"PIXEL MISMATCH" Syrian Nukes Video DOCTORED!

[kpete]

Syrian Nukes Pixel Drama?
Tuesday, Apr 29 2008, 11:39AM

As if the mysteries surrounding Israel's raid on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility and subsequent revelations about North Korean complicity in a reported cash-for-reactor deal were not cloak-and-dagger enough, Chris Nelson - the uber insider political newsletter scribe behind The Nelson Report and whose contacts in the national security establishment are stellar - reports the rumor that the video showed by the CIA to Capitol Hill lawmakers may have been "doctored."

Some are arguing that there is a "pixel mismatch." Arghhh... You have to be kidding!

Nelson points out that this should be easy to check, but the real issue here is not whether the video is completely fake (which I don't believe it is) but rather that the well has been badly poisoned before on false intel allegations and that the bar now is very high before presented data is trusted. Nelson also notes that the video ID of the so-called North Korea nuclear expert is wrong.

"You have to think the Administration didn't want to have experts in the room who might dare to ask tough questions", notes one disgruntled bar-ee, whom, we should note, said he did not believe the "pixel" mismatch rumor "because it would be so unbelievably stupid..."

The majority of our expert sources do say they feel that the video briefing can be accepted as conclusive that...assuming the photos are not a complete fabrication...the Syrian plant can now be said to definitely be a Yongbyon-type of nuclear facility.

But after that, consensus breaks down completely on whether it was a nascent bomb facility, a power station of some kind, or what.

One Congressional expert, after watching the video, comments "the very first line in the briefing is false...there's no way the plant was 'ready to be switched on', so you have to question the entire premise for the raid..."

more at:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/04/syrian_nukes_pi/#more

[alfredo]

1. Why am I not surprised.

[watrwefitinfor]

2. ..

[pinkpops]

3. Why anyone would accept photographs as evidence in this day and time

is beyond me.

[ColbertWatcher]

10. Wolf Blitzer disagrees with you...

[ColbertWatcher]

11. And they're making Condi mad...

[PATRICK]

4. The Big lie must

be obvious and stupid. It is a bully test of power not of evidence or argument. If you get beaten on a rigged simplicity like yellow cake then diabolically and professionally getting a better scam will only attract more attention, suspicion and ultimate meltdown. Also you have to go beyond your close stooges to real pros turned crooks. That loss of control, which also must be imperfect and the risks unknown to the idiots ordering the thing done, is unacceptable to a dictatorship like ours.

ALL of their argumentation is unbelievably phony. Big Lie at work. Easy, self-protected in the stooge shield of brute power and reinforced by the same from any scrutiny or consequence. To venture beyond that system- as they have upon occasion- has led to potential huge scandals and failures.(transportation of nukes story, test of nuke cloud discovery). You become vulnerable to people outside the circle like Plame, whistle blowers and agents from other governments and powers. Bush likes sleeping at night so he just makes sh*t up and if it doesn't work, tries again later- or justs lets loose and does stuff.

[kpete]

5. IMAGES at:

http://www.infowars.com/?p=1796



The lower part of the building, the annex, and the windows pointing south appear much sharper than the rest of the photo, suggesting that they were digitally improved.

Now compare this photograph of the site:

To this one:


The site looks like a rectangle in the first shot, but more like a square in the second shot. Huh?

http://www.infowars.com/?p=1796

[kpete]

6. another image discovered

4. Here is a link to a photo of the North Korean facility that the Syrian site was based on. Look at all the buildings surrounding it. The Syrian site was just one building.

[mod mom]

8. the PNAC agenda is in rush mode.

:mad:

[wildbilln864]

16. It absolutely is....

on a fast track! :kick:

[berni_mccoy]

13. That first photo is completely fake. The second two...

The difference in shape (rectangular vs. square) appears to be the effect of the angle of the shot. The top one is more of a direct, overhead shot, while the second one is clearly at a lower angle. They were also taken at different times of the day, even likely the time of year (the shadows are at very different angles).

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

14. The second shot is also more overhead than the first

a buildings apparent shape will change bepending on the angle youre looking at it from..

[kpete]

7. interesting comment

I am a professional illustrator, using Photoshop everyday. The top photo is obviously Photoshopped. The giveaways are the shadows- the 'hook" in the shadow of the front gable is rounded- this is a classic trace left by an inexpert use of the eraser tool set to a soft feather. Additionally, the shadow is the wrong shape, and is too simple. Further, the shadow on the shaded side of the structure is all the same value and hue. This is incorrect and is characteristic of invented structures with bad painting.

This image is heavily modified, and may be entirely fake. At the very least, someone tried to change it, and botched the job.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/04/syria-more-ques.html

[balantz]

20. The top photo is very fake looking to me.

I remember a pre-attack shot of the building here on DU last autumn and I seem to remember it looking much different. Do you have access to that photo?

[AzDar]

9. Kick...

:kick:

[ColbertWatcher]

12. Syria Denies Doctoring Nuclear Facility

Syria Denies Doctoring Nuclear Facility

[Joanne98]

21. lol

[gratuitous]

15. Oh come on, to believe that . . .

You'd have to think that a country would lie to justify a war crime, and we all know that can't happen. We're the good guys! We only torture when it's really, really necessary, and we don't violate other countries' borders on flimsy pretexts and after the fact justifications. And we don't sponsor countries that do do that, because they don't, so stop saying that.

[Senator]

17. Sorry, Mr. Bar-ee. But These Thugs Only Do "So Unbelievably Stupid"

Followed by "So Unbelievably Denied."

Then by, "So What?!?"

Impeachophobia breeds such flat-out, lunatic treachery.

Get thee to a Cranial-Rectoscopist -- and stop swallowing euphemedia newzproduct.

---

[Echo In Light]

18. K&R

[JHB]

19. "So unbelievably stupid"?

Sets my Bushie-sense a-tingling...

That's practically their calling card!

[mhoran]

22. Pixel Mismatch!

I know this is serious, but that's just plain funny. From his grave, even Orwell can't believe this shit!

[Ghost Dog]

23. So where are the satellite pictures of the site under construction?

Given that they claim to show photos taken on the ground at the site of construction before surrounding walls and concealing roof were added, one would expect that satellite surveillance photos would also exist.

(Edit to add: I refer to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ah6RmcewUM ).

[L. Coyote]

24. Distraction number #13,560. And WHY just now? The Pentagon Propaganda Scandal breaking!!

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO obvious!!!!!!!!!!!!

[populistdriven]

25. what a pathetic fraud

[Phred42]

26. Sorry Warmongers. you'll have to do better.

[defendandprotect]

27. We should all keep in mind that they are working very hard at creating

fraudulent documents/videos --- and will get better at it as they gain experience.

Remember the crap they issued a month or two ago about a false Iranian attack on our ship/wasn't that it?