In light of my experience
in digital manipulation, I am quite convinced that the Luton picture
below is not -- unfortunately -- half as fake as we'd all like it to be.
First of all,
let's keep in
mind that we are looking at a very poor quality image. This is probably
due to the original low definition of the CCTV, plus some serious
compression, possibly optimization, that must have taken place once in
The image above, with numbers
on it, is the picture published by wagnews.
The one below it's an "original,"
linked by the same site, which I have re sampled myself to a similar
proportion. Further down you have the same enlargement, uncut.
Below in red are the notes from the wagnews site, listing the alleged
anomalies. In black are my comments on each of such anomalies. It is
obvious that the main issue rotates around the white-capped kid and the
"bar on his face" question. But all together the minor issues also seem
to send the same message to me.
1 - The
Haversack. A crude job, and it shows. In full
honesty, I don't see a job at all. If he's talking about the white spot
to the left of the face, it has the same exact density/luminosity of
any other pothole filled with water behind/around the person. If he's
talking about the apparent "short face" instead, it's most likely a
poor/missing scan-line from the TV system. Otherwise, I can't see
anything wrong in that area at all.
2 - The
Half Leg. How does this person walk at all? It looks to me that the "missing leg" may
be partially covered by the top edge of the metal frame attached to the
pole in right foreground. But in any case, the lack of definition and
the wet cement are plenty to justify that weird effect, as the lower
leg may well be bent behind the higher part, possibly a foot dragging
at the moment of the shot.
In any case, my point is that when you import a human figure, you don't
do that one limb at the time. Unless you are "rebuilding" a person from
scratch, with different body parts (I did attach a
"donor" arm to a
girl once, but there was a reason for it: She needed to lean on
the sail), you cut out the whole figure, then just drop it
where it belongs. This is why I don't see a possibly missing leg as a
clue to some heavy compositing anyway.
Let's cut to the chase now.
3 - The Iron Face.
The bar should be behind. Is there a face? 4 -
The Bar Split. The two ends of the crossbar don't line up. 5 -
The Split Two. Same problem as above. Must be a twist in space. 7 -
The Ghost Bar. Some of this crossbar should be behind the person.
My enlargement is possibly a little better than the numbered picture
above, and it does make some difference. What appears to be a vertical
bar [#2] seems to me but a backpack strap, or maybe a lighter, vertical
stripe on the garment itself. In any case, it's not straight. And the
infamous "bar on the face" [#1] seems instead to be the face itself --
the left cheek, most likely. What I see there, from top to bottom, is
a) The white cap; b) Its visor; c) Possibly dark glasses, or the shadow
from the visor itself; d) Some puffy cheeks; e) The darkness of the
garment around the neck.
As for the horizontal bar below the number "2" -- the one that seems to
run "in front" of the figure -- it likely runs either below the
backpack, or below the bent elbow, before disappearing behind the
backpack of the kid in FG.
Let's put it this way. For what we can see, the entire area of the
image may have been rebuilt from different parts, but -- relatively
speaking -- those parts seem all in perfect harmony between one another
Regardless of the above, I have a major objection to that being a
superimposed figure, for only an idiot would choose to lay that figure
BEHIND another existing figure. There is nothing more challenging, more
difficult -- and more unnecessary, in this case -- than to insert a
figure behind anything else in foreground.
Finally, there's another clue that tells me that the kid DOES stand
where he seems to be standing, and that is perspective. Look at the
reflection of his figure in the shiny wall/surface behind/above him;
then consider the apparent short distance between the railing and that
wall itself (look at floor level, to the kid's right, where
the railing meets the cement), and now "triangulate" the kid's head,
its reflection in the wall above him, and your POV. Were the kid to be
behind that railing, the distance between his head and the head's
reflection would be minimal. The more the kid were to move toward us
instead, and away from the rail, the more that distance would increase,
because of the vertical "triangulation"/change in perspective.
One last-minute addition -- it just hit me: If you
wanted to superimpose the railing to the kid, that bar may end up in
front of the face Ok, unless you cleared it properly. But if you are
superimposing the kid to the bar, how in heavens can the bar end up
covering his face, unless you came in with a faceless kid to begin with?
The Face Blur. Face has
been darkened and blurred -like the others. True, it does seem
so, or it's just bad compression, with similar pixels. In any case,
that would indicate at best a photo-retouch on an existing picture,
which is the exact opposite to the alleged photo-montage we are talking
8 - The
Something. Another anomalous square area. It must be something. Something, yes, it must be indeed. But it
doesn't look particularly square to me at all, given the low-definition
of the picture, which means high pixelage compression. Sixteen similar
pixels can easily turn into one flat, meaningless square in this kind
-The Clown Foot. What a large foot -with a halo effect all around. The foot does look big, but it seems to
me the effect from the pants being caught between the heel and the back
of the shoe.
While the "halo effect" seems more the result from some "sharpness"
having been applied to the image than anything else. Notice how all
four figures have a similar one, each to their left side only. The halo
from a cut-out picture instead goes all around the figure, and it's
also usually much
thinner. (In the Schwartznegger article, look at the raised hands
in the pictures toward the end).
10 - The Floater.
Someone was a bit too heavy with the white reflection. If
only a thin layer of water were present next to the foot, that is
exactly the kind of reflection I would expect in that situation, and
nothing less than that.
11 - The Peg Leg.
Must be a serious fracture. Also yet more halo effect. Same as in #9 above. Just the bent of the
jeans to me, and that sharpness effect again.
- The Shadow. Why wall shadow if the light comes from behind him. That's exactly why -- because it's him
casting that shadow on the wall. (This seems so obvious to me, I fear I
might have misunderstood the objection).
- The Square Nose. Must have walked into a door. Interesting eye
too. This is again,
most likely, some "pixels gone bad," due to the high compression/poor
definition of the image. And then again, even if it were a touch-up, it
has nothing to do with the alleged photo-montage the whole excitement
My conclusion, in practical terms, is that whether the pic a fake or
not, it's far too easy to debunk this claim. Is it still worth taking
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.
The section for the comments of our readers has been closed, because of many out-of-topics.
Now you can post your own comments into our Facebook page: www.facebook.com/uruknet
Warning: include(./share/share2.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/content/25/8427425/html/vhosts/uruknet/colonna-centrale-pagina-ansi.php on line 385
Warning: include(): Failed opening './share/share2.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/php5_6/lib/php') in /home/content/25/8427425/html/vhosts/uruknet/colonna-centrale-pagina-ansi.php on line 385
Uruknet receives daily many hacking attempts. To prevent this, we have 10 websites on 6 servers in different places.
So, if the website is slow or it does not answer, you can recall one of the other web sites: www.uruknet.info www.uruknet.de www.uruknet.biz www.uruknet.org.uk www.uruknet.com www.uruknet.org - www.uruknet.it www.uruknet.eu www.uruknet.net www.uruknet.web.at.it
:: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
:: We always mention the author and link the original site and page of every article.