Faked Photo of Beirut...

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

How many dead kid pics would it take, wait.... let me rephrase, how many dead Lebanese kids would it take for people to recognize the war crimes?

Did you read the article? You should. You should also watch the Pallywood video and ask yourself just how much you're being manipulated. If the west was caught making as much shit up as the Palestinian side... EVERYTHING would be discounted as BS. Why do the Palestinians get a pass on that?

Did you read the human rights watch PDF? If you go to their site they're critical of both sides, as they should be. And I don't give anyone a pass for passing off bogus material as real. But the fact remains, regardless of a handfull of doctored photos, that hundreds of thousands of Lebanese civilians have been killed due to Israeli war crimes.
And for the record, the west does make up a lot of shit. See "lead up to the Iraq war" for a recent example.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Yep. Remember that statue of Saddam that got pulled down? It seemed like a huge crowd of cheering native Iraqis clamoring to pull it down. Turned out it was a very small crowd (some creative camera work made it look bigger) in a square that had been sealed off by US military. They chose one directly across from the hotel that US journalists were staying in, sealed it off, then admitted some Iraqi exiles the US had flown in for the occasion. US troops, of course, then pulled the statue down.

But it sure made for some great front pages!

Thanks for reminding me. Do a search for "Bush" and "whatever it takes" and "doctored".
It also makes Bush's stance against cloning ring just a little hollow
Aww hell.....I'll make it easy for you. Click here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/27/22442/878

Ha ha. Thanks for the reminder.
WASHINGTON - President Bush's campaign acknowledged on
Thursday that a television ad depicting soldiers listening to Bush speak had
been doctored so that some of the faces of the soldiers appear more than once.
Released five days before Election Day, the ad was called, "Whatever It Takes"
and had been touted by Bush advisers as a personal message from the president
talking about the war on terror.

It depicts Bush talking of his meetings with family members of fallen soldiers and saying the "hardest decision"
he faced was the one to send soldiers into battle.

It then shows clips of people apparently listening to the president, including a crowd of soldiers. But some
of the faces appear more than once in the image, which flashes across the screen as Bush vows to
"never relent in defending America, whatever it takes."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>How many times have we in the US been told by the White
>House how wonderfully things are going in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Yep. Remember that statue of Saddam that got pulled down? It seemed like a huge crowd of cheering native Iraqis clamoring to pull it down. Turned out it was a very small crowd (some creative camera work made it look bigger) in a square that had been sealed off by US military. They chose one directly across from the hotel that US journalists were staying in, sealed it off, then admitted some Iraqi exiles the US had flown in for the occasion. US troops, of course, then pulled the statue down.

But it sure made for some great front pages!

Rubbish, there was a shot of the whole scene live that lasted many minutes with numerous angles (or at least zoom factors). There was no missleading impression as to the size of the crowd.

[dorbie 0]

You're confused, a political campaign is not a news gathering organization.

[billvon 3,107]

>Rubbish, there was a shot of the whole scene live that lasted many
> minutes with numerous angles (or at least zoom factors). There was
> no missleading impression as to the size of the crowd.

See attached.

[Trent 0]

Quote

But the fact remains, regardless of a handfull of doctored photos, that hundreds of thousands of Lebanese civilians have been killed due to Israeli war crimes.

Sayeth whom? "Hundreds of thousands"? Are you sure about that number? Does it come from reports like the "40 people died in the zionist bombing... ooops, I meant 1 person died."?

Oh, hello again!

[dorbie 0]

Quote

I don't understand why everyone is getting so worked up about propaganda. EVERY nation does it. EVERY ONE.

This is not about nations, it's about the people employed as newsgatherers. When you start drawing that distinction you'll understand what is wrong with this.

Even stone cold facts from the US are viewed with extreme skepticism and spun negatively by Reuters et. al. while flagrant propaganda from Pallywood etc. is swallowed up and stuck on the front page and we even get excuses and spin when they're caught red handed.

Quote

The biggest problem is not the other side's propaganda, it's when you start believing your own propaganda.

The biggest problem here is spindoctors on the political left are perfectly happy to excuse completely unacceptable and broken system because it fits their agenda.

[dorbie 0]

Your own attachments refute your claim and support what I said. That doesn't even address your other claims but since this is about news gathering and not what the US does or doesn't orchestrate it's besides the point.

[billvon 3,107]

>Your own attachments refute your claim and support what I said.

Fair enough.

If it's that easy to fool people like yourself, I expect Hezbollah's deceptions will find a ready audience as well.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

But the fact remains, regardless of a handfull of doctored photos, that hundreds of thousands of Lebanese civilians have been killed due to Israeli war crimes.

Sayeth whom? "Hundreds of thousands"? Are you sure about that number? Does it come from reports like the "40 people died in the zionist bombing... ooops, I meant 1 person died."?

Nope, sorry. My bad. I was thinking one thing and typing another. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced but I don't know if the civilian death total is over a thousand yet.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>Your own attachments refute your claim and support what I said.

Fair enough.

If it's that easy to fool people like yourself, I expect Hezbollah's deceptions will find a ready audience as well.

Bill I saw the feed live like most other people, all of those shots are from that same feed, so peopel knew exactly what was going on, you're just revising history. You WANT to be fooled, or are happy for others to be fooled as long as it sways them to your view. You're excusing eggergious misconduct and broken systems by equating it with events that didn't even happen.

[kallend 2,146]

Propaganda gets nowhere until some media organization disseminates it. In the end, all propaganda is distributed by news organizations. At least Reuters admitted it and fired the guy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Trent 0]

The Statue3 attachment looked about like the size of the crowd I remember seeing on TV. The first attachment looks like the statue is gone and crowd's dispersed. The third is a zoom that shows the side of the "event" that had less people on it. I don't see much deception really. Maybe some crazy right-wing photojournalist photoshopped a bunch more people into something you remember seeing. It never looked like thousands of people when it aired anyway.

Oh, hello again!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

>Your own attachments refute your claim and support what I said.

Fair enough.

If it's that easy to fool people like yourself, I expect Hezbollah's deceptions will find a ready audience as well.

Bill I saw the feed live like most other people, all of those shots are from that same feed, so peopel knew exactly what was going on, you're just revising history. You WANT to be fooled, or are happy for others to be fooled as long as it sways them to your view. You're excusing eggergious misconduct and broken systems by equating it with events that didn't even happen.

The shots were the shots but we were NOT told how the whole event had been orchestrated to look the way it did.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Your own attachments refute your claim and support what I said.

Fair enough.

If it's that easy to fool people like yourself, I expect Hezbollah's deceptions will find a ready audience as well.

Bill I saw the feed live like most other people, all of those shots are from that same feed, so peopel knew exactly what was going on, you're just revising history. You WANT to be fooled, or are happy for others to be fooled as long as it sways them to your view. You're excusing eggergious misconduct and broken systems by equating it with events that didn't even happen.

The shots were the shots but we were NOT told how the whole event had been orchestrated to look the way it did.

That's an unsupported claim by the left but even if it were supported there still a difference between disseminating an apparently spontaneous event and participating in the orchestration which is happening NOW in Pallywood and even by editors.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

The shots were the shots but we were NOT told how the whole event had been orchestrated to look the way it did.

Imagine the "orchestration" needed for this shot of Beirut! It's panoramic by the way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/panorama/2006/07/20/PA2006072001249.html

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Propaganda gets nowhere until some media organization disseminates it. In the end, all propaganda is distributed by news organizations. At least Reuters admitted it and fired the guy.

There's a difference between honest dissemination and creation. One utterly impeaches the news organization. This is not just one guy, you're ignoring a lot of links here to spin this.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Propaganda gets nowhere until some media organization disseminates it. In the end, all propaganda is distributed by news organizations. At least Reuters admitted it and fired the guy.

There's a difference between honest dissemination and creation. One utterly impeaches the news organization. This is not just one guy, you're ignoring a lot of links here to spin this.

Tell us about the picture of the marines planting the flag on Iwo Jima.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

The shots were the shots but we were NOT told how the whole event had been orchestrated to look the way it did.

Imagine the "orchestration" needed for this shot of Beirut! It's panoramic by the way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/panorama/2006/07/20/PA2006072001249.html

I see the viewpoint of someone standing on what used to be a building until it was struck directly by a bomb. The five or so
surrounding buildings were likely pummeled with debris and have sustained quite a bit of damage, but appear to be structurally in tact. Debris from this explosion has landed in the streets up to a couple blocks away. I don't really see how this amounts to, "rubble is all that remains of much of Beirut's southern suburbs."

Credit goes to the photographer, though, for figuring out that if you stand exactly at ground zero and look all around you, you'll get the worst-case perspective of the damage.

Also keep in mind, Hezbollah was in control of this area, and allowed reporters only into this one neighborhood to take photographs. I wonder how this particular neighborhood was selected.

[billvon 3,107]

>I don't really see how this amounts to, "rubble is all that remains
>of much of Beirut's southern suburbs."

For a good overview of what Harat looked like on July 22 (a few bombing campaigns ago) check out:

http://www.digitalglobe.com/images/qb/beirut_harat_july22_2006_dgwm.jpg

Shows several city blocks about half levelled. Shouldn't be suprising; that's what the IDF said they were doing.

[champu 1]

Quote

Shows several city blocks about half levelled. Shouldn't be suprising; that's what the IDF said they were doing.

The damage dealt to Lebanon by IDF artillery and airstrikes has been extensive, orders of magnitude over what the short/medium range rockets have done to northern Israel. I was commenting on this journalist's caption as it related to the photograph.

When I go out on a freefly jump to shoot stills, I use the action program on my camera. I like taking a few shots of every one thing I want a photo of. The people I often jump with, myself included, aren't that good at freeflying so I usually end up getting a good shot that looks like a really solid point surrounded by a shot or two on either side that would indicate it was a bit of a combat dock.

Obviously I'm not going to parade around the combat images. I'm going to focus on the one that looked really good. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that as that's what photos are for, to capture a moment in time. However, if I write a caption to go with this cherry picked photo that says, "So and so banging out points on a training jump" well then I'm still full of shit, even if the photo is legitimate.

Battlefield photographers are there to get photos that make their point. If they didn't feel strongly about their subject material, why in hell would they go into harms way to photograph it? They may take a hundred or a thousand photos of a neighborhood that was struck by a bomb and pick the one that makes it look as much like a complete hell-hole as possible. That's understandable. But if, under that cherry-picked photo, the caption reads, "This neighborhood lies completely in ruins from relentless airstrikes" well then they're still full of shit, even if the photo is legitimate.

[billvon 3,107]

>But if, under that cherry-picked photo, the caption reads,
> "This neighborhood lies completely in ruins from relentless airstrikes"
>well then they're still full of shit, even if the photo is legitimate.

That's why I posted the satellite picture - so people can decide for themselves how severe the damage is.

Still, I have to think that if someone posted "What's with the hyperbole? 99% of Manhattan is fine!" on September 12, 2001, they'd have been crucified here. The better part of several city blocks in Lebanon were wiped out; by any definition, the destruction is pretty extensive. (And again, that should suprise no one, since that what both sides have been reporting.)

[champu 1]

Quote

That's why I posted the satellite picture - so people can decide for themselves how severe the damage is.

Still, I have to think that if someone posted "What's with the hyperbole? 99% of Manhattan is fine!" on September 12, 2001, they'd have been crucified here. The better part of several city blocks in Lebanon were wiped out; by any definition, the destruction is pretty extensive. (And again, that should suprise no one, since that what both sides have been reporting.)

After the 9/11 attacks, reporters flocked as close as possible to the epicenter to get photos and (I don't specifically recall but certainly don't doubt) claim that lower Manhattan lay in ruins.

That was hyperbolic then and this is hyperbolic now.

Satellite imagery is somewhere on the spectrum between photos from ground zero and simply reading something dry like "out of foo buildings or bar area, baz% are severely damaged and qux% are completely destroyed."

I guess we can only arrive... ...again... ...at the conclusion that we should take all news sources, photographic or otherwise, with a grain of salt as they will always have their biases.

Photoshopping extra smoke into an image may not "reveal a bias" so much as it reveals the laziness of the photographer who didn't want to get off his butt and move to another location so he can get a photo where the smoke filled more of his frame.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

When used, Rockets are far more harmful to the immediate surroundings of the firing point than field guns. As such, there's a greater requirement to fire from open places.

More harmful than the concussion wave from an artillery battery firing? In a built-up area... that would be pretty devastating as well. Firing rockets from empty buildings and rooftops is completely feasible.

Quote

Further, the rockets & launchers used by Hezb'Allah aren't the short-range man portable things. They're the bloody big truck mounted things. Size equals range.

Didn't we already resolve that? Katyushas CAN be launched from man-mobile platforms. Hezbollah HAS these resources. I can go back and dig up more pics of Hezbollah with these launchers again if I have to.

Even if Hezbollah only had the truck mounted launchers, do you think they'd be getting away with having them out in the fields all the time? I wonder where they go to hide? Certainly hiding hundreds of launchers out in open fields would be detrimental to their ability to launch hundreds into Israel daily.

Sorry bro...but a 6 foot long, 95 lb rocket is NOT going to be man-launched... I think you may be mistaking the Katyusha with some other rocket.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Trent 0]

Quote

Sorry bro...but a 6 foot long, 95 lb rocket is NOT going to be man-launched... I think you may be mistaking the Katyusha with some other rocket.

Didn't say man-launched... but portable. Certainly Katyushas are not SOLELY launched from the giant truck platforms. I guess if they are, then the pictures here are more "journalistic license." The single rocket setup looks like 2 guys could carry it and launch it from a pretty small area... like urban centers, rooftops, out windows, etc.

http://www.cedarland.org/501.html

Just scroll down a bit, and you'll see.

Oh, hello again!