Any photo/video experts? Help me debunk 'London bombers picture manipulation'

Juan C · 07-28-2005, 08:24 AM

On another forum, a guy who's very keen on any 'unorthodox' stuff, has posted this:

Was a "Bomber" Superimposed?

Of course, the people who say that have no expertise whatsoever in the field of digital video or graphics. But I'd like an expert opinion on whether their claims have any substantive merit.

Joseph DeMartino · 07-28-2005, 08:46 AM

Oooh, I see it's time to buy more stock in "Tin-Foil Hats'R'Us".

Let the lunacy begin!

I'm no expert on photography, digital or otherwise, but I know enough about low-res TV images to know that you can't analyse them the way you would a 35mm print. Even without knowing that much your "unorthodox" correspondent is clearly an example of the "check brain and logic at the door, pick on one tiny anomaly and build huge nit-wit theory" school of conspiracy "thinking".

1. Why would you doctor a still frame to add one out of four suspects to a shot? What would be the point? Are the other three "real"? If not, where are the "flaws" in their images?

2. Why do photo manipulation at all when you can just as easily stage a real picture with actors dressed and made-up to resemble the terrorists? It isn't like any of these pictures are clear enough to make a positive ID of these guys. You could do perfect fakes and not leave any traces for brilliant internet detectives to discover.

3. Didn't the media also get video clips of this same footage? Granted a newspaper can only print stills, and then will probably select only one or two in order to save space, but presumably somebody has also seen the full video. Or was this guy added and blended, pixel by pixel, to the video footage, too?

This only proves that not every nutjob in the world expresses himself with explosives.

Regards,

Joe

Dave Poehlman · 07-28-2005, 08:46 AM

I'm no expert... but I can see how someone could jump to the conclusion that it's been tampered with. But I think it's just the way the lighting on the suspect's cheekbone lines up with the rail and the square way his sleeve or backpack is hanging that makes it look out of place. I mean, if I were to tamper with an image to implicate someone in a high-profile crime such as this, I wouldn't leave a bar overlapping the suspect's face. That's a no brainer.

You be the judge:

Joseph DeMartino · 07-28-2005, 09:00 AM

BTW, it is obvious even in the blow-up that the supposed "smoking gun" arm is not in front of the railing. The fact that the dark material of the man's jacket is close to the color of the background/shadow hides the fact that his elbow is bent (hand probably in pocket) in the larger picture, but in the close-up this is quite obvious. And Dave is probably right about the face thing - although it could equally be that poorly calibrated video equipment caused the light line to "bend" and strech across the image. Does everybody remember doing the white and black level adjustment on an analog set with Video Essentials and/or Avia?

Regards,

Joe

Juan C · 07-28-2005, 09:25 AM

Thanks, pals. I thought so.

Quote:

Even without knowing that much your "unorthodox" correspondent is clearly an example of the "check brain and logic at the door, pick on one tiny anomaly and build huge nit-wit theory" school of conspiracy "thinking".

Yeah, that'd be the guy.

Every week he posts about one or two major government conspiracies and coverups.

**HTF Ads**

Rob Gardiner · 07-28-2005, 12:14 PM

I don't understand the claim made by the conspiracy theorist -- if the suspect was allegedly superimposed onto the picture, why would his image appear behind items in the existing photograph?

Jeff Gatie · 07-28-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

I don't understand the claim made by the conspiracy theorist -- if the suspect was allegedly superimposed onto the picture, why would his image appear behind items in the existing photograph?

Maybe the existing photo was superimposed over his photo... Yeah, that's it. Maybe by the same guy that I saw in the pictures of the plane that never hit the Pentagon. Now, to figure out where I've seen that face before...Oh Yeah! I remember! That was the mysterious face on Mars (where we actually landed a spacecraft, even thought our trip to the much closer Moon was a complete hoax).

Coincidence? I don't think so...

MarkHastings · 07-28-2005, 12:40 PM

You don't have to even be a digital photo expert to know this isn't a manipulation. The thing is, if it's WAS his arm, wouldn't that mean that his arm is like 5 feet long? Human physics would dictate that his wrist would be at his knees if that were his arm!!!

As Dave describes, his arm is bent. The dark area (that looks like his arm) is something behind the railing.

Quote:

I know enough about low-res TV images to know that you can't analyse them the way you would a 35mm print.

LOL - I know, the photo doesn't show the guys face, so that must mean he's a robot!

Quote:

I don't understand the claim made by the conspiracy theorist -- if the suspect was allegedly superimposed onto the picture, why would his image appear behind items in the existing photograph?

Yeah, you'd think the government would be able to hire 'reputable' Photoshop artists.

Jeff Gatie · 07-28-2005, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Yeah, you'd think the government would be able to hire 'reputable' Photoshop artists.

Yeah, the people that claim these "conspiracies" exist are always uncovering some obvious "clue", like the rock in the moon landing photo that supposedly is a "prop" because it has red writing on it. If a government is so secretive and so experienced in fooling the people that it can fake an entire moon landing; rocket launch, lander separation, lunar surface gravity, etc., don't you think the photos that show red writing on a rock would get filtered out from the press release?