Previous news story    Next news story

BBC examines how fake photographs can change our memories

By dpreview staff on Dec 13, 2012 at 21:38 GMT

Manipulation of photographs is nothing new. For as long as cameras have existed, photographers have staged, retouched and combined images and passed them off as 'real'. Sometimes for artistic purposes, sometimes for fun, but sometimes for more nefarious purposes. The BBC has published a fascinating article on its international 'Future' site exploring the power that faked photographs have over us, and draws some alarming conclusions about our memories, and how easily they too can be 'subverted and rewritten'. 

In the article - one of the best we've read on this subject - author Rose Eveleth begins by explaining that our memories are unreliable, and easily manipulated. 'Combine this susceptibility with modern image-editing software', Eveleth states, 'and it's a recipe for disaster.'

Widely circulated during Hurricane Sandy, this 'live cam'  image purports to show huge waves striking the Statue of Liberty. In fact, it's a still from promotional material for 2004 disaster movie 'The Day After Tomorrow'.

According to research cited in the article, 'fake memories don't just distort how we see our past, they affect our current and future behaviour too'. This has dangerous consequences when an image is faked with the intent to deceive. As Eveleth writes 'people trust photographs so much that they actually place more weight on information that is accompanied with an image, regardless of how related or useful that image is.' And to complicate matters further, studies have shown that we're more inclined to 'remember' things that reinforce our opinions or prejudices.

This is Mitt Romney, but that isn't his family, and this amusing spelling mistake never happened. You
can see the original (untouched) image here. (original image: AP / Gerald Herbert) 

As evidence, Eveleth cites a study conducted by Slate Magazine, which examined contemporary images faked for political purposes and found that 'Republicans were more likely to remember Barrack Obama shaking hands with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while Democrats are more likely to remember that George Bush was on vacation with the baseball pitcher Roger Clemens during Hurricane Katrina, even though neither event really happened.'

So next time you see an image on a news website or an email chain that invites you to laugh, cry or become outraged, don't take it at face value. It might just be a fake. 

Comments

Total comments: 97
chasg
By chasg (Dec 31, 2012)

BBC content that's not available in the UK? WTF?

Rats, I really wanted to read this. Perhaps if I stopped paying my license fee, I can look at this article?

0 upvotes
steven sherman
By steven sherman (Dec 24, 2012)

The BBC knows only too well how "fake photographs" can change our memories, as the people at BBC are themselves guilty of manipulating photographs and falsifying the truth. This is specifically the case when the BBC is covering the news from and against Israel. Rose Eveleth mentions "nefarious purposes"; undoubtedly her masters at the BBC are masters at manipulating our memories. Their intent in reporting news in Israel is to deceive (similarly to El Jazarreh). As you wrote in the article pictures can cause more damage than words.

2 upvotes
Andy Moreton
By Andy Moreton (Dec 20, 2012)

Anyone that doesn't believe that memories can be manipulated may want to read the book 'The Invisible Gorilla', the human memory does not work in the way that many people think it does.

0 upvotes
jimofcan
By jimofcan (Dec 19, 2012)

Yay, no longer admissible evidence usable in a court of law.

1 upvote
Jim Evidon
By Jim Evidon (Dec 18, 2012)

In 2004 as part of the presidential campaign, there was an effort to tie Kerry to Jane Fonda, a political lightning rod if there was every one by showing a news photo of him on the podium when Ms. Fonda was giving a speech at a political rally. It wasn't till after the campaign was over that someone found the original photo and lo and behold, he wasn't in it. Whether the photo affected anyone's opinion isn't the issue. It was wrong and shabby to do it.

A few months ago a well known photographer was stripped of his honors when it became apparent that the prize winning photo had been photo shopped. The incident was well covered by DP Review at the time.

The issue is not whether fake photographs change anyone's mind about the subject. The issue is honesty in photography, honesty in reporting and, frankly, honesty in general. Anyone cynical enough to ignore this simple truth deserves pity, scorn or both.

1 upvote
Telefoto
By Telefoto (Dec 18, 2012)

I actually found the article unconvincing. The exact conditions of those "studies" wasn't described, but its pretty well known that people will change their behavior and their stories for political reasons (ie, when other people are watching them, as in the case of a study). So, its not surprising to me that people might argue they really did see their gambling partner ripping them off, for example; I don't see that as much of a memory test. Same with the hot air balloon photos. In a social context, people will say and do almost anything for effect. That doesn't mean that if a stranger sent them a photo online of their fake balloon ride, they wouldn't be able to spot it as a fake from memory. I find some aspects of memory certainly soften with age, but others seem to crystallize. It's amazing what I can remember from childhood with prodding. And, yeah, in 2012 anyone who falls for fake photos has been living under a rock (ie, where did they find those study subjects?).

1 upvote
Jim Evidon
By Jim Evidon (Dec 18, 2012)

The purpose of the article is to show how photo manipulation is used to manipulate opinion. And what is the result? A bunch of dead head ideologues come from under of their rocks to spout their politicized crap. This is a site for photography, so take your mindless political regurgitation to places where they will be more appreciated like Fox Snooze, MSNBC or Rush Limburger.

3 upvotes
deleted_081301
By deleted_081301 (Dec 17, 2012)

Having just read all these incredibly stupid "Septics" in this article it no wander your people are always popping down to the nearest school or shopping mall and shooting everyone .....

3 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Dec 20, 2012)

watch your mouth, limey. Some of us still value having the ability to keep tyranny in check. An armed populace is a free populace. Bet your won't turn down our help come the next world war ...

2 upvotes
chasg
By chasg (Dec 31, 2012)

Just fyi: "limey" is no longer considered an insult. You may wish to consider "uneducated and introverted yob" instead (just a suggestion, no insult intended to the aforementioned Limey! :-)

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
pev70
By pev70 (Dec 17, 2012)

The liberal progressive agenda can not advance without its plethora of lies and deceptions. Indoctrination and brainwashing the vulnerable by using deceiving tactics is at its roots.

Altering images to advance the agenda is just one example of many.

4 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Dec 17, 2012)

hehe you saw that on fox news didnt you ? ;)

4 upvotes
pev70
By pev70 (Dec 17, 2012)

No sir, you don't need Fox news to see, hear and read the obvious.

2 upvotes
toysandme
By toysandme (Dec 17, 2012)

Oh the irony! The British Brainwashing Corp talking about fake photographs. The same BBC caught with its pants down when it reported that Building 7 (WTC 7) collapsed 23 minutes before it actually happened on Sept. 11 2001: See BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

2 upvotes
Jack L Casner
By Jack L Casner (Dec 16, 2012)

Yes, we liberals control the media. And i am the King of Romania.

2 upvotes
KodaChrome25
By KodaChrome25 (Dec 16, 2012)

King Michael I ? ;)

0 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Dec 17, 2012)

I hope you treat the Romanian people better than King Obama treats the American people.

6 upvotes
Simon Garrett
By Simon Garrett (Dec 18, 2012)

I've not come across "libtards" before; I assume it's a derogatory term. So those from the opposite political extreme in the US would be "Tea-tards"?

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Dec 20, 2012)

And to add on to what Donttreadonme said, without free markets and personal liberties to invent, explore, own property and build a business, it is unlikely that we would be using digital cameras, or even film cameras, let alone be typing here on computers using the world wide web. Think about that for a minute. Enough with the vilifying of one system or another, as they all have their places, and it is about seeking balance.

1 upvote
CNY_AP
By CNY_AP (Dec 16, 2012)

Real images are also a scam, like when the AP or Reuters had 100's of good images of George Bush Sr one day, yet used one of him seemingly standing under the helo (he wasn't) which had a sign on it stating "WARNING: Do not stand under moving rotor". Or how about when Mitt Romney was at an elementary school, and perverted liberals in the media thought it was amusing to use an image of a little girl seemingly looking in amazment at Mitt's butt or something. Every survey done proves the far majority (80-95%) in the main media outlets (ie outside of Kansas; etc) are liberals, and the resulting bias is obvious and destructive. BBC are a bunch of lefties too as far as I can tell...well, the UK is well left of the USA in general to begin with.

5 upvotes
Alex da Veiga
By Alex da Veiga (Dec 17, 2012)

Just because they are not conservatives, does not mean they are liberals. There are more that two ways of thinking.

7 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Dec 17, 2012)

Including rational analysis and logic.

1 upvote
J R R S
By J R R S (Dec 17, 2012)

libral or conservative has nothing to do with it... all politics manipulates media... What about Obama... sounds like Osama... he must be bad.... pictures and words are both weaved for the benifit of the teller!

2 upvotes
Karl Petersson
By Karl Petersson (Dec 17, 2012)

Hmmm, they have a conservative government and you have a liberal president, in that case that must make your liberals to the right of UK's rights so it would mean that US conservative would be so far right that that they would almost turn black.... was that not the coiche of color of some unfortunate political movements in the mid 30's in europe.
Oooh and btw if you would have a look at the link you would see several image edits that was referring to political leaders to both the right and the left.
But we where talking about image edits and not political rants where we not......
But I am glad that the media in Kansas is beyond reproach, Hey Dorothy we're not in Kansas any more.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
KodaChrome25
By KodaChrome25 (Dec 16, 2012)

When I read BS, I know it. When I see BS, I know it too. Anyone who saw the diver-in-NYC-subway photo and believed it was real is uneducated on many levels.

0 upvotes
Delacosta
By Delacosta (Dec 17, 2012)

"...uneducated on many levels"
Well, certainly on an underground level.

2 upvotes
alfredo_tomato
By alfredo_tomato (Dec 16, 2012)

The manipulated image in the OP came from Democratic Underground. I spend a lot of time at their photography forum. No politics, just photography.

DPreview gets recommended by myself and others on that forum.

0 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (Dec 16, 2012)

Let's not forget the almost must status of -predominantly female- body distortion in the fashion industry on print media, which has already contributed to the recent years' increase in adolescent psychological disorders including anorexia/bulimia, depression and chronic stress.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
J R R S
By J R R S (Dec 17, 2012)

I doubt its a new thing... mirror mirror on the wall....
Pain, depression, anxsiaty, self loathing... all good old corner stones of being human... nothiing new, just the ability to highlight it.

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Dec 20, 2012)

What happened to accountability? Is everyone a victim now? HOw about blame the girl herself, her disease, and her family for a change.

0 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (Dec 15, 2012)

There has always been fake photos in photography. However, it is much, much, much easier to do it digitally. Faking a print or negative takes real skill, often years of hard work and is generally a one-off.

Digital makes lying easy, very, very easy.

3 upvotes
alfredo_tomato
By alfredo_tomato (Dec 16, 2012)

Sometimes the photo is real, but the description is fake. The "dancing Hitler" was real, but he wasn't dancing a jig as reported. it did reinforce our negative feelings toward him.

0 upvotes
Glen Barrington
By Glen Barrington (Dec 15, 2012)

It is not longer merely about the "Fog of War" so much as it is about the "Fog of Truth".

2 upvotes
alfredo_tomato
By alfredo_tomato (Dec 16, 2012)

"In war, truth is the first casualty." Aeschylus

1 upvote
ScarletVarlet
By ScarletVarlet (Dec 15, 2012)

A favorite book of mine is <b>Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's Russia</b> by David King. Nice to see a familiar photo in the BBC line up. Stalin's photo enhancement team could reduce a room of 11 to 8 to 5 to 3 to 2 to only him.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Opinionator
By Opinionator (Dec 14, 2012)

BBC left out their disgraceful edited shots of Ramalah which the BBC described as wanton destruction of civilian property and lives by the IAF when in fact the entire scene was staged. It wasn't enough for Hezbollah to hide behind their children they had to lie to the world and the BBC used it as fact.

7 upvotes
brettmeikle
By brettmeikle (Dec 15, 2012)

we get it - you don't like the BBC.

6 upvotes
l_cheetah
By l_cheetah (Dec 15, 2012)

@We The King Brettmeikle: I don't get it - this pearl of brilliance, Your Majesty, belongs to You and your subjects (pupils, students...) or to the entire Londonistan audience?

0 upvotes
kelpdiver
By kelpdiver (Dec 16, 2012)

it seems fair to point out the irony in this BBC article given noted events like that. I recall one of the UK media did some nice alteration of photos of the Gaza Flotilla incident as well.

2 upvotes
Delacosta
By Delacosta (Dec 17, 2012)

I'm really looking forward to peace in the Middle East. It could happen soon, about 1 second after the End of the Universe.

0 upvotes
MarcMedios
By MarcMedios (Dec 14, 2012)

Love it love it love it

0 upvotes
Larry  Witt
By Larry Witt (Dec 14, 2012)

I saw and forwarded the email of the statue and a diver in grand central station and the sharks in the streets of New York with a note " here comes photoshop, here comes photoshop right down photoshop lane. Tha statue is a light house off Cape Horn, tip of So. Amarica

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Dec 14, 2012)

"So next time you see an image on a news website or an email chain that invites you to laugh, cry or become outraged, don't take it at face value. It might just be a fake."
Truely the advice of the month ! It's well known but needs to be repeated again and again because there are new people every minute on earth, and what seems obvious to us is not obvious for everyone. A single photo is rarely enough to tell the whole truth, when it doesn't simply "change" the truth in "another truth"... Anyway, just look at one of the best CM ever made as it says all: http://youtu.be/E3h-T3KQNxU

0 upvotes
dbateman
By dbateman (Dec 14, 2012)

At the cost of memory chips. I have been waiting or hoping for write once media. It would be great is San Disk had memory chips that were 16, 32 and 64 GB and could only be written to Once. Thus the original is always there. Since storage is so cheap, this could be a good way to get back at the taken image, rather than the "edited" version. Also would save on back ups.

0 upvotes
kelpdiver
By kelpdiver (Dec 16, 2012)

then you construct the image and 'write it once' to this CF/SD card. Write Once doesn't solve the problem.

0 upvotes
J R R S
By J R R S (Dec 17, 2012)

Thats just inconvinent... besides just photo a printout!

There is software that can detect an edited image quite well...

0 upvotes
photosen
By photosen (Dec 14, 2012)

I don't think Ritt Momney would have a particular problem with that photo...

5 upvotes
Vadimka
By Vadimka (Dec 15, 2012)

No,
Mitt is this you?

3 upvotes
Glen Barrington
By Glen Barrington (Dec 15, 2012)

Photosen, I would remind you the election is over. And it IS inflammatory.

6 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Dec 14, 2012)

All successful photography flatters or favors the image or objectives of the person or group that pays for it. There may be a fine line, or none at all, separating what is merely selective or embellished, from what is utterly bogus. Some outright fakes may be ultimately exposed. But some will continue to believe the image, or consider it to reflect a "greater truth" if it fortifies a general preference or need. On the other hand, images that convey an unfavorable thing will be discredited or blotted from memory, even if true. An editor knows this, even if the photographer does not.

Maybe some photographic insurance adjusters or building inspectors will beg to differ, but there photos don't appear on cover pages, get prime-time exposure, or sell widgets.

2 upvotes
alfredo_tomato
By alfredo_tomato (Dec 16, 2012)

The photo above was presented as satire. It was placed where readers knew it was a manipulated image. It did reinforce opinions of Romney and his accident prone campaign. The image appeared at a time when there was a discussion of a convention that went wrong.

It migrated to Facebook where it was presented without the context. It went viral.

0 upvotes
JordanAT
By JordanAT (Dec 14, 2012)

So I guess "Pics, or it didn't happen" doesn't hold as much weight anymore? Or does proof now require live video?

1 upvote
duartix
By duartix (Dec 14, 2012)

Video can be tampered almost as easily as photos. Live video can also be tampered with enough means. Installation artists do it all the time. I guess you'll have to be there to know it happened, but that's not not a guaranty that you'll have the "truth" as this is a relative concept and even facts are disputable.
Believing news has been for quite a while a "leap of faith" especially nowadays that corporations have taken over.

2 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Dec 14, 2012)

True. Live video is not reliable anylonger ! Just have a look at these two videos:
1) http://youtu.be/yU0oByWv6wM
2) http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-10/video-voodoo-software-removes-objects-live-video

1 upvote
duartix
By duartix (Dec 15, 2012)

Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuGIy2C3azQ

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Dec 15, 2012)

Sorry but that's a commercial for a chinese web service: not japanese nor it's for real !

0 upvotes
JonSr
By JonSr (Dec 14, 2012)

Damn American Journalism to lead the charge in fakery in public images. OJ Simpson photo was my eye opener and then on I realize that ALL photos are touched. Therefore ALL FAKE. Current acceptance of HDR is totally inexcusable, too. Damn the industry and all its contributors in making photo worth a toiler paper. I trust 4chan photo far more than anything on the mass media. Shame on us.

1 upvote
scramblerman
By scramblerman (Dec 15, 2012)

Are you making this statement in regards to photojournalism only? If it takes a wider scope to include all photography, you are one seriously uptight, self-righteous moron.

Photojournalism should be performed with the highest regard to honesty. Anything else is art and should be open to allowing the artist's (photographer's in this case) vision and the path s/he chooses (HDR for example) to get their.

0 upvotes
edbowman
By edbowman (Dec 14, 2012)

The biggest fakery by far is about the images coming out of the israel/ Palestine conflict

4 upvotes
Michaelr205
By Michaelr205 (Dec 14, 2012)

Not sure about the biggest fakery but thre is a definitely a serious problem.

2 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Dec 14, 2012)

An example (but a lot avaible on YouTube) here: http://youtu.be/-OImcBKEIIs

Everybody cheats nowadays. It's well known we are living now an economic & information war. Difficult not to become paranoid !!!

0 upvotes
ozturert
By ozturert (Dec 14, 2012)

BBC should also reveal fake war photos and news from Irak, Syria and Afghanistan. These kinds of photos are used for leverage, unfortunately.

3 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Dec 14, 2012)

For sure there are Augean Stables in almost every news agency and news paper. Often (but alas not always) journalists are themselves victims of manipulations, hoaxes etc. It's their honor to correct as quickly as possible false news/documents. Just remember the fake "newly" discovered photos of the Hiroshima bombing aftermath, a case that tells a lot about the "document problem": http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/05/14/new-hiroshima-photos-actually-old-kanto-earthquake-photos/

0 upvotes
Roxburgh
By Roxburgh (Dec 14, 2012)

For those in the UK, go to:
http://freeproxyserver.net
and paste the URL in the field

4 upvotes
KDM
By KDM (Dec 14, 2012)

Many thanks! A good article, even though I (being British) was not supposed to see it.

0 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Dec 14, 2012)

Thankyou - a good way to beat Mrs. May's snooping bill if it ever becomes law.

0 upvotes
JonB1975
By JonB1975 (Dec 14, 2012)

Thanks for that! Cheeky of the Beeb though.

0 upvotes
DJohn987
By DJohn987 (Dec 14, 2012)

Now this is a twist most BBC stuff is not available abroard but now its not available in the UK! what is the purpose of the BBC?

0 upvotes
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (Dec 14, 2012)

may be the purpose is to let the world see what BBC want the world to see,but not let anyone at home see certain stuff they think aint important .

2 upvotes
Peadingle
By Peadingle (Dec 14, 2012)

Not available in the UK? So as a licence payer I pay the BBC to produce this stuff, but am not allowed to watch it!

0 upvotes
Michaelr205
By Michaelr205 (Dec 14, 2012)

This is the message on the BBC website:
"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com. "
Licence payers don't pay for this.

0 upvotes
Dom
By Dom (Dec 14, 2012)

Michael: does the BBC's statement make any sense to you? To me there is no logic to their argument. Those who can access it (foreigners) are not paying to see it. So why can't those those who similarly don't pay for it, but live in the UK, also access it? This they do not address. In the words of the bard- "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Dec 14, 2012)

We (foreigners) are paying to see it in a sense - through advertising, which plasters every page of the BBC, certainly here in America.

2 upvotes
Dom
By Dom (Dec 14, 2012)

Barney, I see I've finally got an american to admit to being foreign ;).

But seriously, can you not see why all the Brits are incensed at refused access to British broadcasting company material? Its something we all feel highly connected to, to the extent of americans and your flag. Then to be faced with an utterly meaningless explanation on a f*.k off web page...!!!

And yes I have been to the US (even lived there) and seen the BBC website from abroad. Hopefully you'll get to visit the UK one day and see what it looks like without the ads.

0 upvotes
pauldmorgan
By pauldmorgan (Dec 15, 2012)

bbc.com is funded by advertising, bbc.co.uk by the licence fee - to avoid the flip side of Dom's complaint: "why as a licence fee payer am I paying for foreigners to access the content for free ". Non-UK residents have put up with adverts.

Digital rights are a complex business. Not all content (including stills) can be 'broadcast' in all territories and/or more money has to be paid to the rights holder to do so. The BBC is not the rights holder of all material that it broadcasts. Having separate sites and IP address filtering is a crude but cheap way of keeping out of the courts.

0 upvotes
CiciSpike
By CiciSpike (Dec 14, 2012)

Yes BBC is making an article about faking images. Did they get this from what the opposition did in Syria? Thank you very much for destroying the country by photography alone. I had ambitious for taking photos this year and got the a new Sony. unfortunately I kept it in the closet. I wasn't willing to take pictures of dead slaughtered people and destroyed houses.

Tell them to stop playing with humans!

1 upvote
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Dec 14, 2012)

A 'fake' single-take zero manipulation film shot of my family alongside an 'impossible/improbable' supercar I thought would be nice to pretend to have.

Shot & scanned from the old film days (a print that was strictly un-tampered from a film negative shot with my Canon T-90 SLR):

http://www.oocities.org/xzotyqarz/Audi-AVUS-Quattro-at-Home-2000.jpg

I used to be on 'Supercars.net' forum, where discussion was about cars we liked, versus what we had, and also 'concept cars' we drew. So for fun, I simply created an imaginary scenario where I had a supercar (which obviously I couldn't), but some folks who came across my photo on the web said it was an example of 'photoshopped' image which simply wasn't at all. It came straight from the camera 'as is', and 'printed' as original, and scanned for digital upload. Zero tampering here. It's just a trick of DoF and Perspective (albeit a bit imperfect)

I didn't know it would be immortalized in 'archival' websites till I saw it a few days ago

lol

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Dec 14, 2012)

omg... lol...
my ol' place...
where original shot was taken!

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=43.609219,-79.639972&spn=0.000922,0.001464&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=43.609133,-79.640317&panoid=mXW7RZ1wYeWtWiqsJhKleA&cbp=13,332.49,,1,-0.78

0 upvotes
Press Correspondent
By Press Correspondent (Dec 13, 2012)

No kidding, just moon landing pictures alone...

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Dec 14, 2012)

if you question all Moon pictures, you might as well include all Earth pictures too (all historical pics captured on film could have been faked too). of course this is absurd in either case, because fakes are easily detected. moon shots are not fake; nobody was smart enough to know how to fake them.

1 upvote
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Dec 14, 2012)

"nobody was smart enough to know how to fake them"
Ok sure, to make them oh-so-perfect yeah, but fakes are easily detected? You may not know a fake picture if you didn't know it was a fake picture, simple. Let's look at all those doctored photos during the Soviet Union, the film/prints aren't in great condition anymore, so try and tell what's real, they did a good job with those "Stalin and Friends" pics

0 upvotes
jgardia
By jgardia (Dec 14, 2012)

Faking the moon pictures is possible, but I don't think it is possible to fake the landing sites. It is possible to see them with a big enough telescope (like Paranal).

1 upvote
Jack Simpson
By Jack Simpson (Dec 13, 2012)

yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, that was fun ;)

0 upvotes
fed2man
By fed2man (Dec 13, 2012)

Well that makes a change. Usually I can't see BBC stuff here in Canada even though its available in the UK....

0 upvotes
Graystar
By Graystar (Dec 13, 2012)

This is why you should always set a custom white balance.

1 upvote
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Dec 13, 2012)

"You mean there isn't really a War Room?"

Thanks, Stanley...

.

3 upvotes
easyeddy
By easyeddy (Dec 13, 2012)

lol WTF viewers in the UK can't see that article in spite of the fact the BBC is funded through our taxes (i.e. a 'licence fee' that is compulsory per household). Pure bolox.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Dec 13, 2012)

You're right, and I just edited this story to make that clear. Although your assertion that the BBC is funded via British taxes is only true of the British end of the operation. BBC content accessed from outside of the UK is plastered with adverts.

0 upvotes
blohum
By blohum (Dec 13, 2012)

you can still view most of the example images at fourandsix.com in the UK which is referenced by the BBC article.

0 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Dec 14, 2012)

Barney, the *content* is funded by British license fee payers. Only in ripoff Britain could such stupidity as this prevail. We also pay for the BBC World Service. I'm afraid we're all a load of sheep - or cash cows - to put up with this.

2 upvotes
BaldCol
By BaldCol (Dec 14, 2012)

wtf! BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation but I'm in Britain and I can't read it. What a joke.

0 upvotes
BaldCol
By BaldCol (Dec 14, 2012)

The licence fee is not compulsory per household, it is compulsory per household that has a television (or other equipment capable of showing television programmes)

1 upvote
clickshots
By clickshots (Dec 14, 2012)

BBC 'Future' is not funded by the licence fee.

0 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Dec 14, 2012)

ckickshots
'Future' is part of www.bbc.com and contains, for example, an advertisement for Dr. Who which I seem to remember helping to fund. Quite apart from the funding question, the BBC shouldn't be censoring websites for commercial or any other reasons.

0 upvotes
bizi clop
By bizi clop (Dec 14, 2012)

It is a perfect time to try out some anti-internet-censorship tools, like the Tor Browser, just download and start using it: https://www.torproject.org/

0 upvotes
pauldmorgan
By pauldmorgan (Dec 15, 2012)

gsum: did you read the webpage when you clicked on the link? It clearly explains the situation with regard to the funding of bbc.com.

"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee."

0 upvotes
Lightanddarker
By Lightanddarker (Dec 20, 2012)

If you dig deeper you see it's not available in the UK because the government decided it would be unfair competition to other UK news companies as it uses content paid for by the licence.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 97