What's Wrong With This Picture?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Sep 10 2007, 12:25 PM) [snapback]510120[/snapback]</div>

The Bush image is taken from a low angle,about groin level .From that perspective IMO, to intentionally accentuate the carpet.I say this from viewing the photographers other work.He often accentuates icons.
From this low angle Bush in the foreground appears higher than the wall.This is consistent with any picture taken from that viewpoint.
The FDNY pics you use as an example,were taken from a normal eye level perspective.
You could very well be correct that the pics are fake.But I dont think youve proven anything so far.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Sep 10 2007, 12:26 PM) [snapback]510122[/snapback]</div>

Unlikely to be overhead flourescent, as it's an outside memorial.

Here's how tall people actually are in front of it. You'll note the firefighters carrying flags are also shot from a low angle and yet their heads are well below the top of the memorial. The Bush picture actually looks like something from the Onion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Sep 10 2007, 12:58 PM) [snapback]510137[/snapback]</div>

This is the nature of perspective in photography.
The first picture of the firemen is taken from the same low eye level as the Bush pic.
But in the fireman picture they are walking right next to the wall.If they came toward the camera 3 or 4 ft. their heads would appear higher than the wall plaque.The closer anything is to the camera,the more it is size accentuated relative to the background.
The second image is taken from a vantage point way over their heads .

Heres a link to poorly illustrate size distortion.http://www.kevinwilley.com/l3_topic04.htm
Notice how the truck is as tall as the barn in the wide shot and much smaller in the telephoto shot.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Sep 10 2007, 01:23 PM) [snapback]510151[/snapback]</div>

I guess the correct term is "forced perspective".I cant find any good images to illustrate but heres a Wikipedia article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspective

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Sep 10 2007, 01:23 PM) [snapback]510151[/snapback]</div>

I don't need lectures on perspective. I learned figure drawing from the painter Ed Paschke. I understand perspective and that it is simply wrong in the Bush shot. As is the inconsistency in reflected light. A hot light reflecting off brass would create highlights. But why are the lights on the wall if it's day, as all the other light seems to suggest? Why is the comma in the rug in closer to the year than the date? Why don't they have shadows? I've photoshopped pictures to pay my rent. This photo is a fraud. And for perspective, I don't care for this Pres or his policies. But we don't need fake photos to make him look silly; he provides bounteous real ones.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Sep 10 2007, 01:54 PM) [snapback]510170[/snapback]</div>

I gotta agree the image looks fake. Particularly in that it seems to be taken at a distance of a few feet, but the Pres. appears much bigger than Laura. And the feet don't look right either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Sep 10 2007, 12:04 PM) [snapback]510181[/snapback]</div>

Also, the mat is crooked. I can't imagine in that kind of photo op that nobody fixed that before he showed up. And why would there be a mat there anyway?

 

It's a piece of cloth not a country, get over it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Sep 10 2007, 01:17 PM) [snapback]510220[/snapback]</div>

I don't take anything from the press at face value. They have the technology to do the same thing with words and video as they could do with photos, and why would anyone think they are avove doctoring a photo?

To quote well know philosipher John Mayer;

When you trust your television
What you get is what you got
Cause when they own the information, oh
They can bend it all they want

That's why I'm waiting, Waiting for the world to change


At any rate, if GW Bush did step on a Flag Floor Mat, I would blame the idiot that put it on the floor. If Bush is always looking down to make sure he doesn't step on flags, he will run into some lady holding a baby and knock the baby out of her arms. That would look bad.

 

The angry outburst of the doomed missionary in the closing scene of "The Sand Pebbles" conveys in only six words both our problem and the cure: "Damn your flag! Damn all flags!"

And a few moments later Steve McQueen's uncomprehending character's last words before being killed reinforce why: "What the hell happened?"

What indeed.

MB

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 9 2007, 08:35 PM) [snapback]509826[/snapback]</div>

It appears that way because it represents the flag being carried by a flag bearer in combat rushing forward in an attack. At least that's what one of my buddies told me while we were studying for a board. It's probably to be found in AR 840-10.

I agree w/qbee42 on this. People jack up flag etiquette all the time. I learned most as a soldier, but as a sailor I've learned a little too.

Personally, I don't really care much for symbols. I don't deface things that are important to others, that's pretty immature, really. However, for some reason it annoys the hell out of me when people got to the effort to put up a flag and then cock it up. The most common ones are ... 1) Displaying shabby weather worn rags. 2.) No illuminating flags at night. Take it down (properly, if you please) if you don't want to illuminate it. 3.) A giant sized american flag displayed next to (and usually above) the flags of other countries.

 

Just for the record I think it looks like it could be photoshopped as well.I just disagree that there is any evidence of that within the photo.
After some sleuthing heres some evidence on a blog page argument similar to ours which occurred a day after the image was first released.
Its hard to follow as links to most images are no longer accessible.
But finally someone claims to email the photographer.
"I emailed Jason Reed about this. Here is the full text of his response:
Dear Jeremy, thanks for your email.
My images of President Bush standing on the carpet have not been faked or digitally manipulated in any way. If one was to check the other news outlets that were represented at this event (about 8 in total, including The Associated Press, Agence France Press, Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine, New York Post etc) you will see identical images from those news sources as well.
Thanks for your attention.
Jason Reed
I am sure people will question my integrity now, but everyone is welcome to do the Google research to find his email address and write to him themselves. (Obviously, I think he would probably prefer not to receive a flood of emails on this subject, so I wouldn’t recommend that, and I’m not going to post his address.) I assert that this is indeed an email from the Jason Reed who took the photo, and at this point either I or he would have to be lying for it to be a fake."

Then there are references to other news sources from the same event and video of the event on Tavis Smiley.
Finally someone posts an image.[attachmentid=11338]
This could be altered as well ,but just the fact that there were links to other source's pics of the event leads me to believe it is an actual occurrence.
http://thinkinganddriving.com/blog/2006/09...ept-11-tribute/

 

Another view
[attachmentid=11339]
and another[attachmentid=11340]
Notice the guy in the brown suit.His head is taller than the bronze plaque because he is closer to the camera.

One more[attachmentid=11341]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Sep 10 2007, 06:28 PM) [snapback]510313[/snapback]</div>

Those look faker than ever to me. I find it especially odd, what with that crowd of photographers, that not one of these photos made it onto the fdny site. They have some of the president the next, some of people at the memorial. But why not the president at the memorial. Anywho, here's to disagreement. Cheers.--Scott
http://home2.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/events...6/index_1.shtml

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheForce @ Sep 9 2007, 09:30 PM) [snapback]509879[/snapback]</div>

It hasn't been made "more public" because its a lie.

The blog "Capitol Hill Blue" made extensive use of a source named "Terry Wilkinson", who simply doesn't exist. The author, Doug Thompson, issued an apology when he found out that Wilkinson doesn't exist, and pulled all his stories using him as a source, but has since erased any traces of his apology. However, it lives in Google's cache Here, as quoted by another blog. I remember reading the apology at the time. Now, Thompson ... who says he was simply "mislead" at first ... has reinstated many of his prior stories and forwarded the link to his original apology to his home page.

On this particular story, he now says he personally talked to 3 people at the meeting. Sorry Doug, it doesn't pass the smell test, especially since you have "edited history" on your blog.

The blog Classical Values had an almost-real-time account of the changes to "Capitol Hill Blue", and gives numerous examples. Its a fraud, its bogus, and Doug Thompson knows it.

But the offensiveness of a lie, it seems, depends on who is lying for whom.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Sep 10 2007, 10:02 PM) [snapback]510407[/snapback]</div>

IMO At this point I do believe the pictures and the event were real.
I think the White House has enough influence to put a lid on any story .
BTW I always respect your opinion.

 

http://home2.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/events..._06/index.shtml
This is the events of the 2006 9/11 memorial.
Why no reference to Bush laying the wreath?Are those pictures faked as well ?[attachmentid=11349]
The last reference refers to breakfast with Bush.
Then I notice the FDNY website is owned by the city of NY.Could a Republican Mayor have anything to do with the websites lack of content if it were an embarrassment to Bush?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 10 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]510466[/snapback]</div>

Funny about that "correction". They state Thompson has "his original apology on his home page". He doesn't. They say he quit Capitol Hill Blue after this incident. He didn't. And the original story? It's still there.

And as for the "apology" linked to in the cache of truthout.org? No need to be so devious - it's still on their site. However, clever detective-type people will note the "apology" was written in 2003, and the "Goddamn piece of paper" article was written in 2005 (which is AFTER 2003).

 

I'd like to know who thought it was a good idea to put the flag on a doormat in the first place? Is there a difference between a symbol of the flag and an actual flag as far as the handling and respect owed to it? For some reason this does not pass the smell test for me but who knows stranger things have happened.

Wildkow

 

Sorry to have bored you all with my relentless pursuit of the truth.
Here is an image of the Bush flag desecration event from a different photographer and a different news service.Finally this is definitive proof that the event occurred.IMO its been covered up on the internet. [attachmentid=11370]
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-9-11/45854.html