Fake photos?

  • Thread starter Thread starter David Martin
  • Start date Start date
If they were fake 10 Downing would be screaming fakes.
So too would the white house with their unfortunate pictures

please don't be so gullible.
 
Please don't be so patronising.

If Downing Street don't know for sure they're fakes they're not going to start 'screaming': they'll wait till they have some evidence - otherwise they're going to look very stupid should they prove to be real. They have at least put into question whether they are genuine, but also given their opinion should they prove to be so... but there is still a hint of doubt.

That hasn't been the case with the US shots - there have been no denials and in fact action has been taken against US soldiers: there's no question that they're genuine.

Anyway - the question here isn't whether British troups could have carried out these acts (and there's certainly evidence of abuses comitted by them) - it's whether these pictures are likely to have been staged/manipulated.

No-one's commented on the issue of colour - why are they in black and white? Does this better disguise the colour of the victim's skin, the lack of blood and bruising etc. Does it seem unusual? Would the average British squaddie be using black and white film?

There are also issues of the style of the pictures, though this is deviating slightly from the technical photographic aspects - whereas the American pictures are 'trophies' - something to show your friends when you go home - the British pictures have:
  • Either been taken to expose what's going on - in which case I would have thought those carrying out the acts wouldn't have been too keen on them being taken but there's no way they've been taken surreptitiously...
  • Or what? - would people really want to show their friends/family/anyone what ugly brutality they're capable of?
If they were fake 10 Downing would be screaming fakes.
So too would the white house with their unfortunate pictures

please don't be so gullible.
 
They may very well be fake/staged. In that other thread someone
talked about how the press should act responsibly. Generally
speaking, I think so too, and this is an example of the press not
doing that.
would it not be more irresponsible to hide it away?
 
You want to keep the discussion to photography...
How about this one:
'photography has the power to influence political discissions'

As, even if this photo's are fake, politicians will change there point of view of how to treat the Iraqi discussion...
If this is indeed a fake, it is the most irresponsible yet.
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3677311.stm
Please can we keep our discussion of this to photography, and the
implications of any trickery to us as photographers, rather than to
politics, as that is not what these forums are about.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
 
but in no way entirely convincing... some of the responses from the soldiers are hardly persuasive:

"That's the way it was."

I have no doubts that UK soldiers have carried out these sorts of acts, but I still remain doubtful about these pictures... if they are real and these are indeed intended as 'trophy photos' then the people of this country are sicker and more twisted than I ever imagined and are perfectly served by the irresponsible gutter 'journalism' of the Mirror and the Sun.
 
I have no problem with the Daily Mirror publicising the facts which came into their possession - indeed it was their duty to do so, if they felt them to be accurate, although I personallly if I was sitting at an editorial desk would find tthese shots entirely unconvincing, looking rather like a theatre production.

However, the form in which they chose to publish them , as graphic pictures rather than as an article, is not from any consideration of the public good.
It is purely to sell newspapers.

I do hope that the editor and owners of the Daily Mirror have the guts if any British forces are killed as a result of their sensationalist form of publication to see the relations of those killed and explain why it was so important for them to sell a few more newspapers.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
 
David,

You assume that the mainstream media doesn't want UK and US soldiers killed. I think it's much more likely that they do want the soldiers to die, the US/UK to tuck tail between legs and withdraw in failure from Iraq, and for Iraq to end up badly in the end. The mainstream media in the US and UK aren't quite at the level of Al Jezeera, but share the same goals in this case -- a permanent catastrophe in Iraq.

I don't think it's all about selling newspapers, but also even more about having one's political opponents (who are seen as the REAL enemy) be seen/portrayed/made to fail miserably in the court of world and national public opinion so the political allies can be swept into power.

This IS very relevant to photography -- the Abu Graib abuses and investigation were announced by the pentagon publically in January, but nobody cared much until the pictures were obtained and released by the media. Same facts -- ignored in print for months -- are now creating an enormous media furor by being captured in photographs. I'd say some pictures, in this case, are worth millions of words. It's also fascinating what pictures get published everywhere repeatedly and what pictures and videos from Iraq rarely get published here (although they are very widely distributed in Iraq) -- images of the 900,000 - 2,000,000 murdered victims of Saddam's regime including the 50,000+ murdered by (imaginary!) chemical weapons.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1
 
David,

You assume that the mainstream media doesn't want UK and US
soldiers killed. I think it's much more likely that they do want
the soldiers to die, the US/UK to tuck tail between legs and
withdraw in failure from Iraq, and for Iraq to end up badly in the
end. The mainstream media in the US and UK aren't quite at the
level of Al Jezeera, but share the same goals in this case -- a
permanent catastrophe in Iraq.
Woah - that's rather extreme and I think you're wrong there. Whatever their political motivation and whatever they thought about the war happening in the first place it's surely in no-one's interests for that to happen... Iraq needs to be returned to stability either by the US, British (as well as the seemingly forgotten other forces) that are currently there or under the auspices of the UN or even under the auspices of local Arab powers... whatever will work.
I don't think it's all about selling newspapers, but also even more
about having one's political opponents (who are seen as the REAL
enemy) be seen/portrayed/made to fail miserably in the court of
world and national public opinion so the political allies can be
swept into power.
This may be what's happening - but it's not so much the media as the politicians who are at fault: it's people like Bush and Blair who tried to use war as a means of increasing their political power back home - just as Maggie did with the Falklands. If this backfires for them - that's no bad thing. And sure there's political bias in the media - it would be naive to think otherwise - but all political positions are catered for: that's why different newspapers are taking different slants on these pictures...
This IS very relevant to photography -- the Abu Graib abuses and
investigation were announced by the pentagon publically in January,
but nobody cared much until the pictures were obtained and released
by the media. Same facts -- ignored in print for months -- are now
creating an enormous media furor by being captured in photographs.
I'd say some pictures, in this case, are worth millions of words.
It's also fascinating what pictures get published everywhere
repeatedly and what pictures and videos from Iraq rarely get
published here (although they are very widely distributed in Iraq)
-- images of the 900,000 - 2,000,000 murdered victims of Saddam's
regime including the 50,000+ murdered by (imaginary!) chemical
weapons.
I have to agree with you on this... and as you say the images we get to see have no doubt been carefully vetted. Also, there was an interesting article in one of the London papers about a shot of coffins carrying US soldiers home and the impact that had on people over there when it finally made it into the public domain: whilst casualties were no doubt being reported on a daily basis it apparently took that shot to bring home the true meaning of the statistics... and as you say Iraqui casualties never seem to get beyond the level of a statistic..
 
It's really hard not to talk about the politics, so I'll just say one thing. This is war and terrible things happen in war, it isn't ever fair, nice, or humane

As to the image, of course it's altered. Look everywhere on these forums, everyone alters their images. Was it black & white to begin with? What were the levels like? Did they emphasize shadows, contrast, and hide certain details or bring other's out? OF COURSE THEY DID! They want impact, and if they aren't outright lying by putting a bag on the guy's head or making it look like the soldier is urinating on him, then they took other liberties to make it seem as inhumane as possible.

This is propaganda and that is never exactly true.

Anyway, I don't buy this junk. I really wouldn't mind it if it happened, but to be barragged with it over the last few days is just a little much. Heck, anyone here could add a bag over someone's head or make those USA camos stand out, or add some muscle rips to make it look like he's tugging or the prisoner is struggling. This smells a lot like someone stepped in something stinky.

Is it really happening? I don't know, you tell me. If someone shot up 3 of your army friends with a LARS rocket how would you feel about it? This isn't a UN mission! But no, I don't think this is happening. I think this is all a bunch of hooey. Then why is Bush and friends doing the apologizing routine? Well hey, it's pretty obvious that it looks brutal, that's what the photographer, er I'm sorry, post-processing photochopper wanted to illustrate and most people who don't use cameras which means most people are going to believe it. Anyway, it's not like their raping the women and cutting off the young men's arms with machetes like many other wars that happen. I find this stuff to be more disturbing in the fact that its even an issue to begin wtih. This is war! So fast we forget 9/11. So very fast we forget. So fast we forget Kuwait and Saddam's atrocities to his people. So quick we are to judge a picture in the midst of war. You wanna see some terrifying images, go to a medic and ask him what he's seen from the American soldier's being shredded with mines. This is almost funny by comparison. My viewpoint, a very obvious bunch of altered images to impress other nations that the USA is the bad guy.
If this is indeed a fake, it is the most irresponsible yet.
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3677311.stm
Please can we keep our discussion of this to photography, and the
implications of any trickery to us as photographers, rather than to
politics, as that is not what these forums are about.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
 
How easily we forget the Americans dropping 'the bomb' on Japan, Agent Orange on Vietnam - do you get to see the pictures of deformed babies still being born as a result? - How easy to forget the British bombing of Dresden, the treatment of the British Empire's colonies, the fact that we invented concentration camps... 9/11 was as nothing compared to some of these... and yet you think it can be used to justify anything?

What's far more disturbing is the ignorance we show for the countless hideous wars, massacres and droughts in Africa - no-one seems to give a damn: obviously no political gain/oil to be had there... yet the numbers involved far outweigh 9/11... but they're not Americans are they.

And you're wrong - the war is 'officially over', we're meant to be liberators, we're meant to stand for peace and democracy - from what you say you're effectively condoning lynch mobs. What happened to 'justice and the American way'? Does it not apply outside the US?

And yes - when the US ignores important environmental issues (Kyoto treaty anyone?), 3rd world debt, exploitation of 3rd world countries by US conglomerates, doing nothing to ameliorate the situation in Israel/Palestine, setting up trade barriers (sure Europe do this too) and more besides - yes: it is the 'bad guy'... or at least one of many... no-one's squeaky clean in this world.

Yep - it's hard not to talk about politics...
It's really hard not to talk about the politics, so I'll just say
one thing. This is war and terrible things happen in war, it isn't
ever fair, nice, or humane

As to the image, of course it's altered. Look everywhere on these
forums, everyone alters their images. Was it black & white to begin
with? What were the levels like? Did they emphasize shadows,
contrast, and hide certain details or bring other's out? OF COURSE
THEY DID! They want impact, and if they aren't outright lying by
putting a bag on the guy's head or making it look like the soldier
is urinating on him, then they took other liberties to make it seem
as inhumane as possible.

This is propaganda and that is never exactly true.

Anyway, I don't buy this junk. I really wouldn't mind it if it
happened, but to be barragged with it over the last few days is
just a little much. Heck, anyone here could add a bag over
someone's head or make those USA camos stand out, or add some
muscle rips to make it look like he's tugging or the prisoner is
struggling. This smells a lot like someone stepped in something
stinky.

Is it really happening? I don't know, you tell me. If someone shot
up 3 of your army friends with a LARS rocket how would you feel
about it? This isn't a UN mission! But no, I don't think this is
happening. I think this is all a bunch of hooey. Then why is Bush
and friends doing the apologizing routine? Well hey, it's pretty
obvious that it looks brutal, that's what the photographer, er I'm
sorry, post-processing photochopper wanted to illustrate and most
people who don't use cameras which means most people are going to
believe it. Anyway, it's not like their raping the women and
cutting off the young men's arms with machetes like many other wars
that happen. I find this stuff to be more disturbing in the fact
that its even an issue to begin wtih. This is war! So fast we
forget 9/11. So very fast we forget. So fast we forget Kuwait and
Saddam's atrocities to his people. So quick we are to judge a
picture in the midst of war. You wanna see some terrifying images,
go to a medic and ask him what he's seen from the American
soldier's being shredded with mines. This is almost funny by
comparison. My viewpoint, a very obvious bunch of altered images to
impress other nations that the USA is the bad guy.
 
Whilst the Americans have Bush in power and we have Tony Then the world will be in a mess. These idiots are taking the world into the gutter.

Its a shame that "America" (Not the Americans) have become the worlds most hated nation...... They need to sit down and relax. The Americans are not the Worlds Police (Too imature to do a good job) and the world doesnt like them thinking they are. To hell with the Pics.... So what???? Its a very messy world we live in.. Ask your friends if they care about their local homeless and old people....as much.

We just love the "story of the week".
 
Matthew,

A few comments. Saddam used the weapons against his own people and against the Iranians in the 80's, and the U.S., and many other countries provided these WMD's, training and intelligence to use them. There was a great deal of intelligence available prior to the war indicating that the weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed in the mid 1990's. The information that the Administration "cherry picked" to justify invasion has turned out to be false.

As to your moral equivalency argument, and 9-11, it should be noted that the Iraquis have never been found to have collaborated with Al Quata, had nothing to do with 9-11, and in fact, each party was at odds with the other. Moreover, even the argument that it is acceptable to lower ourselves to the human rights conventions of despots, such as Saddam, is a unacceptable. Many, if not most, of these imprisoned individuals had merely been arrested for being at the wrong place at the wrong time during some security sweep

While I can't comment on the photo in question and its accuracy, I would note that this is an issue the the British have to deal with. The photos that are underscoring the issue for us Americans are all verified as accurate. I am sure that more will arrive, as well as more testimonials to the conditions in these prisons.

As far as I can tell, your argument about the media is specious. The media was absolutely compliant with the adminstration before the war, never questioning the proponents motives or intelligence and only started to question the war when things went very badly. That the mainstream media is even questioning the war is a huge turnaround, but, I surely can't see the media as beating a drum of retreat.

This looked to many of us like a quagmire in making before we went in, and regrettably, it is becoming such. Bringing these human rights violations to light and punishing all involved in the chain of command is the surest means of getting our mission in Irag back on track.

tom
David,

You assume that the mainstream media doesn't want UK and US
soldiers killed. I think it's much more likely that they do want
the soldiers to die, the US/UK to tuck tail between legs and
withdraw in failure from Iraq, and for Iraq to end up badly in the
end. The mainstream media in the US and UK aren't quite at the
level of Al Jezeera, but share the same goals in this case -- a
permanent catastrophe in Iraq.

I don't think it's all about selling newspapers, but also even more
about having one's political opponents (who are seen as the REAL
enemy) be seen/portrayed/made to fail miserably in the court of
world and national public opinion so the political allies can be
swept into power.

This IS very relevant to photography -- the Abu Graib abuses and
investigation were announced by the pentagon publically in January,
but nobody cared much until the pictures were obtained and released
by the media. Same facts -- ignored in print for months -- are now
creating an enormous media furor by being captured in photographs.
I'd say some pictures, in this case, are worth millions of words.
It's also fascinating what pictures get published everywhere
repeatedly and what pictures and videos from Iraq rarely get
published here (although they are very widely distributed in Iraq)
-- images of the 900,000 - 2,000,000 murdered victims of Saddam's
regime including the 50,000+ murdered by (imaginary!) chemical
weapons.

--
my favorite work:
http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1
 
Well, my uncle lived as a result of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, and my father died as a result of Agent Orange. The first had its intended effect, the second did not.

I've talked to both WWII vets who were on their way to the invasion of Japan AND Japanese citizens who are also veterans of the war.

NONE of them personally expected to survive an American invasion of Japan. I've spoken to people who would have been there from both sides, and NONE of those I've spoken to expected to survive. They all expected it to be a fight to the death.

As it was...most did.

--
RDKirk

'I know you're smarter than I am. But I think you're making up some of those words.' Rocky Rooster from 'Chicken Run'
 
Kyoto is biased. It protects China, India, and Brazil (not the climate)

The US "trade barriers" made Japan (an occupied country like Iraq) the power it is
 
I'm not saying it isn't happening. What I'm wondering is this: Why are there photographs of it? If I were going to mistreat a prisoner, would I pose for a photographer? Would I even allow a photographer to be present? For what reason? Are we going to sell to photographs somewhere or give them to certain folks for a reason? Some part of this seems unreal.

Now the political comment: This is war. I believe atrocities are always committed in war. By both sides. The reasons are obvious, and this is probablly something any politician doesn't want you to know about. When either side sends its able-bodied citizens to war, it first desensitizes them so they can stay alive. The rest is history. It's only fear which keeps them from killing their owncommanders. In Viet Nam, even that was up for grabs.

I'm still not understanding the geneva convention. We go to war, with the intent to do as much physical harm as possible to the other guy. If he catches us, he has to follow rules about how to treat us. I wonder, how firm we would be about negotions first, if there were no Geneva convention.

I"m sorry, this is the only forum I got.
 
I'm not saying it isn't happening. What I'm wondering is this:
Why are there photographs of it? If I were going to mistreat a
prisoner, would I pose for a photographer? Would I even allow a
photographer to be present? For what reason? Are we going to sell
to photographs somewhere or give them to certain folks for a
reason? Some part of this seems unreal.
Trophies. The same reason most serial killers take trophies, whether it be ears, panties, or the nipple-belt that Ed Gein kept from the victims he either killed or exhumed.
I"m sorry, this is the only forum I got.
Doesn't bother me. I think the same "is this real" question about 'Mericans and Brits torturing Iraqis begs similar questions about portraits, journalism about the homeless, and so on.
--
Have fun! ;-)
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top