of these up in under five minutes. I know; I've done similar things with Photoshop/GIMP.

Faking something like this is very, very, very easy to do.

[DarkPhenyx]

53. The faster it's done, though...

...the more artifacts and errors it's going to have. The easier it will be to detect. No?

[Occulus]

57. Not really

if you use filters and such. It's actually quite easy to clean up photos in photoshop... that's why so many photoshops... use Photoshop.

[IrateCitizen]

11. You should change the title from "real story" to "my thoughts"

Since, that is obviously all that you are offering on this matter -- same as you did on the other thread involving the picture.

But hey, if you feel it necessary to start another thread offering yourself as the arbiter of the "real story" (I'm just extrapolating your title here), then go right ahead....

[DarkPhenyx]

13. your extrapolation is worse than wrong.

it is so far out to lunch as to not even be in the same unoverse. That's ok though. Youhave made your blind adherance to your opinion on this subject abundently clear.

Now, do you wish to comment on the actual topic of the thread, that being how we can now be lied to visially, or do you want to go back to the thread abuot the evil of the picture and rant there?

[tinanator]

17. why use a legitimate and disgraceful photo as an argument for deception?

More like a practice in deception. There is not one iota of evidence, before or after the US Military reported it in their papers, that picture was faked. It takes large quantities of credulity to even assert that it might have been a fake. So many Photoshop experts are out there who can tell in a heartbeat (as if the untrained eye cant) that there were no signs of tampering in it, but dont let that stop you. Your acuity is your own problem. Now you seem to have had a eureka moment and before long you may well realize that everything is a lie, but if you cant spot the truth when its in your face, a lot of good that will do. Blind adherence... you have yet to learn the real story and lesson here, obviously.

[DarkPhenyx]

19. Go here and look.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1435431#1435615

Then come back here and talk about it. Actually, stay there and talk about it. COme back here and dioscuss how we can be lied to with pictures and video now. That really is the topic in this thread.

[tinanator]

32. been there, dont care

youre doing the lying by implying this disgraceful joke is a fake.
Excellent example.

[DarkPhenyx]

34. So provide your incontrovertable proof.

What do you know that the rest of us here, and the entire military, dosen't.

If you can't then it is simply your opinion and proves my point nicely. Thank you. :)

<on edit>

You also proove a few other things but for the sake of getting deleted I will not publish here.

[tinanator]

36. the military DIDNT deny it as real!

what the hell? COMMON SENSE, that elusive commodity, and the dead giveaways of photoshop fakery together tell you the stupid things legit. The marvel of it all is how IMPORTANT it seems to be to certain characters to dismiss the reality here. WHO would take the time to photoshop this? Especially when YOU confess it would take EXCEPTIONAL effort? How does that add up to anything? Youre a riot.
So, uh, how do you feel about Oswald's famous photo? ;)

[DarkPhenyx]

37. Nor have they said it is real.

They are in the process of investigating the picture, and haven't made an official statement one way or the other yet. Have they? No, they haven't.

As I asked before. Prove that it is impossible for this picture to have been faked. Not that it is difficult, or would take a lot of time and talent, but prove it is impossible. It's an easy thing to do. If you can't then you have to admit to the possibility that it is possibly a fake.

Why wouldn't someone photoshop it? Look at the international stir it causing. It could be as simple as the question "why would someone create a computer virus?" Some fairly sophisticated and nasty viri have been created simple for kicks and becasue it could be done. It is alo a form of immortality for some.

Why paint the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel? That was horibly difficult, and took a great deal of time.

If "why would someone do it" is your only "proof" then you have already lost.

[tinanator]

40. the guy is real, the investigation is underway, no word that it wasnt?

I think you have a clue blindspot. I doubt the genome project or genetic engineering is going to be able to help you in a timely manner. You compare the SISTINE Chapel to some fantastic notion that somebody would bother faking a sick joke?

[DarkPhenyx]

44. I mearly point out that a great many things are done...

...simply because they can be. There need be no other motivating factor. Ther really isn't anything "fantastic" about that. You ignore the parallel with computer viri which I mentioned. Not surprising. It didn't help your case to acknowledge it.

[tinanator]

48. like spin control, black ops and plausible deniability?

because they can?

[DarkPhenyx]

55. To an extent, yes.

With this adminsitration particualrly. I think the quote was "THey can't even tell you "fuck you" without lying".

[tinanator]

62. To this extent. It is what you are engaged in.

No need to backpedal. Glad to see the reinforcement has arrived.
As I said, I dont care if its real or not, you clearly do. The common sense and Ockham's Razor really are making a joke out of your machinations.

[DarkPhenyx]

66. Pathetic.

You can't even defend your position so you simply declare victory and run off. Ocam's razor is very useful. As a scientist I have great respect for it and other scientific tools. I also have great comtempt for posers who throw terms like this around w/o really undertanding their use.

[tinanator]

95. please, what, an information scientist?

does that not require spelling skills? My only positions are rather fortified by a number of facts and historical precedents. You prefer not to respond to the simplest of questions. How does your scientific insight feel about global warming? Desperation to overblow such an obvious stunt is fairly unbecoming. Ever get concerned over the rapes and tortures that HAVE taken place? Do US troops only rape American soldiers? The picture is a gag, and not the kind someone uses photoshop for. pathetic indeed.

[DarkPhenyx]

103. Whatever.

Once again instead of providing anything to support your position you resort to personal attacks. Ah well. Not unusual.

[DarkPhenyx]

39. Let me ask you this question.

Why do you need to believe so badly that the picture is real? Why is it so important to you that it be real that you won't even consider that it might be fake, or even wait for the official report before gathering your stones for the Lcpl?

[tinanator]

41. projection

Im personally indifferent. I KNOW there are REAL atrocities taking place EVERY SECOND, and I dont have to be the one doing them to know it, nor do I need this little scandal to feel outrage and shame. This photo "controversy" is far more fake than the photo and the individual in it. What do you think that sign originally said? And once more, how do you feel about Lee Harvey Oswald's famous picture?

[DarkPhenyx]

42. No projection.

I've already said there is a possibility that it is real. I think it is far more likely to be faked, but that's my opinion.

So I'll ask this question as a follow up. You don't think that framing a soldier for something using a faked photo is an atrocity?

[ParanoidPat]

49. Funny how you mention the picture in the title and the post itself.....

......and then say this thread is NOT about that picture! :crazy: :eyes:

The picture is quite obviously real. The proof was posted in the other thread. The corrugations visible behind the real writing (with enhancement) that are not visible in all of the other 'shopped' versions make that abundantly clear. About as clear as your intentions by mentioning THAT PHOTO in a thread about how easily photos can be faked.

I really don't believe you're fooling anyone here about your intentions for starting this thread and attempting to "keep it on topic". :evilgrin:

If you don't like us bringing it up in THIS thread, try to stop us! :)

[Occulus]

56. Has anyone here EVER used Photoshop

to fake a photo? Seriously.... there are some really uninformed people on this thread.

Pat, you can easily fake the corrugations of cardboard in Photoshop. Just use the rubber stamp tool.

As I've said before, I've already done this sort of thing. Time-consuming? Not really; you could fake this pic in five minutes if you even half knew what you were doing.

Presence of corrugations in the cardboard is NO kind of proof, because those corrugations can be faked, too. It's even easier if you use multiple layers in the .psd.

Go get the GIMP, find out what it can do, and then come back and tell us how easy it really was. :)

[DarkPhenyx]

60. I have to admit that I do not photoshop.

Not a skill I have. If it is as easy as you say then this would be one of those instances where I believed the people talking and I was wrong to do so. hate when that happens. :)

[Occulus]

63. this type of modification of photos is,

I believe, a five or ten minute lesson. Having a digital sketchpad would help a lot though, to make the text look like it was hand-drawn... which, if you used a pad, it would be. :)

[DarkPhenyx]

69. But now I ahve a quandry.

How am I to believe you? Sounds plausible, supports my theory, and now I have to be suspect of it. Crap! x(

[Occulus]

76. Read my post on the process.

I just wrote it; it's a little confused, since I'm not actually sitting here doing it at the moment. However, it does explain how this might be done.

edit: post #71.

[DarkPhenyx]

80. I read it.

And I also appreciate it. Like I said, photo shopping is a little out of my sphere of expertise. I'm much more comfortable with 35mm photography, and even there I'm no expert.

[DarkPhenyx]

58. I'm not trying to stop it so much as...

...asking for a different subject. Personally I don't give a fuck about "fooling" anyone as I am not trying to fool them. My intent is as I stated.

There has been no proof that the picture is shopped. Only that it would be difficult to do. Which, of course, means it could have been done. GO back and re-read those threads. The people who are "experts" on the subject state clearly that it would be hard. They never say it would be impossible.

[Occulus]

61. those so-called 'experts'

need to go back to school. As I've said (repeatedly), this would have been easy for anyone who had half a clue as to what they were doing.

[tinanator]

65. Ive used it and Im no good at it BUT

youre not convincing enough people. Keep trying

[Occulus]

71. some photoshop info for the uninformed, then

Both Photoshop and the GIMP have tools specifically intended to copy one part of an image and paint it in realtime in another part of the image. Photoshop and the GIMP also use layers, just like digital acetone sheets used by cartoon animators, to help organize the image better. With these things in mind, here we go:

Layer 1- the background. This would include everything, including the original cardboard sign.
Layer 2- dupe of layer 1. This will be our "working" layer.

Layer 3- the text on the sign. Scribble it in with a digital sketchpad and make sure the background for that layer is transparent.

Now for the fun part:

Using the rubber stamp tool, carefully paint the corrugated, unwritten parts of the sign from Layer 1 over the original text in layer 2. You'll want to use vertical strokes so the corrugated parts look convincing enough while you're copying with this tool; it's easy to flub it and copy something you don't want. Small brushes are best for this... and you can even rubber stamp at the pixel level if you REALLY want to spend time on it. Once you have a large enough resulting patch from your rubber stamp on the textless layer, you can probably forego using layer 1 as the source and just rubber stamp it from what you've already rubber stamped on layer 2.

ShaZAM- you now have a clean, cardboard sign with no text on that layer. Layer one is now safe to delete, leaving your photo as it was in the first place... with no text on the sign.

Flatten the image and presto- your altered photo is ready for distribution. Remember, our text layer we created had a transparent background, so any text we wrote in will appear to be "printed" on the sign. You may want to go in and use the color picker to pick the color for your contrived text and muddy it a bit using the corrugations as a guide.

I'm sure there are other, better processes for doing this. This was just off the top of my head, and it took longer to type out that it would to just do, at least for a quick hack job.

If I wanted to make it really convincing, I'd take at least a day or two, but to just quickly slop it out... five minutes, ten tops.

[ParanoidPat]

93. I do use Photoshop almost every day, GIMP, layers and all......

.....(My wife's an artist and I do all her photography and maintain her website.) And I know exactly what you're saying however I also took the time to examine ALL the photos on the other thread plus a few others posted on other boards and 'low and behold' the only one that had ANY evidence of corrugations was the ORIGINAL photo being investigated by the military. No one took the time to try to fake it to the extreme of putting in details not apparent to the naked eye. What would be the point?

Now even if someone HAD used the rubber stamp tool to insert the hidden detail in the background, they would still be reusing portions in more than one place that can be exposed by simple pattern analysis software that would find and hi-light the repeated pattern in a heartbeat. :)

[tinanator]

97. what would be the point? is RIGHT!

the only point being made here is that some are desperate to cover for a joke that only underlines reality.

[DarkPhenyx]

111. I was thinking that some people are desperate...

...to find another reason to boo the military.

[babzilla]

124. finally we get to the heart of the matter

the leftist's desperate agenda to boo the military no matter how many pixels it takes.

I'm sure most non-desperate folk would see this photo merely as a misguided attempt at humor by Lcpl Boudreaux, brought on by the stress and confusion of the situation he finds himself in.

Innapropriate humor is a common coping mechanism which has been around longer than photo manipulation.

[DarkPhenyx]

128. Ah yes...whatever you say.

I agree with absolutely everything you have ever said in your life.

If that is what it is then why has it become an international incident? No, sorry but it is more than that now, reguardless of what it started out as.

[Occulus]

123. Would it be able to do that

if you ran a noise filter on the image as well, maybe Gaussian blur it just enough to hide the patterns?

I'm curious.

[ParanoidPat]

135. Well, technically yes.....

.....since the filter uses a pattern to generate the random numbers used to introduce the 'noise'. The one thing it couldn't do is restore the original data that was replaced by the pattern of randoms. It can only approximate what might have been there based on the adjacent pixels. Remember, any time you run something through any sort of filter, the filter by it's very nature has to do its job using some structured event sequence. A close analysis of the resulting file after filtering will indeed have some form of repeatable pattern associated with the use of the filter. In the case of the noise filter, the distribution of where in the image the 'noise' was introduced will emerge. You can change the file in a way that the original data may be non retrievable but you can't hide the fact that the overall file has somehow been filtered. What it comes down to is this, nothing other than given elements within the overall filter can be truly random. The filter itself must have some structure to apply the random elements to the existing data. That structure can be detected.

If you can find a copy, I suggest you read 'The Random Order Of Chaos'. It will really tweak your way of looking at things.

As far as blurring images is concerned, I'm sure you've seen the reverse application used by law enforcement where they take a badly blurred photo of a face or license plate and sharpen it to where they can retrieve details that were not apparent in the original. They do that by understanding the principle of 'circles of confusion' IE; light that has fallen in a pattern outside of where it was intended and digitally placing it where it should have been had the optics been in focus. In that instance, the software looks for similarities in pixels that form circular patterns within the image. Even the slightest change in the chroma/luminance value that occurs in a given circular pattern can be digitally detected and re-directed to the centers of the circles. The results are quite amazing and just a little bit frightening. It just goes to show how even the subtlest of patterns can be discerned with the appropriate use of software. :)

[Occulus]

89. If you're good with photoshop

you learn to not leave traces. I know this, because I've done it myself. The so-called "experts" aren't being entirely truthful.

The only part of the photo that needed to be faked was the text, and I know for a solid, incontrovertible fact that it's easy to do, and very possible to not leave a trace. If you used a digital sketchpad, it would be even easier.

As for telling "in a heartbeat" that it's not a fake, well... that statement right there shows me these "experts" are nothing of the kind; if they were, they would have examined the edges of the text on a pixel level, and even then they wouldn't necessarily know. See post #71, regarding photoshop, text, and transparent layers.

edit: DP, that was for the benefit of other readers, and wasn't really addressed to you specifically. :)

[ParanoidPat]

100. You've apparently never used high speed pattern recognition software!

I've not only worked with it for years in the disk drive manufacturing industry, I've also helped modify the exact same software for analytical purposes in doing fraud analysis. In that context, a 'heartbeat' was being generous. It's actually in the several millisecond range for a high resolution image (8 Mega-pixel) when run on a computer with a 266 MHz buss running a 2.7 GHz processor. :)

(But that's a 'trade secret' so you ain't heard that from me! :evilgrin: )

[Occulus]

119. That's why I'm

suspicious; who knows which hacker somewhere is going to figure out how to defeat that. My guess is, it's already been done...

Oh, I use pattern recognition daily, but in a much different context; my uses involve mail sorting and script recognition. Yeah, it's very, very fast, but even using advanced hardware and software, it can be fooled. That's why the postal service still has a "letter aisle" for badly-formed writing on envelopes, among other reasons. The irony is, you really don't need all that fast of equipment to "prove" a fake; I'm guessing there's open source photo analysis software out there somewhere. Our computers at the USPS that "read" the addresses run on a 486, if you can believe it, and they can sort over 40,000 letters per hour.

I suppose, if I really wanted to, I could replace the sign with a digital model ala Maya or Lightwave, complete with corrugations on the cardboard, and fool even the best software. I'm doubting that was done, though. Your average soldier isn't carting around a $7000 piece of commercial 3D modeling software on his laptop :D

I didn't mean to trivialize your expertise, by the way; I only wanted to underscore that this could be done. Hey-ho.

[IrateCitizen]

25. Please point out where my "blind adherence to (my) opinion...

... on this subject" is "abundantly clear".

I never commented on the veracity of this photograph, nor did I -- as you have attributed to others further down in the thread -- make the statement that all soldiers are "murderers and rapists".

I was simply pointing out the fallacity of your subject heading, that you were portraying your post as something it was not. However, I will state that I agree that we should not put absolute faith in what we see anymore. Personally, I like to rely on print media -- especially "alternative" media -- and books for my news sources, so it isn't really a problem.

[DarkPhenyx]

30. My apologies.

You are correct and I apologize. Something else I am more than willing to do.

[RandomKoolzip]

18. Yeah.

I was expecting an expose, and got one man's opinion on an unrelated topic. False advertising!

[DarkPhenyx]

20. So talk about the topic at hand.

We've alrady had several threads on that photoshoped/faked photo. Let's discuss the larger issue which I brought up here.

[RandomKoolzip]

21. I've been disillusioned since I saw "Forrest Gump." n/t

[DarkPhenyx]

22. Which was an amazing piece of film work.

Almost makes you want to go back and look for Tom Hanks in the stock footage.

This would be part of my point though. So many have begun to rely solely on the visual media for it information and yet we have proof, in the form of several movies, that the visual media can be made to lie or distort. Look at the Kerry picture for example. For a time even teh media was fooled. It it's a "lie" that buys into your biases, such as all soldiers are nothing but murdering rapists, then the lie is all the easier to believe because it reinforces your belief structure and you don't have to go through the difficult task of questioning ot thinking, even if you should be.

[Dhalgren]

24. Wait a minute, there

We don't know if the photo was faked or not. The military seems to think it is for real, but even so with the technology, many of us cannot tell. That was the idea of the thread, or so I thought. Now you are saying that the photo is "photoshopped/faked"? Weren't you saying that you didn't know?

[DarkPhenyx]

27. I believe that it is fake.

I don't know for sure that it is, but at least I am willing to admit that much. It simply dosen't pass the gut check for me is all. In the absence of any other verifiable information it really is all I have to go on.

As far as the military is concerned they haven't made a statement yet. They have not said the it is or is not real. They are investigating it however, as if they really had a choice. UNitl they release their report we won't know what they say about it. Right now all we are getting is the equivilent of "we cannot comment on an ongoing investigation". That whole innocent until guilty thingy.

[ParanoidPat]

78. Except it WASN'T faked!

What part of that don't you get? :shrug:

The military isn't investigating the funny messages that WERE faked, they are investigating the claims of killing the boys father and raping his sister. :(

While the technology to alter photos has gotten really good, the time and effort required to alter by hand every pixel in a multi-megapixel photo would not be worth the time and effort. Programs like Photoshop make it much easier to do it through automated procedures however they always leave hidden 'tells' that the photo has been manipulated. There is a certain randomness to the luminance and chrominance values in any photo that is damn near impossible to automate with software while retouching it. A 'shopped' photo can easily be exposed by analysis on a pixel by pixel basis looking for commonalities in the chroma/luma value ranges along the edges of inserted objects. No commercially available software that I'm aware of has the ability to adjust the randomness of edges to the extent that a later analysis would not disclose the algorithm used to do the insert.

[DarkPhenyx]

81. And we have someone on here who says it's very possible to do.

That it is easy in fact.

The part I don't get is that it could be faked. That would be the part I don't get. You say it wasn't faked. OK, show me the proof that, 100%, it can't be faked. So far noone with any knowledge of how this works has been able to do that.

It's like asking conservatives to tell me why homosexual marraiges threaten the sanctity of marraige and the stability of the family. I hear a lot of words about it but in the end nobody has answered the question.

Now if the killing and rape had occured do you think the boys in the pic would be posing with the culprit and smiling?

[Occulus]

84. That last is the part that makes think it's a fake.

"do you think the boys in the pic would be posing with the culprit and smiling?"

Does the pope fsck a bear while it's sh!tting in the woods?

NO!!

:D

[ParanoidPat]

94. Do you think all Iraqi children that age read English?

Do you really think they had a clue what that sign said? :evilgrin:

If Iraq makes sure all their children are bi-lingual at that age then the certainly have a better educational system than we have! :)

[Occulus]

122. With one kid wearing Adidas

and the other looking like he just got home from the Gap, I'd say these kids could have known exactly what the sign said.

But somehow, I sort of doubt that as well....

hrm.

[babzilla]

108. how about this version?

is this the real one, in your expert opinion?



after all, who wouldn't thumbs up after all the savin' & fixin' going on.

[Occulus]

125. in this case

it appears as if every letter in the name and message has artifacts around the edges. I call shenanigans!

[charlie]

88. It doesn't necessarily follow

that he actually killed and raped. Posing with the boys could have been (likely, I'd say) just a bit of big laffs assholery for friends, and the poor sap had no idea he was about to star in an international incident.

[DarkPhenyx]

138. true.

the point of the thread being, however, that the picture could be faked, it isn't ahrd to do (according to one source) and that we can't even believe waht we see these days.

[ramblin_dave]

14. Example: 9/11 planes had pods to shoot missiles

The claim that some of the 9/11 planes shot missiles before impact has been circulating for a while.

Check this site:

http://letsroll911.org

They show what they claim to be a slowed down version of the plane impact on the south tower. Is that video a fake? Can you prove it is or it isn't?

Now look at this:

http://www.guerrillanews.com/forum/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=gnn&Number=282922&page=&view=&sb=&o=

Similar claim - the DVD version of the first plane impact was edited, so they say, to remove the telltale flash of a missile. Which of these is the fake?

In order to settle either of these, one would have to get access to the original video and even that would invoke claims about chain of custody or even that the original video owners had been gotten to.

[sce56]

23. The big thing here is to look also at what the leaders were doing to

protect the nation that day?
Here Bush is told the second plane hit we atre under attack
<>

And here he is after being told we are under attack yet he can not get out of the photo op to do something Presidential like call NORAD and ask where the fighters are to intercept any more hijacked planes! No the pet goat story is more important than protecting our nation Humm goat who is the scape goat here?
<>




<>

[tinanator]

33. who needs claims like that? theyre red herrings

the Pentagon had surface to air missile defenses. Isnt that just a bit more damning?

[TrogL]

73. what does this have to do with the original topic?

take your delusions back to the 9-11 forum where they belong

[Hamlette]

26. why did the boys have their thumbs up?

In the picture. That's what stuck me as odd.

[DarkPhenyx]

28. Who knows.

With the prevalence of American style media the world ovver though the "thumbs up" is almost universal.

[DinahMoeHum]

99. Be careful - "thumbs up" is the same as "f**k you" in some

countries. Like Australia.

:evilfrown:

[DarkPhenyx]

105. Good point.

And it's how you indicate "one" in most of Europe. They get confised when you order one beer and hold up your index finger.

[babzilla]

133. Europeans are confused by one index finger signifying one?

Now you're really pushing it.

Even in these modern times I would think that even those elitist Europeans can figure out that one finger (or thumb), no matter which one is held up, signifies one.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

134. They might question whether it's a photoshop index finger.

Europeans are cagey. :freak:

[DarkPhenyx]

137. Oh, they get it.

Eventually. But it's like living in New York and suddenly hearing someone say "Ya'll" or something. It confuses you for a bit till you realize what they really said because it is out of place for where you are.

Happens to me when I hear someone speaking French here in NC.

[frylock]

29. take a close look at the letter "d"..

the lower-case d in the words killed and knocked more closely resemble the d in Boudreaux and dad. If you look at the letter d in saved and rescued, the tail is less pronounced, and the circle isn't quite as loopy. I'd like to see a higher res version of the "saved" pic.

[DarkPhenyx]

31. Remember to account for writting on corregated board too.

look at the top of the S in saved. It's flatter on top as if the pen was "guided" by the ridge on the corregation.

Could that have been photoshopped in? Yup! Would it be harder than hell? Yup! Is it impossible? :shrug: Probably not.

[babzilla]

35. nothing new under the sun

photo manipulation has existed since the advent of photography. It is not a modern day phenomenon.

http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9802bcs.html

"Our guardians of justice are worried about manipulated photographs being presented as true photographic evidence. The man sitting between two naked ladies claims he has been 'framed', that he was never there. It must, he says, be a composite - made using the latest digital technology with the intent of discrediting him. Or is it? We can look for clues. Does the lighting of the man match that of the girls on either side of him? Are the nose shadows all cast in the same direction? Is there an unnatural mixture of soft- and hard-light in the same picture? Are there signs of some of the subjects having been cut out and superimposed? Does the colour and tonality of all the subjects match? Can we find originals from which the composite has been made up? This is how we begin to judge whether a suspect photograph is real or not. We look for anomalies."

[DarkPhenyx]

38. However it gets harder and harder to spot the fakes.

With the development of ditital process it became too easy to spot the optical fakes. Now we have digital fakery.

[babzilla]

43. same as it ever was

The only thing we can learn from this is that the time when you could believe what you see is long gone.

There never was such a time.

Many posters have pointed out anomolies in the various versions of this specific example, using digital means. The more sophisticated the fakery, the more sophisticated the means of debunkery.

One thing is true, people will believe what they want to believe.

[DarkPhenyx]

45. True far too often...

...which we have seen here.

Some of us are at least willing to wait and find out what the official report says. That always gives me hope.

Unfortunately even the official report won't convience some.

[babzilla]

51. what official report?

Who are the officials that have been charged to report? Is there really an investigation going on regarding this? Link?

on edit: Nevermind, I checked the marine times article. According to that article they are investigating whether the claim on the sign are true, not whether the photo has been manipulated.

Investigating officers have spoken with Boudreaux and are working to determine whether the claims on the sign are true and what, if any, charges to bring against him, Pool said. Investigation results were not expected to be released for another week or two, Marines Forces Reserve spokesman Capt. Patrick Kerr said April 8.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2810106.php

[DarkPhenyx]

64. That's the one.

This is also the report people are using to say "the Military hasn't said it isn't real." True enough, but also complete crap. THey have basically said "wait for the report, we won't comment before then".

[babzilla]

74. if they are investigating the claims on the sign

they have determined that the photo is real, through their preliminary investigations.

I look forward to your posting of the official report.

[DarkPhenyx]

77. Not necessarily.

It all part and parcel of the investigation. With something like this they are probably going after both leads at the same time. Even proving that the killing/rape didn't happen won't prove the sign is a fake. However proving the sign is fake they would still be require them to look into the killing/rape becasue of the nature of the charges. It's almost two completely seperate issues. There are probably two different teams looking into it. That would be my guess.

[babzilla]

90. according to your gut

is the sign fake (which one?) or the entire photo?

Since the marine in the photo has been identified as a real person, how can you support the idea that the original photo (whichever version it may be) is a bit of digital fakery?

Or are you proposing that all versions of the sign have been faked? If so, why hasn't the "real" version of the sign which states something like "we heart liberation" been making the rounds? Hopefully one of the many investigative teams will unearth that one.

Proving that it is an authentic photo is merely a question of basic investigative work. IE interviewing the parties involved, discovering which version is the source file. A fairly easy case really.

[DarkPhenyx]

102. You hit it on the head.

My gut tells me that of the two top runners the "saved" photo is the real one. It could also be that both are fakes, in which case the real one has yet to surface. It is entirely possible that the kill/rape photo is real, and in that case I'm going for the "sick joke" interpretation. :shrug:

Hopefully the investigation will turn up the truth and it looks good for teh US. If it dosen't we just handed the enemy another recruiting poster child.

[gpandas]

67. everyone has an ox to gore nt

[theboss]

72. I still chuckled.....

I haven't quite figured out what the hubbub is. It was a joke in bad taste.

[DarkPhenyx]

82. Except it has become an international incident now.

Official inquiries and complaints. All that sort of thing.

[The Night Owl]

83. Please lock this thread for having a misleading title.

:wtf:

[Occulus]

91. this faked-photo issue

is actually only an example of the overall topic: how easy is it, really, to fake video and photos?

As it turns out, the answer is: very.

[babzilla]

98. seems more like a faked-topic issue

OP says:

*sadly shaking head* It's disturbing when you can't even trust your own eyes anymore.

Just want to ask that, next time we see an image, and it seems "designed" to be inflammatory that we step back and think for a sec. You might be exactly right. It may very well be "designed" for that purpose. Even our own people have an agenda. There are lot of people outside of that who are as equally willing to use that agenda against us as we are to use it against ourselves.

The real issue is that the source photo is inflammatory and some would like to introduce the red-herring of digital trickery to excuse the fact that one of our troops thought that it would be funny to exploit the goodwill of the Iraqi boys that posed with him.

Here, the faked-topic is introduced to establish that "even our own people have an agenda" and will resort to digital trickery in an effort to malign poor Lcpl Boudreaux.

[DarkPhenyx]

113. This is almost funny.

Yet again personal attacks and attrubuting evil and dark purposes to little ole me. I always find it fascinating when things get to this stage. IT can be piss yourself funny to watch folks falling over themselves to speak ill of me once it gets started.

[Occulus]

126. Oh, I understand your whole point

we can no longer trust what we see and hear on TV and in the news. Wow, color me stunned. What's amazing is how easy and accessible these techniques have become, which unless I'm really missing something, was the point of this whole thread.

Seriously, go the the Alias|Wavefront website and take a look at what Maya can do. It's totally shocking when the software is competantly used.

[DarkPhenyx]

106. What's misleading about it?

Please explain.

[babzilla]

115. the fact that photo manipulation is something new

and your claim that photo manipulation is impossible to debunk in these "modern times".

[DarkPhenyx]

116. Where did i say impossible?

Please point out where I said "impossible" so that I can correct myself. I also don't think I said it was something completely new. Jsut that it is now more prevalent and easier to do. I'll have to go look for that too. Please point where I said it was new too. That would be a big help.

Thanks Much! :)

[babzilla]

129. impossible is shorthand for:

NO, I'm not going to offer definitive proof either way as to the veracity of the pic. No matter what any of us say some are going to believe one thing, and some another.

Here is where you claim that is is completely new:

The only thing we can learn from this is that the time when you could believe what you see is long gone. In this modern day and age not only can pictures lie to you they can be made to lie.

I guess in this modern age of internet forums you just can't believe what the poster's motivations are.

[DarkPhenyx]

130. well, your intrepretation of the first line...

...is completely wrong. That would be the point where I was saying that this thread wasn't going to be proving or disproving the veracity of the pic. Which you will notice we haven't, and that I was trying to avoid letting the discussion of same from taking over the thread. I failed in that unfortunately. The topic I was striving for was much more interesting in my opinion.

As for the second line your intrepreation is also off. It meant only what I said, that the era mentioned is gone. Has been for a long time. Which would, by default, mean that it isn't anything new, just that it is getting more pronounced.

[babzilla]

131. so what is the real lesson of this "international incident" again?

I guess we will have to wait for the official report, and even then some cranky leftists won't believe it. Darn it all.

[DarkPhenyx]

132. This is true, jsut as some cranky rightists...

...won't belive it either. Basically this means that a subset of humanity we call the cranky people won't believe it. I think that's called reality.

The real lesson that we are learning from this is that yes, we really can't even believe what we see now. Even if it comes from our side.

[babzilla]

136. Exactly what I thought your lesson was

"The real lesson that we are learning from this is that yes, we really can't even believe what we see now. Even if it comes from our side."

The only thing to believe in, is the fact that we can't really believe in what we see.

Its unfortunate that this philosophy leaves us to an unending infinity of naval-gazing with no hope of ever knowing anything. I guess its best that way.

ETA: nothing to see here, move along -- "the real lesson".