To illustrate my point above, here's the rocket and an iso of the skyline and some people. You can see the same artifacting around them as around the rocket. I actually would have been more suspicious of a "clean" image of the rocket.
Posted on 05/29/2007 7:14:58 PM PDT by nckerr
The Seattle Times ran this as their "Photo of the Day". What's wrong with this picture?
(Excerpt) Read more at mypetjawa.mu.nu ...
Besides the New Orleans beer guy in the foreground, the Ft. Lauderdale Ritz-Carlton in the background, and the titanium dildo falling from the sky, it looks pretty real to me.
Don’t forget the tourist guy on top of the WTC just before the plane hit.
Pallywood, IMHO. Could be a real photo, with a lucky fast speed camera, but judging from past Islamic attempts to paint the Joooos as murders, Im a skeptic.
Here is a photo from “Defense Industry Daily”.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_AIM-9X_Flight_lg.jpg
yitbos
Any time you have a compressed photo, such as a jpeg, you are going to have artifacts around objects, especially when you have a “solid” background color broken by a foreground object. That’s an effect of the the compression trying to reconcile the interface between object and background and find the most efficient way to present them.
Also, those suckers are travelling pretty fast. It’s entirely plausible for it to cover the distance shown in a fraction of a second. I’d say the photographer got off a lucky shot in capturing the incoming rocket.
I love exposing fauxtography, but I think this might be the real thing.
Why bother doctoring something when the facts are not in dispute? Or are you saying the second photo has a fake explosion on it?
Omigosh, the Israelis blew off their legs and they are still trying to run away.
To illustrate my point above, here's the rocket and an iso of the skyline and some people. You can see the same artifacting around them as around the rocket. I actually would have been more suspicious of a "clean" image of the rocket.
Is the MSM...
a. gullible
or
b. complicit
Is there any other alternative?
Did you also not the fact that the people in the photo don’t seem to have any feet.
Someone photoshopped the people into the picture and cut off their feet when they did it.
It is blatantly obvious in the second photo after the “explosion”.
I have to disagree there. It looks like they're running through soft ground with some kind of grass or grain stubble, so the feet could easily be lost, as they are in the first pic. Also, the shadows are too good to be faked, especially if, as you contend, the editor cut off their feet.
It is indeed possible to capture an incoming missile with digital photography these days, with ultra fast shutter speeds. I actually have a shot of a shell leaving the barrel of one of the guns on the USS Wisconsin, so it is very possible in my view.
My vote is, lucky shot, staged aftermath.
As to why there were at least two photogs where a missile just happened to land, think the other way around. It makes sense that the photogs were covering something that the IAF was also interested in and wanted to "take care of". If the media was covering it, it's a good bet the Israelis had a reason to attack it.
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.