FBI releases Photoshopped image of the bomber behind 8 year old that was killed.

Originally posted by 2ndFUTURE
reply to post by Cabalis

 

I'll make it easy for YOU. Where in the large crowd photo is that grey side of the building in front of his nose that you only see in the cropped photo. There is no logical correlation to that color and shape in the bottom photo..

That grey part? That's actually the wall next to the red and white square which is behind his head in the uncropped photo.

reply to post by Cabalis


Yes I see the differences. A few frames at most. Enough for the one woman to close her hands about 4 inches in a clap and the woman you speak of to turn her head the same 4 inches.

Still doesn't account for the other missing entities in the photo. Everything moved in miniscule amounts in minimal frames, yet there are some people that are completely gone. That is simply unexplainable.

reply to post by Cabalis


No that doesn't come close to matching

Originally posted by TheNewRevolution
reply to post by Cabalis

 

Yes I see the differences. A few frames at most. Enough for the one woman to close her hands about 4 inches in a clap and the woman you speak of to turn her head the same 4 inches.

Still doesn't account for the other missing entities in the photo. Everything moved in miniscule amounts in minimal frames, yet there are some people that are completely gone. That is simply unexplainable.

It depends on how fast people are walking. Try to take a picture of a sporting event with the sport setting on, you'll capture some, but not all (and they are moving much much faster).

reply to post by Cabalis

Nowhere NEAR a good enough explanation for the VAST differences in the photos. Try again please.

Originally posted by 2ndFUTURE
reply to post by Cabalis

 

No that doesn't come close to matching

Wow, now I think you're just being intentionally argumentative. You refuse to view these photos without any bias and you will always see what you want to see. If Papa Smurf was in the picture and everyone could see him you would argue that he wasn't.

Originally posted by jjsr420
reply to post by Cabalis

 

Nowhere NEAR a good enough explanation for the VAST differences in the photos. Try again please.

Wrong. Use common sense.

I -was- using common sense. From what I can see, and ENTIRE PERSON dissappeared between one photo, and the next.

Also, using "burst mode" takes several pictures/second right?

Originally posted by TheNewRevolution
reply to post by Cabalis

 

Still doesn't account for the other missing entities in the photo. Everything moved in miniscule amounts in minimal frames, yet there are some people that are completely gone. That is simply unexplainable.

Hmmm...tho you say it is unexplainable, and hey maybe you are right...right?

I am still going to try and explain it anyways...here goes.

In any two pictures separated by any amount of time, any moving object is going to move. From milliseconds, to minutes, to hours, to days- If something is moving faster it will leave frame or enter frame sooner and appear to be moving longer distances than slower objects. If something is moving slower, it will enter frame or leave frame later or appear to move shorter distances than faster objects.

You are saying that the slower people in the pics have not moved as much as the faster people...and that fits my theory above. So what ya think? Explained?

If not...I guess we can just say "wait people don't move in real life! This is photoshoped!", but I sorta joined this site to find truth...so I'm gunna assume "people move".

MM

Originally posted by jjsr420
I -was- using common sense. From what I can see, and ENTIRE PERSON dissappeared between one photo, and the next.

Also, using "burst mode" takes several pictures/second right?

edit on 19-4-2013 by jjsr420 because: asking a quesiton

OMG. Have you ever taken a photo with a camera using burst mode??? That CAN and WILL happen depending on how fast the subject is moving.

Originally posted by jjsr420
I -was- using common sense. From what I can see, and ENTIRE PERSON dissappeared between one photo, and the next.

Also, using "burst mode" takes several pictures/second right?

edit on 19-4-2013 by jjsr420 because: asking a quesiton

Yes it does and people move. Sometimes briskly. I have to use that setting to capture my one year old when he's crawling around and my 7 year old stepson. Half the time they are out of the frame they move so quick.

Actually no, i'm not a photographer, that's why i'm asking. Instead of berating me, why not answer my question?

I'm on the fence on this one. Not sure what to think.

reply to post by jjsr420


I agree totally!!!! Wow!!!! Fox News is already calling them jihadis ..... The false lies they're spreading is ridiculous when you're awake and know what's going on.....

reply to post by tracehd1

Wha'd I say that you're relying too? I'm confused lol.

Originally posted by jjsr420
I'm on the fence on this one. Not sure what to think.

I can tell...I can't tell you what to think. But, I can tell you what I think.

In all my years of photoshoping and taking pictures with digital/optical eyes. Nothing here smells of photo-minipulation, and the internet is now crawling will dozens and dozens of hoax claims, pranks and plain stupidity right now.

Seeing as people leave frame in countless "sets of images" in the history of photography, I'm assuming this is one of the following..."Hoax, prank or stupidity"...honestly tho, I can't tell you what one...cus the simple answer to this question is so "plain to understand" it reeks of all three possibilities being the case.

A big hoax-prank created by stupid people.

I could be wrong tho. I mean heck, maybe they photoshoped a dude in a crowd, but then accidently moved individuals in a crowd. Or maybe the photo-shopper accidently dragged and dropped someone onto an invisible layer and hit save...right? I dunno man...DENY IGNORANCE at all costs bro.

Cus if the game is confusing anyone now, those people are screwed when this gets really complex.

MM

Originally posted by jjsr420
Actually no, i'm not a photographer, that's why i'm asking. Instead of berating me, why not answer my question?

I apologize for being short. Here I took the cropped image into photoshop lowered the opacity and placed it in relation to where the red square is in the uncropped photo to show how much people moved between frames (and it could have been more than one frame of movement).

I think if anything, the photographer moved. Maybe took a step to his/her left.

reply to post by Cabalis

Thanks alot. I can see what you're talking about now. It makes good sense. So basically what i'm getting is this:

Example (btw).
If someone is using burst mode and say, me, for example, is running, but others in the picture are standing still, or moving slower. I may be in one picture, and, due to my rate of speed, not be in the very next frame? (even if it was taken like a tenth of a second after the 1st?)

reply to post by Cabalis


LOL don't be ridiculous. If that were his true position but the camera angle had changed then the camera angle would have change on his face as well as the women in front. If he simply moved within the frame, then his chin and hat wouldn't be touching the heads of both girls in front of him in the exact same position in BOTH photos.