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.