May 29, 2007

Fauxtography? Palestinian Stringer Catches Israeli Missile In Flight
— Ace

Pardon to those who've sent me this link earlier. This has been going 'round the 'nets for a little bit, and, while few (if any) are calling this a proven fake, one does have to wonder about what sort of shutter speed one would need to catch a descending, screamingly-fast missile in flight.

In video (which has a much slower speed that cameras), even insects move too fast to be clearly caught, appearing instead as strange "rods" (which credulous people claim are alien visitors or something).

Only very high-speed cameras can catch the images of bullets in flight. While I don't think missiles are moving at the speed of a bullet, they are moving quite fast indeed, and I'm rather doubtful that a missile would appear as a missile at all even if caught on a film, rather than metallic streak.

This is by no means proven yet. (And for those idiots on the left: No one is claiming that a missile didn't hit; they're only questioning if this is a genuine photo.)

I'd like to hear from professional photographers about the shutter speed required to capture an image of a streaking missile in flight. There is no blur here whatsoever.

Notice what happens when we zoom in on the suspicious "missile:"

missile2.jpg

Eh, nevermind. It's obviously real. That's what missiles look like. The feathers and flag make them more aerodynamic.

Posted by: Ace at 01:10 PM | Comments (188)
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I'm no expert, just a casual picture taker. One thing I have found from trying to take action shots of multiple images, if the objects are moving at vastly different speeds I can only get one of the images in focus.

For example, taking a picture of my dog chasing a ball on the beach with other people moving around..dog in focus, people blurry. Maybe professional equipment fixes this but I would think a rocket would be a bit faster than your average Palestinian.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 29, 2007 01:21 PM (t+mja)

2 Looks more like a laser-guided bomb to me, not a "missile". I'm no photographic expert, but I don't see anything particularly out of the ordinary here.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 29, 2007 01:22 PM (tVbxd)

3 More of Mahmud Hams' work is described here.

Posted by: geoff at May 29, 2007 01:23 PM (I/w6Z)

4 Assuming it's a laser guided bomb and not a missile, wouldn't it still be moving pretty damn fast?

Posted by: Shivv at May 29, 2007 01:25 PM (v8h2M)

5 I'm pretty sure I saw this picture a few days ago, and there was no missile in it.

Posted by: Andrew at May 29, 2007 01:26 PM (S9O4a)

6 I always trust the news coming out of Palestine.  Especially when it concerns Israel.

Posted by: z ryan at May 29, 2007 01:27 PM (9Ml1C)

7 I hasten to add that I'm a fool, though, so don't take my word for it.

Posted by: Andrew at May 29, 2007 01:28 PM (S9O4a)

8 It looks like a lawn dart.  Those were banned for safety reasons you know.

Posted by: Scott at May 29, 2007 01:28 PM (FAHM2)

9 Speaking of which, did you know that science shows us that Jews are not people?

Posted by: z ryan at May 29, 2007 01:29 PM (9Ml1C)

10

This is by no means proven yet. But...


 


Only a matter of time until you retract this, too, Ace, nyaaaahh.


When will you learn?


Nyaaahh?


 


Posted by: stupid Edward G Robinson moonbat© at May 29, 2007 01:29 PM (s9M1a)

11 Those aren't Palestinians, they're Mexicans crossing into the US to get Z visas.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at May 29, 2007 01:32 PM (NaMO7)

12

It's obviously a photo of a new Palestinian track and field event: the explosive javelin.

Posted by: el greco at May 29, 2007 01:34 PM (lxb4k)

13

So, Ace, have you gotten around yet to apologizing to all those people you slandered when you made up all that stuff about the food shortage memo being fake?


Or have you at least expressed any remorse?


Posted by: -asx- at May 29, 2007 01:35 PM (haU2u)

14 If the moving object was far enough away it could be moving quite fast and still be captured.

Clearly, we can take a picture of the moon without a blur, even though we rotate at 1000 miles/hour.

Some combination of distance and relatively low rate of speed because its a guided bomb, not a missile, could be cause.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 29, 2007 01:36 PM (zxscs)

15 It's not that far away.  it impacts about sixty feet from the photographer's position, as the other photos show.

Posted by: ace at May 29, 2007 01:38 PM (+u1X0)

16 Another useless factoid I learned. Panning. If you want to stop action and remove any blur, you move the camera in the direction of the object you are trying to "stop" (to do this with really fast moving objects like say, oh I don't know, a rocket maybe, you need a tripod but let's not quibble). In other words, in order to remove any blur from this shot you would need to "pan" the camera in the same direction as the Palestinians <-- or the rocket \|/.

Seems plausible.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 29, 2007 01:42 PM (t+mja)

17

Or have you at least expressed any remorse?


Well, have you?


 


Posted by: stupid typical fucking moonbat© at May 29, 2007 01:44 PM (nR03/)

18 That must be one really, really huge missile for it to be far enough away to be perfectly in focus, yet cause this kind of panic.

Posted by: wiserbud at May 29, 2007 01:46 PM (hp0Gj)

19 Stop questioning stuff -- it makes lefties cry.

Posted by: Tom at May 29, 2007 01:46 PM (02oyd)

20 Hey flopping penis,
I'm looking forward to hearing your mea culpa regarding your intrepid " Hummelgate" investigation.
Keep on Wankin' !!!!

Posted by: timbob at May 29, 2007 01:52 PM (jlr9N)

21 I have no idea if it's real or not so I'll do what all the lefty trolls would do (wwtltd?)...wait for Juan Cole, Sir Pat Lang and Larry Super Spy Johnson to tell me what to think.

Posted by: Drew at May 29, 2007 01:54 PM (gNyUT)

Posted by: Jeff C at May 29, 2007 01:57 PM (pnLPw)

23 I'm with Andrew - I'm pretty sure I saw this photo without the missile last week.

Posted by: Jeff C at May 29, 2007 01:57 PM (pnLPw)

24 "Clearly, we can take a picture of the moon without a blur, even though we rotate at 1000 miles/hour."

Well, no shit. We can also look at the moon without it being blurry. Missiles? Not so much.

Posted by: skh.pcola at May 29, 2007 02:02 PM (GMrzO)

25

Adolpho


Thanks, I needed a laugh after wading through all the shit on the Greenwald thread. What a bunch of putzes (sp.) the lefties are since Rathergate. No sense of humor at all.


Posted by: mikeyslaw at May 29, 2007 02:04 PM (yrptY)

26
Posted by: -asx- at May 29, 2007 06:35 PM (haU2u)


Posted by: timbob at May 29, 2007 06:52 PM (jlr9N)


SQUAWK!  POLLY WANT A CRACKER!

Criminy.  Gleen's shock troops are annoying.

Posted by: Slublog at May 29, 2007 02:08 PM (HTo86)

27 I'm a lifelong Reagan Conservative. I was a longtime Ace of Spades reader but I can no longer trust anything he writes.

Posted by: AoS reader/C-Span caller at May 29, 2007 02:10 PM (nR03/)

28 Just a couple of quick points:

1) if that's a laser-guided bomb, then at this point in its brief life, it's in free-fall.  Its velocity will then be at or near terminal velocity for its shape.  I can't find a reference for the terminal velocity of a Paveway, but it seems at least plausible that it would be below the speed of sound. 

2) the speed of sound is about 340 m/sec at sea level.  Modern cameras can achieve shutter speeds of at least 1/1000 second.  At that shutter speed,  an object moving at Mach 1 will move about a third of a meter, or one foot, in the time that the photo is taken.  It's impossible to tell the weapon's distance from the shot, but it would have to be very close to show a motion blur if the shutter speed was 1/1000 or higher.

3) Note that neither the background nor the running people show any motion blur.  That indicates that the camera was being held steady, not panning, and the shutter speed was at least high enough to freeze humans at a dead run -- which means it was at least 1/250th second.  

4) On the other hand, IIRC the fastest still camera available can run about ten frames per second.  The bomb would be moving up to thirty-four meters between each pair of frames.  That suggests that (if the photo is genuine) the photographer was either very lucky or very good -- probably both -- to get a frame that had the bomb in it. 

In short, the fact that the bomb is in decent focus doesn't prove that the photo is fake.  But it does suggest that further investigation is warranted. 

Posted by: wolfwalker at May 29, 2007 02:20 PM (HQoXg)

29 No point in being a shit, skh.pcola.

It's a linear effect. You can take pictures of the shuttle, which is a damn missile - reaching 17,000 mph, with a telephoto - while panning. They can captured it with television cameras for quite a distance.

All I'm saying is there is a ratio of speed-distance-size that should be accounted for. Most commenters think it would be hard to fit a weapon like this in that "envelope", and they may be right.

But your comment was just stupid. And rude.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 29, 2007 02:20 PM (zxscs)

30 I'm a lifelong Reagan Conservative. I was a longtime Ace of Spades reader but I can no longer trust anything he writes.

Plus Ron Paul is the only reasonable 08 candidate for the GOP.

Posted by: Monica at May 29, 2007 02:22 PM (rFLG5)

31

Well, now that you mention it, Monica, Ron Paul is the last of the true Conservatives.


I long for the days before the Patriot Act, illegal wars, torture, the trashing of the Constituiton, devastating hurricanes, global warming, record deficits, and costly tax-cuts.


 


Posted by: AoS reader/C-Span caller at May 29, 2007 02:29 PM (nR03/)

32 Complete fake.
 
and yes the same picture was around earlier sans missile.
 
 

Posted by: lonetown at May 29, 2007 02:31 PM (4rdee)

33 That is possibly a laser guided bomb - but still, you can't hear those coming, why would people scatter and run? I think that's a splice job. Too bad, it would be a sweet pic if not.

Posted by: Someone other than Icus at May 29, 2007 02:35 PM (wmgz8)

34 I long for the days before the Patriot Act, illegal wars, torture, the
trashing of the Constituiton, devastating hurricanes, global warming,
record deficits, and costly tax-cuts.


Not to mention the single-bullet theory, the lunar landing hoax, Templar discovery of telluric currents and Communist subversion of our precious bodily fluids...

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 29, 2007 02:39 PM (tVbxd)

35 Not to mention the single-bullet theory, the lunar landing hoax,
Templar discovery of telluric currents and Communist subversion of our
precious bodily fluids...

I see you failed to mention the fluoridation of our drinking water.  They must have gotten to you already...

Posted by: Jake at May 29, 2007 02:42 PM (QXNRo)

36

Well, it looks like a mortar shell more than anything to me.  Or an RPG round.  But that boxy bit at the end makes me think of mortar, as RPGs don't exactly have big fins at the back.


A missile?  No.  A fake?  No, also.  Could very well be a projectile.  A very fast shutter speed could take that pic.  Any stringer worth his shit should be automatically set up to take fast pics.  Digital?  Almost definitely not, but I'm not an expert.  Cheap digital 100% no.


I guess the only thing to take from this is that it isn't some precise, laser guided projectile.  Look at it.  Guided ordinance have projections infront of the ordinance.  That projectile is obviously not guided. 


That means its something like a mortar round.  Might be a kassam, but I haven't seen once before its blown its load.  They (kassam) appear to be straight, not bulgy like this one.


And bulgy says shaped charge.  Like a RPG.  Mortars are shaped like that for aerodynamic reasons.  My guess is mortar.


Posted by: mcgurk at May 29, 2007 02:50 PM (ajbe7)

37

Sure, make me out to be teh crazy.


Alls I know is that planes weren't falling out of the sky and buildings weren't "melting" before BushCo, the neo-cons, and the neo-jews were in the White House.


Posted by: AoS reader/C-Span caller at May 29, 2007 02:51 PM (nR03/)

38 I have also seen this photo, sans missle, recently.  Forget shutter speeds, this photo was released within the last week without the missle.  Fake.

Posted by: MGCC at May 29, 2007 02:52 PM (5Tb7r)

39 Here's Mahmud Hams' story about the photo:

"The photographer Mahmoud Hams, of the AFP agency, had been taking
pictures of the Executive Force building because it had come under
rocket attack some 30 minutes earlier.

"As we were standing there, suddenly we heard the Israeli F-16 jets
fly over us. They made one pass and then another and next thing they
were firing two missiles," he told The Scotsman.


"I started taking photos the moment people started running and then as the rocket hit the ground, I hit the ground too.""

Looking at the picture sequence, it doesn't look like he hit the ground, since he has photos taken directly after impact.

Posted by: geoff at May 29, 2007 02:52 PM (I/w6Z)

40 Ron Paul is the last of the true Conservatives.

Ranking right up there with Gleen, et alia, and Saint Andrew the Perpetually Offended. I mean, since they are the only TRUE Scotsmen Conservatives. (Do they prefer sugar on their porridge or not? I forget...)

I long for the days before the Patriot Act, illegal wars, torture, the
trashing of the Constituiton, devastating hurricanes, global warming,
record deficits, and costly tax-cuts.

Well, hell, son, so do the rest of us. Now if you can only get those crazy moongod worshippers (who actually DO torture their captives) to leave the rest of the world alone, then we might be able to get back to those halcyon days of yore when our biggest problems were the President lying under oath, obstructing justice, influencing others to do the same and bombing aspirin factories to deflect criticism. (And we also need to thank him for putting it into the mind of junior high and elementary school students nation wide that there is nothing wrong with getting a blowjob from a subordinate. "It's just sex, after all.")

And that lameass "illegal wars" meme again? Maybe you will have the balls to answer, because I've never gotten an answer to the following question from anyone who says that. I won't be holding my breath, but here goes: Which laws were broken? Be specific.

And while you're at it, which portions of the "Constituiton" {sic} have been trashed, and in what ways? Again, be specific.

Posted by: Drumwaster at May 29, 2007 02:53 PM (K6dqa)

41

No Congessional declaration of war!!!


Habeus Corpus!!!


 


Reagan and Goldwater are spinning in their graves.


 


Posted by: AoS reader/C-Span caller at May 29, 2007 02:58 PM (nR03/)

42 You guys do realize that AoS Reader/C-Span caller is joking, right?

Posted by: Andrew at May 29, 2007 02:58 PM (S9O4a)

43 Alls I know is that planes weren't falling out of the sky and buildings
weren't "melting" before BushCo, the neo-cons, and the neo-jews were in
the White House.

Yeah, haven't you guys learned that Islamic Terrorism only started on January 20, 2001? Before McChimpyBurton had stol3n the Wh1+3 H0u53 in order to start his war of aggression against those peace-loving Muslims and Saddam "protector of kite-flying kids" Hussein, the world was so peaceful, it deserved the title of Garden of Eden II...

Get with the Neolib program, y'awl, and vote for Shrillary, becuz she's the ginyoowine article. In her words, "You don't have to fall in love, you just have to fall in line."

Posted by: Drumwaster at May 29, 2007 02:58 PM (K6dqa)

44

Admit it, Ace: you're just refusing to hear any bad news from Gaza.


 


Posted by: TallDave at May 29, 2007 02:59 PM (odS+4)

45 I voted for Reagan...twice!

Posted by: AoS reader/C-Span caller at May 29, 2007 03:00 PM (nR03/)

46 Mahmud Hams also won the Arab Journalism Award for photography this year for his moving picture of a dead Palestinian child. He was also shot, presumably by Israeli forces, a few years ago.

Posted by: geoff at May 29, 2007 03:03 PM (I/w6Z)

47

Wow, with lefty commenters this place is twice as fun!


I long for the days before devastating hurricanes.


Yes.  Remember back before the Earth formed, when there were no devastating hurricanes?  Good times.


Posted by: TallDave at May 29, 2007 03:04 PM (odS+4)

48 I used to faithfully hang on every word AoS reader/C-Span caller said.  But finding out he voted for Reagan-- twice-- and not a True Conservative in the mold of Robert Taft, I'm done with him.



Posted by: AoS reader reader/C-Span caller listener at May 29, 2007 03:05 PM (G3Urz)

49 You can find the original, uncropped photo here. Gives a better perspective on the distance.

Posted by: geoff at May 29, 2007 03:09 PM (I/w6Z)

50

Robert Taft?


lol


Posted by: AoS reader/C-Span caller at May 29, 2007 03:16 PM (q34NM)

51 The caption says its a missle but it's not. It's a bomb that falls only as fast as gravity pulls it. So the pic is probably real.

Posted by: Jason at May 29, 2007 03:18 PM (+HOzK)

52 On Ankle Biting Pundits, I had a lib tell me I wasn't a true conservative because I wasn't about preserving rainforests and such.


He was thinking of a conservationist.

Posted by: z ryan at May 29, 2007 03:18 PM (9Ml1C)

53 Oh yeah, and he held McCain up as an example of his "true conservative."

Posted by: z ryan at May 29, 2007 03:19 PM (9Ml1C)

54 "Not to mention the single-bullet theory"

Uh, you do mean the single-bullet fact, right? You do know it's a fact, don't you?

Oswald was the lone guman. Only a moron would say otherwise.

Posted by: Shawn at May 29, 2007 03:22 PM (g8G8Y)

55 Oops. That link doesn't take you to the right place. You can either search for "Mahmud Hams missile" at Getty Images, or you can go to my site, where I uploaded it for your convenience.

Posted by: geoff at May 29, 2007 03:23 PM (I/w6Z)

56

My understanding is that Israeli missiles pause about 100-200 feet above the ground before plummeting to the earth and killing people.  This increases the terror quotient among the Palestinians.  And if history has taught us nothing it's that the jews are all about teh terror.


My guess is the photographer caught the missile in mid-hover.


 


-


Posted by: BumperStickerist at May 29, 2007 03:23 PM (wieXQ)

57

Oswald was the lone guman.


That's what Chimpy McHitlerHalliburton wants us to believe.


Posted by: I'm Tom Cruise, and I know things at May 29, 2007 03:26 PM (47+Ys)

58

I took it with my PowerShot!


 


On AUTO!


Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 29, 2007 03:29 PM (FXakj)

59 I need more liberals to show up so they can tell me what a True Conservative looks like. Please! I need to hear the TRVTH!

Posted by: Xtianist Sheeple at May 29, 2007 03:30 PM (zZy28)

60 You can *see* a square of more pixelated sky around the missile.  cut and paste.  case closed.

Posted by: Cyfir at May 29, 2007 03:30 PM (cyQe5)

61 Cyfir, that kind of pixelation occurs with jped compression, and this photo is a jpeg. You would have to see the original.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 29, 2007 03:37 PM (zxscs)

62

Eh, that's a bomb but any bomb dropped from an airplane is probably going 400-500 mph from the get-go. Bombs do hit with the speed of bullets.


The elephant in the room is that dropping bombs maintain forward momentum and still do when they explode--these are actually the weapons of choice for alot of fixed wing drivers against us lowly helicopter guys.


So the blasts are not like this:


O


But like this... 


^


And at the bottom of the carrot, everyone's dead.


All of those chaps are right there in the clinch; in other words, somebody is getting very, very dead. My guess, Pallywood.


Posted by: Vercingetorix at May 29, 2007 03:40 PM (WvyxY)

63 Ace, I just sent you $10.00 via PayPal, cos' dude, this one's got me ROTHLMFAO!
BTW, The "cock sucking thing", well BTDT, not always so bad. Peace out, best wishes..... Oh, and HAHAHA ROTFLAFAO. Thanks!

Posted by: kj at May 29, 2007 03:44 PM (ptr+2)

64

Could it be, Ace, that it's not a "rocket" as the original caption stated, nor a "missile" as you and Jawa state, but rather a bomb?


I can't tell, but the shape of it is similar to some laser guided bombs (LGBs).


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/lgb.htm


Now I might be wrong, but before you go out on another limb you might want to be very careful.  Last time you stood on the wrong side of your saw.


 


Posted by: Murph at May 29, 2007 03:51 PM (GsVtN)

65 devastating hurricanes, global warming

Yes, yes.  Truly these issues are at the TOP of the "true conservative" agenda.

Even as a joke, those were a bridge too far.

Who fucking cares about the missle/bomb/Jart?

The only good pictures that would be worth their salt are the stains left by the Fatah morons after the damn thing hits.  Show me that picture and I might START to care.

Oooooh, a flying Jart.  How terrifying.  The people themselves dug their own grave by coddling these asshole gangsters from Fatah and Hamas for decades.  Now the lunatics are walled off and they're killing each other.  Making bed . . . laying down in it . . . etc.




Posted by: malphonse at May 29, 2007 03:52 PM (p1s9n)

66

  It is neither rocket nor missle. It's a bomb. Probably a paveway. There is no exhaust, angle seems a bit steep, and the nose looks wrong for a missle. Israel is highly unlikely to use a rocket attack as rockets are unguided.


  I've also heard reports that they remove the explosives and use concrete or inert material to make up the weight. The kinetic energy is enough to severly damage if not take out a building. If true this could explain the second photo that seems to just show dust but no orange/red of an explosion.


  Photo could be real. A free fall bomb even with forward momentum could be captured with a high shutter speed with luck.


Posted by: Waste at May 29, 2007 04:05 PM (Y+Ueu)

67 OT, but damn good news. Government official convicted of taking bribes gets the max penalty.

Sure it's China, but maybe strict sentencing will catch on like SARS!

Posted by: krakatoa at May 29, 2007 04:12 PM (557HS)

68 I long for the days before ... devastating hurricanes, global warming,

Uh, when did we not have devestating hurricanes? And according to the IPCC report and Al Gore the global warming started in the late 1700s. Don't you even know what you are saying?

Photo could be real. A free fall bomb even with forward momentum could be captured with a high shutter speed with luck.

But people wouldn't know the bomb is coming and scatter. They don't make that squealing eeeee sound any more, that was a WW2 era arming system. It doesn't make sense to me.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 29, 2007 04:12 PM (wmgz8)

69

Eh, that's a bomb but any bomb dropped from an airplane is probably going 400-500 mph from the get-go.


Dangit, I was going to say that.  Terminal velocity for a ballistic shape is pretty damn high so even if it had decelerated to terminal velocity it would still be moving very fast.  On other thing about shutter speed.  High shutter speeds require either bright scenes or big ass lenses, otherwise you don't capture enough light to fully expose the film.  Perhaps an photo expert could shed some (ahem) light on the subject?


Posted by: OU_Gryphon at May 29, 2007 04:18 PM (HPU22)

70 McGurk -- That's no mortar shell.  And I commanded two mortar platoons with two different mortars so I've seen a few.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at May 29, 2007 04:20 PM (clI2H)

71

If there was a bomb about to impact one hundred yards from you...


...Would you be trying to take its picture?


Posted by: Secundus at May 29, 2007 04:29 PM (hOlF+)

72 If you wuh a bomb, what kind of bomb wuhd you be?

Posted by: Babwa Wawa at May 29, 2007 04:32 PM (47+Ys)

73 Very easy to see the photoshop in this picture simply by blowing it up.

Posted by: Lord Nazh at May 29, 2007 04:37 PM (ViYz5)

74 Here's the image I was thinking of:
"LGF Strikes back




Posted by: Jeff C at May 29, 2007 04:43 PM (pnLPw)

75

Dick McEnroe


You have more exp than me.  I have a concept of mortars as being thick at the detonating end, thinning back to a minimum, then ending at fins.  How about elaborating with your exp points?


Posted by: mcgurk at May 29, 2007 04:49 PM (ajbe7)

76

McGurk, these are mortars. That is absolutely not a mortar.


These are bombs and missiles. These match closer.


Posted by: Vercingetorix at May 29, 2007 05:12 PM (WvyxY)

77 Nope, here it is: GBU-12 Paveway II.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at May 29, 2007 05:13 PM (WvyxY)

78 I don't understand how all the Palis knew when to run.
That's the big question for me.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 29, 2007 05:16 PM (gxYF3)

79

Soo... Not a missile, not a rocket, not a mortar, probably a bomb. Is it a laser-guided bomb or something? For the same reason one would rule out rockets I'd rule out "just a bomb". Seems atypical of Israel to just toss explosives out there without any guidance.


Posted by: DoDoGuRu at May 29, 2007 05:22 PM (zZy28)

80

And I officially call bullshit. No freaking way, hermano. That is a Paveway II-- go ahead and look for another bomb that isn't laser guided BUT has the targeting installed--and it is in-flight and it homing in on a target.


But the fins are not extended. No fins, no targeting, all bullshit.


No dice, Pallywood. You can fool junior G-men associated press, but cannot get one by a jarhead.  


Posted by: Vercingetorix at May 29, 2007 05:23 PM (WvyxY)

81 Quick and kind of dumb question, Vercingetorix - who makes the Paveway II, us, or Israel, or the "refugees", or who?  I'm guessing us, but I don't know who makes what and can't find it right away.  That's pretty cool you could figure it out.  Also, in light of yesterday, thank you for serving.

Posted by: Guy of Gisbourne at May 29, 2007 05:28 PM (i9UgE)

82 Why is the area around the bomb so pixilated compared to the sky?  Is this am artifact of the jpeg compression?

Posted by: Toby928 at May 29, 2007 05:32 PM (ATbKm)

83

Guy, here...


On 05 January 2000 Raytheon Systems Company, Tucson, Ariz., was awarded a $43,537,250 firm-fixed-price contract to provide for 3,420 MXU 650/B Air Foil Groups, 2,245 MAU 169 H/B Guidance Control Sections, and associated data, in support of the GBU 12 Paveway II Laser Guided Bomb.


Raytheon makes the GBU-12. Or for a left-lib, Mercenaries!!1!!


Posted by: Vercingetorix at May 29, 2007 05:33 PM (WvyxY)

84 Whether or not this photo is real, to compare it to the eagle photo in a way that actually makes fun of people who -- unlike you -- were right about the memo shows an absolutely amazing lack of self-awareness.

I don't know how you do it. I mean, I actually am envious. You could teach a class, or be a motivational speaker or something: "How to Get Rich by Never Seeing How Foolish You Constantly Look." It would sell like hotcakes.

Posted by: Alex at May 29, 2007 05:37 PM (2EgQ8)

85 Boy, that's a big bomb. Looks to be about as big as the building it's going to hit. Fake.

Posted by: drolmorg at May 29, 2007 05:40 PM (/6/6U)

86

Old Paveways, without the extensible fins, were replaced over 30 years ago.


In the early 1970s, the initial PAVEWAY was replaced by the PAVEWAY II, which featured an enhanced but also simpler and cheaper seeker head and pop-out fins to improve the weapon's glide characteristics and make it easier to fit to an aircraft.


The photo is as absolutely fake as the State memo was absolutely forged.


Posted by: Vercingetorix at May 29, 2007 05:44 PM (WvyxY)

87 Whether or not this photo is real, to compare it to the eagle photo in
a way that actually makes fun of people who -- unlike you -- were right
about the memo shows an absolutely amazing lack of self-awareness.


It could also be that he was goofing on himself.  Perhaps your self-righteousness is hampering your sense of humor a bit?

Posted by: Slublog at May 29, 2007 05:46 PM (HTo86)

88 Good call, Vercingetorix.

Posted by: Asterix at May 29, 2007 05:48 PM (2eQlr)

89 I concur, but specify that the call of "Bullshit" is the call that I and Dogmatix concur with.

Fulliautomatix, Getafix and Vitalstatistix hold judgement.

Cacophonix dissents, but he's kind of a dick.

Posted by: Obelix at May 29, 2007 05:51 PM (2eQlr)

90 Perhaps your self-righteousness is hampering your sense of humor a bit?

Sense of humor?  Where?

Posted by: wiserbud at May 29, 2007 05:56 PM (hp0Gj)

91 Thanks, Verc.  Pretty interesting stuff.  I'd ask who they think they're fooling but the answer is unfortunately obvious.

Posted by: Guy of Gisbourne at May 29, 2007 06:01 PM (i9UgE)

92

More here. The GBU-27 looks like a contender but the Paveway extensible wings are fitted to the tail.  


A Paveway II tail assembly with folding wings completes the bomb.


So no dice on that one being an upset. GBU-10s have folding wings.


And you can see here that Paveway-1s have actual fins and not the folded kit at the rear here: http://www.zap16.com/images/Paveway_121.jpg


I know these bombs achieved a hit rate of 88% in Desert Storm, so there is a slight possibility that the bomb was a dud (eh, that homed in on its target, but I digress). But that means a 12% failure rate added to the other long variables (such as just catching the photo) and there is absolutely no doubt that this is a set-up.


Pwned.


Posted by: Vercingetorix at May 29, 2007 06:05 PM (WvyxY)

93

First off, even if it was a real picture, there's no way the dude in the middle (green and yellow shirt) would actually be staring right at the bomb in flight. Obviously, someone took a photo of people running, then pasted a bomb in the place one guy happened to be looking.


Seriously, if that bomb is about to hit those buildings back there? It's gotta be 45 feet long at least! No chance this is real.


As for how they knew it was comming, the link says they heard F-16 warplanes and ran for it. No mystery there.


Single bullet theory (snicker!@)


Posted by: 5Cats at May 29, 2007 06:10 PM (cVijR)

94

Keep calling everything fake Ace, odds are you will be right on of these days?


 


Whats that gurgling sound


 


Any credibilty you ever had going down the toilet.


 


 


Posted by: sonic at May 29, 2007 06:14 PM (t4fBB)

95 Man, whatever.  This in no way proves that I'm a pit bull fighter, so quit saying that shit so I can go back to getting high, throwing interceptions and cashing my big-ass paychecks.  Fucking racists.

Posted by: Ron Mexico at May 29, 2007 06:16 PM (nght5)

96 Unless Harold Edgerton came back from the dead and took that picture, it's bullshit.

Posted by: profligatewaste at May 29, 2007 06:21 PM (XdGpQ)

97 93 comments and nobody but wolfwalker making any sense.

the speed of sound is about 340 m/sec at sea level. Modern cameras can achieve shutter speeds of at least 1/1000 second.

I've got an ancient D1 right here, and it'll take up to 1/16000. There are no (or few) working photojournalists who are taking photos with less than an F4 or equivalent, which will capture up to 1/8000. So yes, it's quite possible to catch a missile that detailed, but quite unlikely. Rather than guess about photography, I'd see if I could ID the missile.

These "gotcha" games--do they ever get tedious?

Posted by: rho at May 29, 2007 06:22 PM (8eBMH)

98 Who would have thought Ace's Next Big Scoop would come so soon? Not me, that's for sure.

Posted by: Barry Goldwater's Ghost at May 29, 2007 06:22 PM (5qjR5)

99 Eh. Didn't read very carefully at all. Vercingetorix makes the point well.

I suck. Going back to genuflect at my Ron Paul shrine now.

Posted by: rho at May 29, 2007 06:24 PM (8eBMH)

100
I suck. Going back to genuflect at my Ron Paul shrine now.


All you have to do is genuflect?

Dang.  My Giuliani shrine demands the blood of puppies.

Posted by: Slublog at May 29, 2007 06:27 PM (HTo86)

101 funniest comment thread of the year!

Posted by: AoS reader/C-Span caller at May 29, 2007 06:30 PM (wUDtL)

102 Anything to try and blot out the fact that you were wrong about that memo and Juan Cole owns your sorry fucking ass.

You can go back to dropping fries now...

Posted by: dave™© at May 29, 2007 06:31 PM (qUpJD)

103 Well, I was way too cautious the last few times with fauxtography, but I think it's better to be on the safe side and say "I don't think it's fake, unless evidence is put forth otherwise".

Hell of a shot if real..

Posted by: Greg at May 29, 2007 06:34 PM (8QBrW)

104 Any credibilty you ever had going down the toilet.

Sure, Ace always had just TONS of credibility with you fucking drive-by-trolling twats.

Posted by: zetetic at May 29, 2007 06:35 PM (wvvkg)

105 Dave(tm),

Do you ever get tired of posting on a website where no one listens to your deranged ad hominem attacks?

Posted by: Greg at May 29, 2007 06:35 PM (8QBrW)

106 Juan Cole owns your sorry fucking ass.

BREAKING: LIBERAL ENDORSES SLAVERY.

**MUST CREDIT RANDOM GUY ON INTERNET...**

Posted by: Slublog at May 29, 2007 06:36 PM (HTo86)

107 Juan Cole owns your sorry fucking ass.

I don't even want to know what part of troll's anatomy Juan Cole owns.

Posted by: zetetic at May 29, 2007 06:37 PM (wvvkg)

108

Some dipshit actually mentioned Juan Cole?


Ace, you could make a bundle recycling all the aluminum foil around here lately.


 


Posted by: Uncle Jefe at May 29, 2007 06:38 PM (iBgga)

109 Dang. My Giuliani shrine demands the blood of puppies.

Ha ha, pick a new god, loser. Ron Paul doesn't require blood, 'cause it's not Constitutional. That'll show you, with your heretical dago idols.

Posted by: rho at May 29, 2007 06:41 PM (8eBMH)

110 Ha ha, pick a new god, loser. Ron Paul doesn't require blood, 'cause it's not Constitutional. That'll show you, with your heretical dago idols.

Heh heh.

Rudy - Old Testament
Ron - New Testament

Posted by: Slublog at May 29, 2007 06:43 PM (HTo86)

111 Boy, are you going to hate the parts where you can't put your pee-pee in a man's anus.

Posted by: rho at May 29, 2007 06:45 PM (8eBMH)

112 Yeah, that's really put the damper on Friday nights.

Posted by: Slublog at May 29, 2007 06:48 PM (HTo86)

113 You're telling me. I suggested anal to your mom, and boy did she let me have it. (With tips and suggestions and pertinent critiques as to my technique.)

Yeah, that Hendrick's will do it to me every time.

Posted by: rho at May 29, 2007 06:51 PM (8eBMH)

114 Any credibilty you ever had going down the toilet.

Sonic...

I dunno about that. Ace is pretty knowledgeable about D&D, the metanarrative (praise be upon it) and he once had a very detailed post on the economics of gay porn.  Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

Oh, and the fact you misspelled credibility doesn't really help your case.

Pedantic? Sure.  Annoying a troll? Priceless!

Posted by: Drew at May 29, 2007 06:51 PM (gNyUT)

115 God, it seems like just yesterday I was reading something about how "Ace is on the case":

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/05/the_fake_memo_with_the_hummel.php

It was some involved story about media treachery, Juan Cole, Larry Johnson, and a hummel figurine. It didn't really make any sense, but intrepid reporter Ace seemed pretty sure of what he was talking about.

One thing is for sure: with ace reporter Ace on the case, hilarity will ensue!

Posted by: Barry Goldwater's Ghost at May 29, 2007 06:51 PM (5qjR5)

116 KEEP MY MOM OUT OF THIS, YOU FILTHY, FILTHY MAN!

Posted by: Slublog at May 29, 2007 06:52 PM (HTo86)

117 That's funny Barry because it was just yesterday when people challenged your belief that we are "losing the war in the field" and that "the
military is lying about that."
you failed to produce any, what's that stuff called? Facts? Evidence? to support your belief. 

Wanna take a shot at it tonight jackass?

Posted by: Drew at May 29, 2007 06:57 PM (gNyUT)

118

It was some involved story about media treachery, Juan Cole, Larry Johnson, and a hummel figurine.


Somebody forged a memo and put it out over the internet, where Juan Cole and Larry made shit up about the end of times in Iraq where parfaits could not reach the diplodunks sitting in the embassy.


Oh, and 3 million leftists believe that the State Department seal is a Hummel eagle.


So forgery, liars, and morons, that pretty much wraps your story, Casper.


Posted by: Vercingetorix at May 29, 2007 07:01 PM (LVVcX)

119 The photographer said that he was set up photographing previous damage at the Hamas Executive Force building when this attack came. But I don't see what he would have been photographing before - it looks like he was set up to photograph a soccer game. Just a field with some guys.

But the weird thing is that he doesn't have any pictures at Getty of the damage - pictures he said he had taken by the time the attack came. He didn't even take any pictures of the damage after what was supposedly the 2nd attack.

He also said that missiles were "fired" and that a "rocket" hit the ground. I could be entirely wrong, but I would suspect that it's difficult to mistake a missile or rocket for a bomb..

There are probably perfectly reasonable explanations for these discrepancies (like the part of his film roll with the earlier shots didn't turn out, and then he ran out of film right after the last shot of the guy carrying the kid), but until I think of one or hear one, I'm starting to believe that he went to photograph the damage, found it wasn't photoworthy, and decided to make some news.

Posted by: geoff at May 29, 2007 07:01 PM (I/w6Z)

120 rho -- Ron Paul doesn't require blood, because like all libertarians, he faints at the sight of anything from the real world...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at May 29, 2007 07:06 PM (lCheg)

121 Wanna take a shot at it tonight jackass?

How about tomorrow, Drew? I'm tired, and I sense that the titanic clash of intellectual energy involved in debating AoS readers is going to require me to bring my "A" game, if you know what I'm saying...

Posted by: Barry Goldwater's Ghost at May 29, 2007 07:09 PM (5qjR5)

122 Whatever you need Barry. Get some rest. Spend all of tomorrow on Daily Kos and Larry "Super Spy" Johnson's blog gathering up all your 'arguments' and 'facts' and bring 'em on over tomorrow night. I am sure there will be plenty of people here ready to laugh at debate with you.

You get a good night sleep and good luck with all the studying you're going to need to do to vindicate your 'feeling'.

Nighty nite.

Posted by: Drew at May 29, 2007 07:15 PM (gNyUT)

123

Maybe Ace will have that apology and retraction, tomorrow.


 


 


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Losers.


Posted by: Timmy in the well at May 29, 2007 07:15 PM (WIkuP)

124 I don't understand how all the Palis knew when to run.
That's the big question for me.


That's what makes me suspicious. They are running... why, exactly? Because the bomb they couldn't possibly have spotted and been frightened by is falling?


Oh, and missiles move at several times the speed of sound. Jets can't outrun them, or they'd be kind of pointless, don't you think?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 29, 2007 07:20 PM (wmgz8)

125 Then it's official: Tomorrow night: A CAGE MATCH TO THE DEATH: DREW V. BARRY GOLDWATER'S GHOST. TWO MEN WILL ENTER, ONLY ONE MAN WILL LEAVE.

Nighty-night, Drew (kisses)

Posted by: Barry Goldwater's Ghost at May 29, 2007 07:22 PM (5qjR5)

126

You guys mustn't miss this  so this is OT...


In case I missed current reference to it try this one....


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6681511.stm 


So this would make you bosom friends I guess. Makes sense in Islamospeak. Oh yes! Allah can be good!.


Posted by: backm row guy at May 29, 2007 07:31 PM (8ntiZ)

127 Teh gayness overwhelms.^^^

LiveFreeOrDie: I was being a smartass. My intention was not rudeness. This is, after all, AoS.

If the theory is that the jack-um-ass photog was clicking away at a rate of 1/16000 frames a sec, then there has to be at least a couple of photos either before or after the shot shown, unless this is the most divinely serendipitous picture, evah. I can't argue the technical merits of the picture, since I'm not a card-carrying photo-feckin-"journalist, but for the requisite conditions to be present, this result is either: luck, not unique (other frames show the ordinance entering the frame or detonating), or a fake-ass piece of gottdamn leftard propaganda.

Posted by: skh.pcola at May 29, 2007 07:39 PM (GMrzO)

128 You guys mustn't miss this  so this is OT...

Old, old, old.

Posted by: geoff at May 29, 2007 07:40 PM (I/w6Z)

129

I have looked at this picture, and any two bit photshop person can tell you that this picture, is most likely a fake. My reasoning: Look at the artifacts near or around people, and buildings and compair it to the skyline. Most notable observe X .50 Y 1.38 Notice how the lazy, lazy photoshoper has not included a sample into this area, where there is artifacts and if you look slightly above it, it becomes crystal clear? Okay, now look at x 2.77 Y 1.38 and notice the very close croped artifacts to his face, yet up around the back the artifacts linger, it looks like a square around his face if you pull out slightly (Im looking at them at x1600).  Basically it runs down to that the background 9Sky) is relativly clean of any artifacts, compaired to the action on the ground. I sumrise that what some one did is take two pictures, one of the people scramming, and the next one of just the missle as it came in, at the very same spot. It would be easy then to merge the two.


Secondly the people looking "Up" No they are looking to the right. Which means perhaps the missle was to the right? In any case this picture is dubious and id like to see the orginal, and I bet I could spot the difference.


Posted by: sithson at May 29, 2007 07:45 PM (lIsCq)

130 McGurk -- look at the silhouette of the weapon.  Notice the shadowing on the "nose"?  Those are stabilizing fins, hence the difference in shading from the tapered nose.  Mortars have neither.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at May 29, 2007 07:51 PM (lCheg)

131 McGurk -- For that matter, no mortar bomb would have a tapered nose.  Even the various SADARM guided or seeker mortar rounds, none of which have beeen adopted as far as I know, had a cylindrical configuration,  Mortar bombs are all about capacity for payload...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at May 29, 2007 07:57 PM (lCheg)

132 oh hai eighce when r u gonna appollgize fer maekin us com out teh wudwerk n showin how ignint we all is kthxbai

Posted by: A composite statistical analysis of trolls at May 29, 2007 07:58 PM (i9UgE)

133

I didn't read a comment confirming it, and I don't see a link showing it.


 


Supposedly this is from a "VIDEO!"


 


All it takes is a video link, not that hard nowadays, hell, AQ, and the Taliban can vid link the beheading of a "traitor" by a child, why can't this story be linked via video?


If it is a "capture" from a vid, then post the vid.


Or is this another fake but true while accurate but incapable of telling thruth through the falsoods that demonstrate truth?


Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 29, 2007 08:58 PM (QTv8u)

134 The trolls are just so cute.  They continue to demand an apology for something that happened in a reality they created.  Asolutely fascinating.  Or incredibly pathetic, whichever.

We know that the "memo" was fake, though the content was real.  For G-d's sake, it had a picture of a ceramic eagle masquerading as a state department logo.  Most reasonable people would assume that because the presentation was fake, the content was as well.  Then again, the trolls are not reasonable people.  If they were, they would note that in the original post, Ace qualified his reporting by saying the content could be genuine.  I remember reading it that way.

He got a little ahead of the curve and got singed for it.  He already admitted it. It's done, and I hope that he ignores

The fact that we now have "flappy" as a new go-to meme is, I think, a net plus.  It cracks me up every time.

Posted by: cranky-d at May 29, 2007 09:17 PM (0cofO)

135 That should have said, "...ignores the whining happening in the comments."  I screwed up something simple, and I'm completely sober.  Weird.

Posted by: cranky-d at May 29, 2007 09:19 PM (0cofO)

136

 
Two points about the photo.  The relative distances and sizes of the missile and children suggest the missile is 50 feet long.  Not possible for a plane launched missile.  Unlikely for a ground launched.


 
Absolutely no blurring on a high-speed missile.  Special high-speed film is used to photograph missiles for tests.


 
If you compare this to the second photo the explosive debris has moved too far too fast compared to the movement of the people.  The smoke has obviously slowed down a lot and has been expanding on it's own for some time.

Posted by: Nobody at May 29, 2007 10:28 PM (EbqrV)

137 Gleen's shock troops are annoying.

Not shock troops.  More like fluffers.  Trust me on this one.

Posted by: Ron Jeremy at May 29, 2007 11:10 PM (VgTsb)

138

Unrelated, but kinda.


A friend of mine in 97 had a camera with vibration control or whatever it's called, the image compensation that makes a shaky image look steady.


I got into a kinda fake fight with a friend, and it became kinda real, but my friend seeing that two of his friends were about to get into a fight made the responsible choice, he used the "highspeed capture" I think it was called option on his camera before I got hit in the face.


Once the camera holder whooped, later, we all got along again, thats how guys are, anyways, my face was MUCH more blurry than my friends fist, and his fist was moving faster than my face, even though his fist was attached to my face.


I think that this image is very possible, especially if it were at least a second round (I agree it looks like a mortar round more thana "bomb", unless the range is ridiculous)  Also, look at the background dust, maybe this was a SECOND mortar round.


I don't know, not a photo expert, but mortars move realtively slow, and the dust insinuates that it's the second mortar round.   Just saying.


Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 29, 2007 11:29 PM (QTv8u)

139 That was instructive. I have read all of the comments here and the comments at the cute Jawa site, and, (if I understand the point of this exercise) if this photograph can be proved to have been "faked" in any way, then Israel is not dropping bombs (or missiles or mortars or rockets) on the Palestinians; no Palestinians have been killed; and it's all just a conspiracy of the LeftWingMedia.

About right ?

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 29, 2007 11:35 PM (Pawsp)

140 Well, gee, Bloodthirsty Beth, I was only asking. This Super Sleuth business is hard work.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 29, 2007 11:51 PM (Pawsp)

141 So that's what's got your Bacon all in a twist with your Play-doh. My condolences, honey.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 29, 2007 11:55 PM (Pawsp)

142 R.L. Page,

Of course Palestinians are being killed. When they fire missiles into Israel, they should expect something to come back - not to mention they are having a civil war.

The question is whether or not the photo has been doctored, because whatever is happening on the ground, the media's job is not to provide fictionalized accounts of the story, but the actual facts.

During the invasion of Iraq, Taiwanese news stations spliced segments of Blackhawk Down into their coverage of the war. Yes, there was a war going on and all, but do you think they were right to splice in parts of a movie?

Maybe Israel can make up dramatic re-enactments of suicide bus bombings complete with Hollywood gore and claim someone on the bus had a camcorder that survived...hey what's the problem? It did happen!

I tend to think this was an actual photo because they have the after shot as well. Hang around the HQ of Hamas or whatever, and you should expect to see some fireworks.



Posted by: Aaron at May 30, 2007 12:08 AM (2hBqd)

143 I think each of your points is valid and worth consideration.

What is on my mind is what get's lost when those of us sitting safe and comfortably look at photographs and films that show the death and destruction of war and it easily devolves into a parlor game.

Watching a traumatic death, up close and personal, takes the fun out of it for me.

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 30, 2007 12:13 AM (Pawsp)

144 This article from The Marine Corps Times might explain it better than I just tried to:

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/05/when-acknowledging-pain-is-weakness-to.html

Posted by: R.L.Page at May 30, 2007 12:16 AM (Pawsp)

145

I'm sure all of my opinions have already been voiced.


It MIGHT be a mortar round, and the snubbed out fins makes it possible, it might also be a MLRS warhead, though almost completley impossible because of proximity to ground, and size of stabilizer fins (rear fins) on the missile.  COULD be a bomb dropped from altitude (LEAST likel, because of terminal velosity and the stuby fins)


So most likely option is mortar round, yet only israeli's have targeted rounds, and that angle of assault says "less than 2 miles"" for mortar rounds.   Theres a CHANCE this picture was taken within 2 miles of the israeli border, and the existing dust in the background indicates a previous strike, but my question is. . . . . . .


If you got hit once, why are you only running now?  They are not far enough away for immediate action, had it been me?  If the cameraman/person were 90degree's left he would only see one of my ankles in frame cuz I am not a fan of getting killed by an effing morter.


Also, if the morter hit approximately the same position, it was not an israely mortar.   Just the like US, one of the advantages of indirect fire is scaring the shit out of your enemy, and making them disperse, making easy targets.  If you are targeting a concentrated group, what you do is you "bracket" that group so that they all run to the center, and then you "fire for affect" etc etc.


The pick might be real, but it is obviously manipulated in some way.  HOW I don't know, but it's CLEARLY manipulated in it's context.


Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 30, 2007 12:59 AM (QTv8u)

146 Didn't have time to read all the comments, maybe this has been mentioned before.

LGF (or Hot Air?) had a youtube vid of a Qassam rocket blast in Israel where the shadow of the rocket was clearly visible on frame before the explosion.

So, it's possible.  Unlikely, but possible.

Posted by: moflicky at May 30, 2007 02:25 AM (taXUx)

147 Dont look at the missle, look at the people, where are they looking? They appear to be looking to their right down the road, not up in the sky and if that were a missle, where is the contrail?

Posted by: Stinkhorn at May 30, 2007 03:01 AM (E1iC/)

148 I don't pretend to understand Palestinian culture, but what in the hell are dozens of men and boys doing running around in the middle of a field? Were they having a picnic?

Posted by: Seixon at May 30, 2007 03:03 AM (tSnqq)

149

I don't pretend to understand Palestinian culture, but what in the hell are dozens of men and boys doing running around in the middle of a field? Were they having a picnic?


Why are they running in the general direction the missile is supposed to be heading..


I mean, up and to the left...so they run back and to the left...?


Posted by: Woo at May 30, 2007 03:04 AM (m6c4H)

150

All this commentary is well and good...


BUT WE DEMAND THAT ACE APOLOGIZE!!!1!1!!


Confess you heretic and sacrifice to Juan Cole!!!


Posted by: The Tard Yard at May 30, 2007 03:22 AM (zZy28)

151 5
I'm pretty sure I saw this picture a few days ago, and there was no missile in it.

Me too.

Posted by: Stankleberry at May 30, 2007 03:36 AM (5x5Ao)

152

RLPage


...if this photograph can be proved to have been "faked" in any way, then Israel is not dropping bombs (or missiles or mortars or rockets) on the Palestinians; no Palestinians have been killed; and it's all just a conspiracy of the LeftWingMedia.


So, if you are anti-fraud, you must be pro-lying, is that it?


If you claim disability and collect the check, but have no injury, that is a fraud. To punish you for fraud does not mean that nobody ever gets hurt.


It just means that you were not hurt. I guarantee that photo has been doctored (read above). You should get behind censuring fraud, but you will not of course.


Posted by: Vercingetorix at May 30, 2007 03:44 AM (WvyxY)

153

I mean, up and to the left...so they run back and to the left...?


 


Like Pete Incaviglia used to run up on a fly ball?


Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 30, 2007 04:02 AM (pzen5)

154

Ace of Spades Lifestyle:


Man clad in underwear pins leopard:


http://tinyurl.com/3dtagr


Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at May 30, 2007 04:07 AM (PhYx4)

155 I'm no expert in these matters, but I used to be a reporter for my hometown weekly, about 20 years ago. At high school baseball games, to pick up the ball coming off the bat (using 400 speed TMAX black and white film) one would use a shutter speed of 1/2000 or 1/4000. You could get a pretty good look at the ball from, say, 100 feet away down the line in foul territory with a 200mm lens (or closer, shooting through the backstop with like an 80mm).

Posted by: Oldsmoblogger at May 30, 2007 04:13 AM (arEOF)

156 I see pixalization. And it is only around the so-called missile. Fake.

Posted by: ro-ro at May 30, 2007 04:21 AM (8xCvb)

157 It's fake.

Having assembled GBU's in the past i have a pretty good idea how they work. If that unit had impacted that close to those people there would be "pieces" remaining.

The intricacies of air launched weapons aside I just read a comment over at The Jawa Report that pointed out the people have missing feet in a number of these photo shops. The GBU is probably real (in some picture) this looks like two images combined, with a foreground and background mixture (not a simple "paste in a weapon" job).

Posted by: blackflag at May 30, 2007 05:01 AM (Mq5jS)

158 Could it by any chance be a Palestinian Kassam rocket that failed on launch and fell back to earth?
What were all those people doing there in what looked like an olive orchard if not watching the launching of rockets from the cover of the trees?

Posted by: Cynic at May 30, 2007 05:16 AM (fhTsG)

159

Could it by any chance be a Palestinian Kassam rocket that failed on launch and fell back to earth?


Cynic's got a good idea; a pooped-out launch would be slow enough to be caught on film without a lot of miracles. My .02: the Kassams I've seen pictured are usually OD green, and the damn thing is just so in focus.




Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at May 30, 2007 05:45 AM (WTn2v)

160

Ace of Spades Lifestyle:


Man clad in underwear pins leopard:


http://tinyurl.com/3dtagr

Well you learn something new everyday ... killer leopards in Israel ... I had no idea there were large "4 legged" predators in the Holy Land.



Posted by: Anopheles at May 30, 2007 06:03 AM (w3i1F)

161

161 I see pixalization. And it is only around the so-called missile. Fake


Actually, there's compression artifacts around the buildings, trees, and everything else superimposed over the flat blue of the sky.  I don't know if this is the original photo or it's been recompressed, but they're hardly an unusual occurrence.


Having participated in more than a few photoshop contests in my time I'd be more suspicious if there weren't any compression artifacts around it, indicating that a blur tool or antialiased eraser tool had been used in blending the "bomb" into the frame.


That doesn't mean it's not still fake, just that the compression artifacts aren't conclusive either way.


Posted by: apotheosis at May 30, 2007 06:21 AM (CiAHf)

162 It's fake.  And that's a disappointment.

Posted by: VJay at May 30, 2007 06:25 AM (qEool)

163

While we're on the subject of compression artifacts...


This logo has 'em:


http://ace.mu.nu/archives/spade%20and%20skull%20Banner2.jpg


 


...and this one doesn't.


http://ace.mu.nu/design/spade-and-skull-banner.png


 


Loose shit, Ace.


Posted by: apotheosis at May 30, 2007 06:35 AM (CiAHf)

164 That missile pic is a 100% composite fake job. Of course, we know the MSM never always verifies the accuracy of a photo before running it, right?

Good job on the follow-up pic, Ace. Way to stick it to all the moonbat trolls.



Posted by: exdem13 at May 30, 2007 06:39 AM (I4jEf)

165 It's a fake. Some of these people in the photo are missing their feet. They also seem to be hovering over the ground, not quite touching it with at least one foot. I am assuming they must all have godlike powers to be able to hover over the ground without touching it and running in place like some Coyote/Roadrunner cartoon. I saw another photo on the Jawa Report that had even more people missing feet and one even missing his own shadow. I'm thinking, a scene of several running people superimposed over the field and then a third image of a cropped missile placed in the sky. That bomb looks like a GBU-10 or GBU-12. The problem is the fins for guidance aren't deployed and they would be after the bomb was dropped. So, that's an inert bomb. Let's call it what it is, bullshit and a bad fake. You'll need to better than that, Pali fauxtograhpers!

Posted by: DrTheopolis at May 30, 2007 06:43 AM (9ZqGe)

Posted by: Rob at May 30, 2007 06:51 AM (y0O9d)

167 Let's try this again:  I'm disappointed it took over 70 comments for anyone to point out the LGF version of the pic.  Much better, and looks more realistic too!

Same debate though.  What I noticed is that it looks like all the people on the ground are running more or less in a line.  They're not scattering, it looks like they're running towards something.

Also, as someone noted, there's a second picture of the explosion. The people have taken a step or two between the pics.  Awfully slow moving projectile if people can run 5 feet in the time it takes to fall 20 or 30 feet.

Plus, it just looks incredibly fake.  Everything in focus, and the missile just sitting there?  Tell me your first thought wasn't "fake".

Posted by: Rob at May 30, 2007 06:55 AM (y0O9d)

168 skh.pcola, accept my apologies.

The unfortunate reality is that absurd comedy and reality are now indistinguishable.

Regards.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 30, 2007 07:09 AM (h7C/i)

169 I doubt that it's a fake. The "pixelization" are JPEG compression artifacts. It looks like a nice sunny day in the Middle East, which would easily allow for a very fast shutter speed with almost any modern digital SLR. My older Canon 10D can easily manage 1/4000 second  under those conditions. Even a typical P&S digital can go as high as 1/1600 or 1/2000.

That said, it's really pretty much impossible to say anything definite from a tiny little version of a cropped photo. Anyone want to spring for the full-resolution file from Getty at the URL posted above?

I firmly believe that wire services should make available a full resolution, original quality digital version of every photo they use, complete with complete EXIF data. That way everyone can see that they're serious about weeding out fakes and misrepresentations. Unfortunately they really don't seem to care very much about accuracy or verifiablity, which is why we have speculation like this everytime a photo looks even slightly suspicious.

Posted by: Bryan C at May 30, 2007 07:18 AM (ZPqaA)

170 Bryan C, I don't care what you doubt. It's still a fake. No one claims that fantastic photos like this can't be taken, its just that this one is a fake. You're telling me you can't look close enough at the first image and not find plenty of people missing their feet and seemingly hovering over the ground?Please. Pay closer attention to the details of the photo and you will see exactly what I am describing. This one is a FAKE, FAKE, FAKE, FAKE! No ifs, ands or buts about it. It is a total fake. Quit speculating on whether its fake or not. It is a fake period.

Posted by: DrTheopolis at May 30, 2007 07:39 AM (9ZqGe)

171 LGF says it's not a fake. Since I trust Charles expertise, I will also say it's not a fake. 

Posted by: ro-ro at May 30, 2007 07:45 AM (8xCvb)

172 plenty of people missing their feet and seemingly hovering over the ground?

Uh Theo...when people run they don't always have one foot on the ground. Since a photo captures a very, very brief bit of time it's not that unusual an occurrence . Google it! Or look at this one example I found.

As for 'missing feet', it seems pretty obvious the grass or whatever is simply ankle deep.

It maybe fake but not for the reasons you think.

Posted by: Drew at May 30, 2007 07:51 AM (gNyUT)

173

Since when do the rag-.....er, I mean - the Towel-headed Ones use laser-guided bombs? Dropped from what aircraft? Guided/designated from where (line-of-sight)? Aimed at what - the crowd? Like, you need a $100,000 LGB for crowd control!?


I call the photo what it is - bullshit.


Posted by: Wampum Granola II at May 30, 2007 07:54 AM (41Dd+)

174

Dr. Theopolis, I would prefer to think it's a fake, but I don't know, and the missing feet/hovering evidence is unfortunately uncompelling. Missing foot: looks like it's behind a clump of grass. Look at the foreground: the ground is uneven.


Hover guy: If you are running flat out (actually, even if you're just jogging), and there isn't something horribly wrong with your kinematics, at some point during your stride both feet will be off the ground. Sorry to be a wet blanket.


Posted by: Oldsmoblogger at May 30, 2007 07:58 AM (arEOF)

175

Okay, geniuses. Take a look at the 3rd photo down in the link I am sending. Its the one with the 'Getty Images' watermark over the top of it. You'll clearly see the guy in the green and yellow shirt's feet have been cut off in the photo. Now, you're going to sit there and still tell me that the "tall grass" and uneven ground account for his missing feet. Please!


http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188079.php


Posted by: DrTheopolis at May 30, 2007 08:15 AM (9ZqGe)

176 I would vote fake because you, the casual observer on the ground, usually don't just don't happen to see a bomb as it falls to earth. 

You watch most of the bomb impact videos out there.  People are going about their normal business unless they spot the plane.

The thing is so fake, the crowd is apparently running perpendicular to the bombs path too.  I guess a side shot was more artistically pleasing.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 30, 2007 09:01 AM (za2Xz)

177 Until I saw that guy in third photo, as Dr. T pointed out, I was feeling pretty bad because I had no shoes...

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 30, 2007 09:06 AM (uSomN)

178 Theo...

The guy's right leg is up and bent behind his left leg. Look at the bulge coming out of the back of his left knee...it's the heel of his right foot. And yes, look at the guy in the foreground, you can see the back half of his left foot but not the toe of his shoe because it's under the grass.

As I said, it maybe fake but you're reasoning is ridiculous.


Posted by: Drew at May 30, 2007 09:06 AM (gNyUT)

179 I just looked at Theo's pictures.  Either the original is photoshopped, or he did it himself.  And a crummy job it is:  several of the people look like Marty McShane is screwing up their family future using a Delorean.  Legs that end right around the knees.

So if we think Theo has integrity, then the pictures are fake.  If Theo is dishonest, then they *could* be real. 

I still think there are problems with it.  And it isn't the high grass, since it's actually not high.  It looks to me like it was just mowed.

Posted by: Rob at May 30, 2007 10:07 AM (y0O9d)

180 So far I haven't heard anything conclusive either way as to fake/real, and so it looks like this pic will remain useful as a propaganda tool with people who don't understand why Israel should be allowed to defend itself.

Either it's real, and the Pals look good in front of the idiots, or it's fake, and then they look stupid - in front of the idiots.  Meanwhile Hamas continues to shoot rockets at Israel, and Israel continues to fire rockets back.  That's what happens in a fight.  People take shots at eachother. 

Seeing a missile/bomb/etc falling isn't going to change my awareness of the fact that Hamas (sadly) isn't going to stop attacking Israel, and Israel (hopefully) isn't going to stop trying to defend itself.


Posted by: Scott at May 30, 2007 10:12 AM (FAHM2)

181 So if we think Theo has integrity, then the pictures are fake.  If Theo is dishonest, then they *could* be real.

Rob,
It's not a question of Theo's integrity, it's a question of interpretation or eyesight.


It looks to me like it was just mowed.

Do you really think there's a lot of landscaping going on in Gazastan?  Please.  Look at the guy in the foreground of the 3rd picture. You can see where his leg/foot touches the ground but as you look left the foot disappears under a clump of grass. If the photo is fake, it's the missile, not the people.

Posted by: Drew at May 30, 2007 10:17 AM (gNyUT)

182
It looks to me like it was just mowed.

Goats, they're everywhere over there.

Posted by: Toby928 at May 30, 2007 10:29 AM (ATbKm)

183

The guy in the green & yellow shirt doesn't seem to cast a shadow in either pic... isn't he in a few other pics by this guy that are being questioned (I think carrying an injured child)?


That said, I'm not sold on the missing feet theory. Dust, grass, etc are blocking most of them, I'd guess. Drew is likely right in his last sentence.


Posted by: Frankly at May 30, 2007 10:56 AM (Q8tsb)

184 Okay, Drew, I'll give you the guy in the front with his left foot going into the grass but I'm keeping the guy in the green and yellow shirt and the guy in front of him in the tan clothes who magically doesn't appear to be casting a shadow on the ground. And, I also cannot take credit for the photo, that's Rusty's post at the Jawa Report and therefore his photo. And I seriously doubt that Rusty would knowingly post a bogus photo.

Posted by: DrTheopolis at May 30, 2007 11:50 AM (9ZqGe)

185 The feet don't bother me. The grass doesn't bother me. The people clearly running away from something off camera to the right and the extraordinarly unlikely picture of the projectile (bomb, most likely), the other pictures without the bomb ... all that does.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 30, 2007 12:54 PM (wmgz8)

186 Ya'll are misunderstanding.  Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.  Looking at the other pics (I think the third in the sequence), the people in front don't have lower legs.  There's no grass to hide them, they just don't seem to be there, like they have invisible legs.

As for the grass being mown, I simply mean that there's just some dead-looking brown grass lying on the ground.  Again, there's nothing there to hide anybody's feet, because there seems to be no grass, and no feet.

I think it's a picture of a bunch of people (presumably Palis) running across a field- everyone in the foreground *seems* to be running in the same direction- with a projectile of some sort added in. 

I'm not an expert by any means, but to me, the missile looks just as fake in the original, as in the modified version that showed up on LGF.

Posted by: Rob at May 30, 2007 12:57 PM (y0O9d)

187 Kinda been hammered on already, but terminal velocity for a heavy metal object like that has got to be on the order of a thousand feet per second or more.

There is no visible blurring. Thus the object could not have moved more than a few pixels during the snap. Let's generously suppose it might have moved as much as five inches during the exposure.

That means the exposure time could not have been more than (crunches numbers) 1/2400th of a second.

Barely within the realm of possibility.

Posted by: Kent at May 31, 2007 11:14 AM (GSLcH)

188 dddddddddddddddddddddddd

Posted by: wow power leveling at March 25, 2008 11:02 PM (2CIuY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
179kb generated in CPU 0.18, elapsed 1.2234 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.08 seconds, 424 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.