Can photos be trusted? (FReerepublic mention!)

Popular Science ^ | September, 2005 | Steve Casimiro

[Past Your Eyes]

Can Photos Be Trusted? The web is crawling with jokes, hoaxes and more insidious fakes. Digital-image experts aim to develop foolproof detection tools, but until then, seeing is not believing

By Steve Casimiro

Related Articles: Can Photos Be Trusted? WEB EXCLUSIVE Can You Tell Which Photos Are Real?

Lance Corporal Ted "JOEY" Boudreaux Jr. was bored. It was the summer of 2003 in Iraq, the pause between the heavy lifting of the U.S. invasion and the turmoil of the insurgency, and you can joyride around the desert in a dusty Humvee only so often. Loitering at the back gate of his base, mingling with locals, Boudreaux says he scribbled "Welcome Marines" on a piece of cardboard and gave it to some kids, who then posed with him, smiling, for a snapshot. He e-mailed the picture to his mom, a cousin and a few friends, and he didn’t think about it again. Boredom moved on. That wasn’t the last of the photo, though. The image made its way to the Internet and fell into the hands of bloggers—Boudreaux says he doesn’t know how—except that the sign had been altered to say, "Lcpl Boudreaux killed my dad, then he knocked up my sister."

[rineaux]

so what did they name the baby? s/

[ozzysmom]

"Around the same time, another image popped up on the forums of the conservative Web site freerepublic.com. Now the sign read "Lcpl Boudreaux saved my dad, then he rescued my sister," and a debate raged. Other versions of the sign appeared—one was completely blank, apparently to show how easily a photo can be doctored, and another said "My dad blew himself up on a suicide bombing and all I got was this lousy sign."
___________________

Hey we were mentioned in the article!

[Shalom Israel]

snopes.com tries to give the impression that Lcpl Bordreaux is lying. It also squeezes in some other anti-military sentiments, though they're not too blatant.

[ozzysmom]

and this was also in the article:
"During the 2004 presidential election campaign, a potentially damning image proliferated on the Internet of a young John Kerry sharing a speaker’s platform with Jane Fonda during her "Hanoi Jane" period. The photo was eventually revealed to be a deft composite of two images, but who knows how many minds had turned against Kerry by then."
_____________
Because of the fake photo, it seems that no one will ever believe that there was a real photo of him with Fonda at an anti-war protest.

[Past Your Eyes]

"but who knows how many minds had turned against Kerry by then."

Obviously enough to get the job done.

Who knows how many minds were turned against W by all the photo tomfoolery that was used against him? I'm guessing the real photos and the real words of sKerry are what did him in.

[johnny7]

“The photo was eventually revealed to be a deft composite of two images, but who knows how many minds had turned against Kerry by then."

That was nothing compared to his testimony before Congress... calling Vietnam vets, rapists & murderer's... comparing them to Gengis Khan. Watching the replay of his 1971 Dick Cavett Show appearance had me ready to drop-kick my wide-screen.

[Cougar66]

what about the reuters fake 'bathroom' pic?

[Past Your Eyes]

"what about the reuters fake 'bathroom' pic?"

Refresh my memory on that, please.

[TomGuy]

During the 2004 presidential election campaign, a potentially damning image proliferated on the Internet of a young John Kerry sharing a speaker’s platform with Jane Fonda during her "Hanoi Jane" period. The photo was eventually revealed to be a deft composite of two images, but who knows how many minds had turned against Kerry by then.

Who would do such a thing?????

[I think I know. hehehe]

Even the recent Reuters photo of Bush's bathroom-break note is under scrutiny.

But, doctored images pre-date common computer use. A few decades ago, National Geographic was in hot water for altering a front cover image. IIRC, they moved a camel and rider closer in proximity to one of the Pyramids in Egypt. Their justification was that it eliminated some of the desert space but did not alter the intent of the photo (sort of sounds like Dan Rather's faxes, doesn't it). The conclusion by critics, however, was that the photo was doctored and published without such disclaimer, and thusly, NG and the photo/cover lost some credibility.

Photochoppers, in their attempts to be humorous, however, can do more damage than good. The Kerry-Fonda photochop is one example. Some big-time (as in NYT, IIRC) media picked up on the image and ran with it as being legit. When they had to issue a retraction, that clouded ALL future Kerry and Fonda images during the election cycle. One humorous action did cause damage to 'integrity'.

Many photochops intentionally include some overt exaggeration just to make sure some expert doesn't claim the image as real. Kerry, for example, riding an ostrich down a city street can hardly be misconstrued as being real.

An image obviously photochopped can be humor. An image photochopped with the obvious intent to deceive is another matter.

[AntiGuv]

[beckysueb]

snopes.com tries to give the impression that Lcpl Bordreaux is lying. It also squeezes in some other anti-military sentiments, though they're not too blatant.

I noticed that, too. Invasion? Joyride?

[Cougar66]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1781796,00.html

[beckysueb]

Who knows how many minds were turned against W by all the photo tomfoolery that was used against him?

And how many people actually believed the lies from Rather using the fake documents trying to nail GWB.

[Dustbunny]

My great grandmother always said "believe none that you read and half of what you see". Pictures posted on the web apparently fit into that category.

[Cougar66]

reuters already admitted there was some doctoring. They didnt want to say what really happened. There is no way those two different styles of writing are GWB'S.

[n230099]

So, back to the original question, "Can photos be trusted?". No!

[TomGuy]

When the Boudreaux photo was circulating, someone had set up a webpage on which you could type anything desired and it would show up on the cardboard sign. It even gave the option of saving the image with the new sign.

Similar websites have been created for other images that have signs. These websites allow the viewer to create their own wording.

[new cruelty]

Reminds me of this "picture"...

+ =

[NativeNewYorker]

In the Reuters scam, the hand is too young/perfect to be W's.

W is shown with a Sharpie marker in the other pictures taken at that event, and reportedly relies heavily on that particular writing instrument, pretty much to the exclusion of others.

The pencil in the doctored photo looks perfectly new, and not yet used.

Looks and smells just like the CBS memo scam.