The camera never lies...

First topic message reminder :



Picture released of woman victim of Somalian Muslim murderer in Russell Square...







Anyone recognise the background...?

Why is the wall she is leaning on out of line...?

Anyone see a background cloud overlap a building...?



Now for the close up pic that is doing the rounds...




All looks reasonably ok at quick glance...


But here's another version with more brightness...!!!







Zoom in on face and facial features detail...!!!


But of course... 'the camera never lies'... does it...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... I'm just saying what I'm seeing after taking the time to actually have a good look at what I'm being shown...


It's not paranoid to look closely at things... but it is gullible to believe everything you you are told/shown without question...

Tommy but is what you are seeing in your mind?

How many others agree with you here on the holocaust picture and again why would anyone even photoshop that?
Again there has to be a reason.
Like as a Isaid with the recent murder that they would make her out to look as best as possible.
I really am at a loss how you would even do that with people starving in a concentration camp
So is it possible you read badly into some pictures and wrongly?>

Original Quill wrote:To be fair everyone, tommy did start a thread, in Misc. section, about photos...not the underlying story of the wife a a psychology professor from Florida State University, who was stabbed to death in London.  It doesn't have the feel of an oblique attack on Muslims, or anything else.  He seems to have a hobby, and that's looking at photos very closely, or...looking for flaws and falsehoods.

But I do think, tommy, there has been a pretty substantial rebuttal of your slant on this photo.

Green from me for first bit...!


As for last bit... I wouldn't call a couple of lame excuses a 'substantial rebuttal'...

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... I'm just saying what I'm seeing after taking the time to actually have a good look at what I'm being shown...


It's not paranoid to look closely at things... but it is gullible to believe everything you you are told/shown without question...

Tommy but is what you are seeing in your mind?

How many others agree with you here on the holocaust picture and again why would anyone even photoshop that?
Again there has to be a reason.
Like as a Isaid with the recent murder that they would make her out to look as best as possible.
I really am at a loss how you would even do that with people starving in a concentration camp
So is it possible you read badly into some pictures and wrongly?>

Didge... I have taken the time to have a close look at the detail of some of the pictures I'm being shown... and I have pointed out the anomalies I have seen...


I am not commenting on the subject matter or context of any pictures... I am commenting on the actual visual quality of pictures and on the questionable inconsistencies/anomalies that I have seen in some of them...


That is all.


I think it's interesting... if you don't think it is interesting and/or don't want to see what I'm saying about any pictures... then just keep away from this thread!!


I will not comment on these issues in any other thread... I will post here about anything I notice in future...


So can no longer be accused of disrupting threads...


And all those who don't want to know what I may be saying about pics can simply keep out of this one...


Everyone is a winner!!!

Tommy I have failed to see anything of value in your claim and I have looked closely and enlarged the picture.
There is absolutely none
So I now question your vision and why else nobody else sees this?
I even agreed with you on the saddam picture, so I am not being biased and like I say even enlarged this and have no idea what on earth you get the belief on this.

Again though there has to be a motive why any photo will be doctored

You offer none or any evidence to back up your claim on the photo

All the best

Maybe your vision is impaired...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Maybe your vision is impaired...?

So it was impaired when I agreed with you on the saddam picture then?

No problem

I can live with that

What you have failed to do is two fold


One have countless people share and agree its out of place

Nobody has, so I have to question your eyesight, or paranoia in seeing things

Two that you have again failed to even provid a reason why anyone would doctored such an old photo of concentration camp victims.

Please explain that, as unless you do, then your claim has even less of a bases and has to be down to what ever drug you must be on and down to hulicinations

Tommy Monk wrote:

Picture released of woman victim of Somalian Muslim murderer in Russell Square...







Anyone recognise the background...?

Why is the wall she is leaning on out of line...?

Anyone see a background cloud overlap a building...?



Now for the close up pic that is doing the rounds...




All looks reasonably ok at quick glance...


But here's another version with more brightness...!!!







Zoom in on face and facial features detail...!!!


But of course... 'the camera never lies'... does it...!!!???

I agree that there appears to be something not quite right about this photo, Tommy. It's obviously an amateur pic released to the media, probably by either the family or the police, but the depth-of-field is quite remarkable in the enlargement.

The relatively clear detail in the texture of the foreground masonry wall and that of the building features, such as windows, obviously several hundred yards away mean that from an optical point of view, it can only have been taken using a good quality lens in good light conditions and at an aperture setting of f16...maybe f22.

Focal length? Maybe 75mm or 80mm given the lack of any visible distortion in the subject's facial features which would have been slightly flattened by a shorter lens, particularly a wide angle one of under the old standard amateur photographic lens of 50 or 55mm.

Darkroom or Photoshop manipulation? Maybe...though I can't think of a reason for doing it unless the original is a print "tweaked" by the photographer (almost certainly family) in the darkroom if film, or on the computer if digital.

Interesting. Made me cast my deteriorating memory back to my days as a pretty good amateur who loved sloshing about in D&P chemicals almost as much as taking photos, of which my avatar is an example (taken with a 300mm telephoto, I assure you...that guy was giving me a pretty good hint that I was getting too close!

Interesting me Lord, as nobody even doubted that photo had been, but and its a big but.
Can you share your expreince on this photo which Tommy reckons also have been doctored?

He stated the following

Tommy Monk wrote:Op picture...
Why is it that one of the people in the front has had his arm replaced by the mid section of one of the people at the back...!?
And... why don't all of the feet and legs line up properly with the faces shown above...!?

Do you agree?

... Didge... in that pic of liberated prisoners on your thread that I commented on... I was just pointing out something I noticed about the picture itself... not about the subject matter... and not in any way denying the horrors of ww2...


If you select that pic and select view image... then enlarge it a bit... look at the front row of men... from right you left as you are looking at the image... I think it was the second man in I was talking about... look at HIS RIGHT ARM (arm to the left as you are looking at pic)... the shoulder bit and hand appear to be showing... but the elbow bit and bit above and below seem to have vanished and are 'overlapped' by a bit of someone who is supposed to be standing some distance behind him...

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... I'm just saying what I'm seeing after taking the time to actually have a good look at what I'm being shown...


It's not paranoid to look closely at things... but it is gullible to believe everything you you are told/shown without question...

It's stupid to question everything you are shown/told without having good reason to, or being able to suggest what the truth is or why someone is lying.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... I'm just saying what I'm seeing after taking the time to actually have a good look at what I'm being shown...


It's not paranoid to look closely at things... but it is gullible to believe everything you you are told/shown without question...

It's stupid to question everything you are shown/told without having good reason to, or being able to suggest what the truth is or why someone is lying.

Validating the authenticity and truth of things through question is never a stupid thing to do... and always a good reason to question things...


However... it is stupid to believe everything you are shown/told without question...


If you never question anything then you will never know for sure what is true or not...


And if you don't try to validate truth through question... how can you ever know if someone is lying...?


The truth always stands up to scrutiny and is never afraid of question... in fact... the truth welcomes question so as to be able to validate authenticity and firm belief in the truth!!!

Red stripe from someone who disagrees with truth and would rather have lies being believed without question!

Original Quill wrote:

The gun has a lead hanging out the bottom of it so looks like one from a gaming console... plus the baby looks added into picture... if you look at shadow of baby head... don't look right.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The gun has a lead hanging out the bottom of it so looks like one from a gaming console... plus the baby looks added into picture... if you look at shadow of baby head... don't look right.

That looks to be the shadow of a crease in the blanket, not a lead.  If it were a lead it would most likely be centered.

Clearly there was photo lighting of some sort, as the blanket shows such distinct shadowing. Plus, mom is curiously in the dark.  So the shade around the head could be a light centered on babe.  But it does look unusual.

That's not a crease in the blanket - it's much too dark and solid for a shadow

Yea, and those fingers are not the right size for the baby, and let's face it, the woman's face must have been added, because no sick bitch would smile at a baby chewing on the muzzle of a gun would they!!!!

I dunno  Sassy.
There are a couple of wacko nut jobs on here and elsewhere.
Trump and extreme far righters advocate guns for all.

Sorry Andy, I was being sarcastic lol.

sassy wrote:Sorry Andy, I was being sarcastic lol.

Now that you mention it, the baby's fingers are a bit too large.  And eds, you're right...that's probably a lanyard coming out of the butt end of the pistol handle.  I've seen .45s with just that type of lanyard and it clips on to an eye in the aft portion of the handle, just like that in the picture.  http://ads.midwayusa.com/product/412040/blackhawk-tactical-pistol-lanyard-coiled-single-swivel-black?cm_mmc=pf_ci_google-_-Shooting+-+Slings-_-BLACKHAWK!-_-412040&gclid=COy65tWr1c4CFUqRfgodRWcCig Here's the US Marine Corps version:



And Bee, those boobs have gotta be photoshopped.

Perhaps they're not her boobs quill but another two baby heads?

eddie wrote:Perhaps they're not her boobs quill but another two baby heads?

Nah...not enough hair.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Perhaps they're not her boobs quill but another two baby heads?

Nah...not enough hair.

Hahahahahaha two bald beauts

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Perhaps they're not her boobs quill but another two baby heads?

Nah...not enough hair.

Says who?