London Bombers Photo doctored

[Don1]

Look at the rail. It makes no sense. His arm appears behind the rail. Yet, he is a couple of feet in front of the rail. And it is the BOTTOM rail. There are other anomalies as well.



More info at:
http://www.legitgov.org/cctv_image_of_uk_suspects_240705.html

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Wow

good eye.

[Don1]

4. My thoughts exactly.

"Wow"

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Don1]

3. That makes less sense.

Why would the British government release a photo that they wanted to appear doctored?

Do they have a death wish against a revolution seeking legitimacy in government??

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KurtNYC]

9. But the photo is widely published

so this one either matches or varies from the rest. It should be obvious.

Looking for the same photo as published by a major source...

EDIT: here is the BBC version:


from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4689739.stm#

It is strange looking. The guy in the white hat is in such a position that we don't see his legs, his face or his reflection (as we can vaguely on the wet ground in front of the other three). If you were going to put someone in that photo then that is the position where you wouldn't have to worry about creating the reflection. The color of what appears to be his left sleeve is consistent as it goes behind the third rail. But if the photo is doctored one would think they would be VERY thorough and this appears to be an amateurish mistake or just a visual paradox.

[Don1]

17. Exactly.

This is the photo. Follow the links. You can compare to "other" photos. I say "other," because they are the same.

[Richard Steele]

18. I just looked around for a few minutes; it seems to be the same everywhere

And blowing it up 4x shows alot more "anomalies" than just the guy in the white hat.

It's possible that ALL of them were shopped.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RebelOne]

22. That's what it looks like to me.

[frankly_fedup2]

28. I'm not saying it couldn't have been changed in some way; however,

that is what it looks like to me . . . someone coming up the steps. Also, you can see the tip of his white shoe behind the guy in the middle of the photo.

I have a mystery right here before our very own eyes that no one has mentioned. Why is it that wood chuck keeps posting but his total number of posts are staying at 13? Does our posts not increase until we sign off? I don't know, it may be the latter; however, wood chuck's postings are not increasing his/her number of posts.

Nothing personal wood chuck. I have just not noticed this before when someone posts. Maybe one of the moderators could comment on this? By the way wood chuck, welcome to DU. :hi:

[Don1]

36. It might be

because wood chuck keeps deleting his posts for some reason. Perhaps, once deleted, they no longer count in the total number of posts...

[truth2power]

37. It's confusing to follow the thread of this discussion

with those deleted posts. Just asking. It seems, from the replies, that Woodchuck isn't saying anything too inflammatory.

P.S. I noticed, way back before I hit 1000, that my post count didn't increase within the same thread. IIRC

[Don1]

43. Actually.

Look, I am a rational person and I admit it when I am wrong. Based on THIS photo which has the colors ever so slightly lighter, it is much clearer now, that the arm/leg behind the rail is probably not part of the man's body. It seems more likely that it is the background staircase.

Still, though, there are some minor issues, such as the rail blending in with his face. You can see that when you zoom in. Also, the guy way to the right has a very blurred face.

The problems that remain are minor. I am not going to advocate that the picture is doctored, though it is still theoretically possible.

A much bigger tragedy is probably the Brazilian guy that got shot.

[Don1]

16. I DID get your point.

This is the government-released photo. I already said that.

[YDogg]

5. Strange stuff ...

... I don't know what to make of that. I've fiddled with Photoshop enough to know that it would be easy to paste something in to an image like this, but I wonder whether this is just one of a series of known frames? Has a video version been released that shows the four moving?

[Don1]

7. I haven't heard of any such video.

It seems like frames, too, would tend not to have this sort of effect.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Don1]

13. Please show a link.

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. Looks fine to me, after looking really really close

The guy has something in his hand, perhaps a ticket. Anyway, his left arm is folded at the elbow or his clothing is bunched up and it looks like his arm should be straight down, although it isn't it's in front of his body. We can see the railing from behind, as it should be.

All the other apparent strangeness there is just the quality of the image and moving subjects being caught on a very cheap, low res camera - along with our own "Rorschach" tendencies to make something of nothing.

[Don1]

12. Then...

how do you explain the part of him that is behind the rail?

and what about the rail and his head?

[kevsand]

19. There isn't any part of him behind the rail.

Therefore, there is nothing to explain. What you are seeing is the dark area behind him, and your eye is assuming that it is part of him, when it is not.

Not sure what you mean about his head. Looks to be in front of the rail to me.

[Don1]

35. Zoom in on head. n/t

[kevsand]

38. I did.

What has been described as an anomaly with his head looks like a standard video artifact to me. I see these linear effects all the time in low res video. Sometimes it's a limitation of the hardware, but frequently it is some kind of by-product of the way that analog video inherently works, i.e. by breaking everything into horizontal lines. I'm sure that any reasonably well qualified video tech could tell us why.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. LOL!!!

The "anomaly" that they supposedly cite would actually be more DIFFICULT to achieve in photoshop than just superimposing his picture!!! This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[Don1]

15. Actually.

No, it wouldn't. It would be equally simple in both. (They are talking about superimposing in photoshop, which is incredibly simple).

And this is a distraction from the main point anyway. Choose a method. Superimpose or use photo shop. The anomaly still need to be explained.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. There is no anomaly.

You are seeing things.

[johnaries]

23. OK, then how do you explain the reflection in the building behind them of

the guy going in the door, the guy behind him, but no reflection of a guy in a white hat?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. Edit: I was wrong.

It isn't a mirror at all. It's a goddamn STAIRCASE. The reason there's no reflection is because it's a fucking STAIRCASE.

[Gormy Cuss]

40. I see the reflection of the white capped individual

The reflective surface seems to be more light absorbing than a standard mirror (perhaps shaded glass?) The white capped individual is the one on the right in the reflection. The guy in front of him reads only as a vague blur slightly above white cap as if he is nearly aligned with white cap.

I make no comment on whether the photo has been doctored -- not my area of expertise.

[ArkDem]

14. I had no idea that it was sick.

[Sean Reynolds]

24. That's not his arm behind the rail.

I think it's something totally unconnected with the guy in the white hat. It looks like his arms are folded, rather than his left arm hanging down. That black you see behind him is probably just a reflection of something in the puddles from the recent rain fall.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. AHA!

But there was NO RAIN in Luton on the day in question! Columbo solves another one!

[OKthatsIT]

27. Another guy has smugging on the right, too

The guy in the white shite on the right. I brought the image into photoshop for closer examination and there's 'finger tool' smugging along his arm ad the pole.

[Don1]

34. Wow.

Can you post an image with a finger tool smudging for comparison?

[OKthatsIT]

29. more than that...look loser at the man on the RIGHT.

http://saveearthnow.blogspot.com/

The reflection on the wet pavement is a pole...even the man's shoes, very white shoes..but no reflection. Look at the smugging alog the edge of his arm and the street pole.

[Don1]

33. Good points.

His leg looks very unusual, too.

[negativenihil]

30. here is a good link on this pic...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/podpeopletwo.html

*shrug* decide for yourself.

[Don1]

32. It does not have to be the arm.

It could be the leg. It certainly is not the background, though, behind the railing. That would be an extraordinary coincidence.

Furthermore, what about the head/rail anomaly?

And this has nothing to do with trying to hinder Rove-Gate.

It's a UK photo. Mostly, Brits should be all over this.

[kevsand]

39. I have been able to independently duplicate the analysis

described at "whatreallyhappened." All it requires is a very simple contrast shift in almost any graphics package to see that his arm is bent, not straight, and that it's not his leg, either. In fact, the color of the background behind the bottom rail exactly matches the color of the background from areas above. As to the head/rail, see my post upthread.

[The Night Owl]

31. The man in the white cap seems unnaturally tilted...

The man in the white cap seems unnaturally tilted, as though he were about to fall over. I've tried to draw a naturalistic silhouette of the man so I could see where his legs should be, but I can't do it. Nothing seems to fit. It seems that some of the man's left leg should be visible behind the left side of the man in front of him, but it isn't.

Very peculiar photo.

I challenge anyone to draw a convincing outline of the man in the white cap.

[Don1]

45. Yes.

And you have an excellent point about comparing the outline of the face to the outline of the hat. Then, the rail almost seems to get into the face, too.

However, this area is much smaller than the original claim about an arm/leg. It is possible that this could be an artifact of the jpg creation. Jpgs are lossy and actually alter pictures.

I think that it would be a good experiment for skeptics to take up your challenge. Draw an hypothetical outline. Then, follow up with jpg compression to see if there are some settings which could have put the rail into the face.

It's hard to say what is what. Science and rationality should be used for analysis and not hand-waving, right?

[theboss]

41. It looks normal to me

Though after staring at it for five minutes, I could see the outline of a giraffe on the wall.

[truebrit71]

42. I call bullshit......

..I am a card-carrying member of the tinfoil hat club, but I HIGHLY doubt this has been faked...

What I am more interested in finding out is how it is that there were terrorist practice drills going on that day, in the EXACT locations where the bombs went off, and why in the world these guys would use TIMERS if the intention was to blow themselves up.....

[Don1]

44. I take it back.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1954656&mesg_id=1962584