Skip to comments.AP captures Hezbollah setting up Photo Shoot for Reuters [Staging the Fauxtos]
Posted on 08/11/2006 11:47:13 AM PDT by TaxRelief
click here to read article
A Lebanese man carries the body of his relative during a funeral in Beirut August 9, 2006. REUTERS/Sharif Karim (LEBANON)
Call me cynical, but that kinda looks like a bag of clothes to me.
He would have also have had to find a way to wash the dolls face.
"PLANET OF THE APES" - Screenplay by Michael Wilson
ZAIUS: Secondly, if these 'tools' as you call them, are unidentified, why are they introduced as 'evidence' of anything?
ZIRA: (promptly) But there's the doll, sir.
CORNELIUS:(pointing) Right there. The human doll.
Zaius deigns to stoop and pick it up.
359 CLOSE ON DOLL - IN ZAIUS' HAND
It is only a porcelain fragment, but the head is intact, and it is unmistakably the form of a human child.
ZAIUS: What does this prove? My grand-daughter plays with human dolls.
360 FULL SHOT - THE EXCAVATION - INCLUDING TAYLOR
Exasperated, Zira turns to the man for confirmation.
ZIRA: Taylor! Tell him.
TAYLOR: He has a point. On my planet children often play with ape dolls.
Zaius idly tosses the doll to the ground near Nova. She picks it up, studies it.
361 GROUP SHOT - THE THREE APES
Cornelius tries again.
CORNELIUS: A doll alone proves nothing. True. But the doll was found beside the jawbone of a man -- and no trace of simian fossils has turned up in this deposit.
ZAIUS: Your conclusion is premature. Have you forgotten your Scripture? The Thirteenth Scroll? (quoting from memory) 'And Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden, and chained him to a tree, and the children made sport of him.'
CORNELIUS: (impatiently) No sir, I haven't forgotten.
ZAIUS: Well? For a time the ancients kept humans as household pets. Until the Lawgiver proved that man could not be tamed. Keep digging Cornelius. You'll find evidence of the master of this house: an ape.
(NOVA) is poking her finger inside the decapitated head of the doll. From it comes a distorted SOUND.
DOLL'S HEAD: Mamma! Mamma! Mamma!.
The apes stare at the doll in astonishment. Taylor snatches the doll from Nova, brandishes it at the astonished Zaius.
TAYLOR: Dr. Zaius! Would an ape make a human doll that talks?
Zaius looks at him, speechless. At that moment the CRACK of a distant rifle shot reverberates through the cavern. All present freeze, listening.
One problem with your theory: The time stamp of photo #3 is one day AFTER photo #1.
I'd expand that to say "Why you can't trust news reporters"
They have betrayed their profession and chose the wrong side in this conflict.
The media is brainless.
I do not mean any disrespect but do you know how much dust is created when you collapse a concrete structure [Remember 9/11]?
Those dolls would be covered in it if they were inside that building during it's collapse...and none would be in pristine condition.
A Lebanese woman wails after looking at the wreckage of her apartment, in a building, that was demolished by the Israeli attacks in southern Beirut July 22, 2006. REUTERS/Issam Kobeisi(LEBANON)
A Lebanese woman cries as she carries belongings she founded in the wreckage of her home that was targeted by the Israeli air strikes,in southern Beirut July 23, 2006. REUTERS/Issam Kobeisi (LEBANON)
Aren't these the same photos that Adnan Hajj was accused of taking?
Pertinent and timely...
Bloggers Continue Search for Manipulated Photo Images from Lebanon
All due respect b ut you sir are lost. I think you are the one overthinking this thing. It is quite apparent that indeed the terrorist were[are] staging things for [in cooperation with] the Western Media.
Possibly. The diirection of travel itself is not conclusive. It could just as easily mean that he is picking his way to where he is going to place the props, or that he has gathered them up after the shoot. How would you explain the pristine cleanliness of these toys, especially's Minnie's black legs and ears and red dress? How does a toy end up in that spot after a bombing and building collapse with no dust on it without having been placed there after the fact?
Anyway, here is what I am saying about the possible progression of his movements:
Picks up pink and purple dolls.
Picks up Minnie Mouse.
Puts them in suitcase he brought (or found) for salvaging.
Mind you, I'm not saying it wasn't stage. Most of these heart-rending shots are to some extent.
But I just don't believe the photographers would have watched him unpack the bag and place the dolls. And even if they did, I doubt they'd be dumb enough to post the evidence.
This particular photographer seems to have a fondness for shots of people gathering up their belongings, if you search his name.
And your explantion for the pristine condition of fabric toyes that came through a structure collapse dust/smudge/anything free?
It's amazing that he was able to find all of the doll's body parts to put the doll back together. Thank God the dress was not ripped!
Brother please...you cannot be this overwhelmingly incompetent.
"How does a toy end up in that spot after a bombing and building collapse with no dust on it without having been placed there after the fact?"
He might have been looking around for things, picked them out of the rubble -- knocked the dust off and sat it down, and moved on.
Then came back to collect what he had found.
Again, I'm not saying it wasn't staged. But there could be a more sensible answer than that somebody went to the trouble to bring a suitcase full of toys to a photo shoot and didn't think to "age them" down as we say in the biz.
And I still don't think they would photo the guy taking the toys out of the suitcase, if that was the situation.
And to my eyes it looks like he is putting things in it. But that is just my subjective opinion, of course.
Mind you, I was one of the first to suggest that photo faking has been going on:
Was The Qana Massacre Staged By Hezbollah? | Sweetness & Light
More Media Overkill - From The AP In Baalbek | Sweetness & Light
Media Claimed White T-Shirt Guy Was Girls Father | Sweetness & Light
I just think we should try to be objective and keep some perspective.
(first person): One example given is the "sunset indicator" on a camera that can change sky colour. How is this different, the author asks. Simple -- in one case the individual photographer made a decision to alter the picture; in the other case any photographer using the same equipment would have gotten the same result. Ubiquity is the safeguard. If I have a regular digital camera, I am pretty confident that it will (relatively) accurately take pictures -- even if they are slightly different from reality, they are sold to so many people in so many contexts that specific image falsification biases would make no sense. In other words, non-person-generated alterations are made in advance of context and therefore are context-neutral; photographer-initiated alterations are made after the fact and therefore have a greater potential for manipulation. After all, some people might find a dark sky nefarious, others beautiful. So the automatic equipment is unlikely to be biased in one direction or the other. The camera is unlikely to have an agenda because it doesn't know the context. Even if you figure the camera company is engaged in a conspiracy, they can't conspire effectively without knowing the situation in advance. So their cameras won't know which direction to falsify. That's why we trust them more than the individual photographer.
High end digital cameras (as would be used by professional photojournalists) allow the pictures to be saved in RAW format. This means all the settings you can manipulate (contrast, type of light source, compression, filetype...) apart from shutter speed (and maybe aperature) are not locked. You can toggle between them on a computer.
Any REPUTABLE news agency would audit their photographers (at least when rampant manipulation is alledged and supported) and request the original RAW files (before compression, before settings are locked) for review. Same as saying "let me see your negatives".
(second person): I was under the impression that digital manipulation of imagery was commonplace. For example, the infamous "blacker O.J." was claimed not to be an attempt at manipulating public perception but rather a routine 'enhancement' of a photo for a magazine cover.
Just as the manipulation of Rush Limbaugh was "routine". It is a not so subtle attempt to tarnish the subject.
(second person): If it is profitable to manipulate, it will be done. Just as language is manipulated in the service of man and is never truly "neutral", so with imagery. And this is really nothing new. Matthew Brady 'staging' bodies at Antietam, the flag raising at Iwo Jima (it was the second flag),
The photo of the second flag raising at Iwo Jima was not staged. It was a larger flag than the first.
See post 117.
I think it is a fairly common trick among photojournalists to drop a doll into a bombed out environment. (this guy works for neither news agency, however, he's a separate participant).
I do not recall if the specific example I would like to cite was from a fictional film (like a Good Morning Vietnam) or a documentary on a particular photographer. I know there was a doll (that was boobytrapped) in Full Metal Jacket but that is not what I am recalling. This was someone discussing the craft.
Will that photo be airing on ABCDisney News?
Right, I got you. Tons of concrete, household items, bleeding humans, pets, food etc, etc collapse down in an explosion...but presto chango, Ahkmed shows up and happens to find overwhelmingly, exceptionally, inexplicably, impossibly pristine toys that only require a light dusting to be recovered and recycled for some other needy future terrorist.
I feel that.
/Am I talking to a DUmmy?
You are grasping at straws. The evidence speaks for itself, and if AP wanted to examine the entire sequence, they would have conclusive proof that these "toy shots" from Reuters are staged.
Now, put yourself in AP's position: Are they going to start a war by outing Reuters? Of course, I'm assuming that AP is not complicit.
"I think it is a fairly common trick among photojournalists to drop a doll into a bombed out environment."
I've certainly had my suspicions that's been going on. Especially given the proscription against having images of animals around the house in the Moslem religion. (Something I'm amazed nobody's brought up.) But I guess they might be as strict in Lebanon. Or maybe these were Christians or Druze.
As for the cleanliness of the dolls, and who knows where he found them? Maybe they were in something else. Maybe even in the house that is still standing to the left. Do you really think the poser and the photographer would be so stupid as to over look such a basic thing?
VaBthang4, check out my posting history if you think I'm from DU.
I'm simply saying the background of the shots suggest he may have come down from the hill (upstage) to the suitcase with the two dolls and picked up Minnie along the way.
"The evidence speaks for itself..."
No, it doesn't. And it actually hurts the cause to go off half cocked.
I said the same thing about the New York Times "dead man" photo caption, which turned out to be a simple mistake. (And the paper itself actually had the correct caption.)
I'm the last person to defend these people. For instance:
About That Times Missile Photo Caption | Sweetness & Light
But getting carried away doesn't help.
And the gentleman at EU Referendum, Richard North, seems to be saying the same thing these days. (After having himself been slightly burned re the time stamps.)
Look, no one debates that the toys are too clean. I doubt anyone here thinks it was not staged. However, I question whether the three photos are conclusive proof that he was getting them out of the suitcase and putting them around in these pictures.
Perhaps, he did put them around, and the suitcase picture is where he gathered them up afterward to use in another scene.
Really what caught my eye about it was that the suitcase is all ripped up. It looked to me like the suitcase may have been pulled from the rubble as something in which to put the toys. Dunno.
What I do believe, though, it is that it is staged.
So now that the AP knows we're onto Hezbollah's tricks, and the AP's willing participation in the Hezbolli's playacting, they're going to play it straight for once.
We're in agreement then.
Then, there's this little jewel from an obvious anti-semite, written to the editor of a small-town newspaper. Nevermind the factual errors, and this idiot's misstatement of facts; what is important is that he thinks the evil Joooooz are getting what they deserve:
"Israel, all the time it occupied the territories, could not disarm Hezbollah or destroy it.
How did it expect the Palestinian government to do it? It seems to me that invading another country over the taking of two soldiers prisoner is a bit excessive. From what I understand, there was a truce between the two until Israel made an incursion into Lebanon whereby two of their soldiers were taken prisoner.
What was Israel doing there? Perhaps creating the situation whereby they could try to justify what they are doing now?
Hezbollah and Israel hate each other. So while Israel has a right to defend itself, so does Hezbollah have the same right when being directly attacked.
I want Israelis to stop whining and crying about missiles flying into Israel. It's giving me an earache, for God's sake! It's a war, and they asked for it.
Because the Israelis are killing more civilians then Hezbollah, I have to conclude the aim is to kill more Arabs in a long-tried campaign of ethnic cleansing.
Israelis have to know they will never be able to take out Hezbollah, it's just never going to happen. Even if they could, another organization will step into its place.
The issue is Israel's dream of a greater Israel and the understandable Arab opposition. If you fail to understand the Arab opposition, you're probably a Christian Zionist and there is no hope for you. You, like the overly religious Jews and Muslims, are part of the problem. ..."
END OF QUOTE
And we thought it was only the DUers who are nuts.
I wonder where he got the nice suitcase and clothes if his house was destroyed.
Of course I do. What I find difficult to comprehend is how willfully stupid others choose to be.
Yes, we are, except to extent you think the suitcase picture is undeniable proof it was staged. I wish we had 1 or 2 more photos, I think it would completely clear it up.
Also, I disagree with the shaded analysis above. I think he picked up Minnie first, given his direction in picture number 2.
I think maybe the dolls were placed there before pics were taken. Then when Photogs got there, this guy's job was to go around looking like he was salvaging toys and putting them into that suitcase.
Dude, the NY Times was never right on that picture. They called him a body the first time. Then injured.
He wasn't injured, he laid down there. Look at his hat tucked under his arm. How do you fall and get hurt and have your hat tuck up under your arm magically?
Oh, and by the way, those dudes in the pics set that fire. You need fire to get nice smokey pictures. Tire dumps work really well.
Then they shill for the enemy -- and want our support... what chutzpah
"They called him a body the first time. Then injured."
Dude, you don't know what you are talking about.
The original caption (which ran with the photo) was that a rescuer was injured while....
The caption in their photo gallery was a quote from the mayor of Tyre talking about how dead bodies were still being recovered. It was a caption for another photo, misapplied.
Re: post 84, LOL! I was waiting for Looter Dude to show up. Green Helmet Guy got nothin' on him.
From the New York Times corrections page:
For the RecordDude.
A picture caption with an audio slide show on July 27 about an Israeli attack on a building in Tyre, Lebanon, imprecisely described the situation in the picture. The man pictured, who had been seen in previous images appearing to assist with the rescue effort, was injured during that rescue effort, not during the initial attack, and was not killed.
The correct description was this one, which appeared with that picture in the printed edition of The Times: After an Israeli airstrike destroyed a building in Tyre, Lebanon, yesterday, one man helped another who had fallen and was hurt. (Go to Interactive Feature)
HAHAHAHAH! Yep, that's what it is!
Israel -- 6.5 million
Yep. Those A-rabs better watch out; the Israeli genocide machine is on the move.
If "ethnic cleansing" is the Israelis' goal, they're going to need help from the Semite Tornado.
What's the AP symbol on this dwg?
Something something Associated Press Building?
A copyright mark for AP to be "proud" of?
Fox is now reporting that Olmert is ready to accept the U.N. resolution for a framework asking for a study to look into a possibility of debating some sort of policy that will lead to a strong diplomatic statement calling for a one-sided ceasefire, and the placing of some type of yet unnamed peacekeeping force in South Lebanon.
Israel doesn't need all those millions of Arabs surrounding them to get really serious about destroying their little enclave of democracy. They, like us, have enough enemies withing their own government to get the job done. Where is the military coup?
Where's David ben Gurion when you need him?
Memorize that guy's facial expression.
Threads like this and FR in general are just some of the reasons the MSM HATES the internet! Don't you know the MSM just CRINGES every time they are busted, and yet they continue to do this crap!!!!
Power to the Pajamahadeen!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.