Has anyone seen the Libyan "apology" photos?

[Atman]

Can't link from my phone, but they're going around on Facebook...crowds of Libyans demonstrating, one is holding up a sign saying "Sorry People of America this not the Pehavior of our Eslam and Profit".

Here is my question: anyone know if it's real? I ask because I've seen at least three different photos with different people holding the exact same sign. In one, a kid is holding it. Another person holds it in another. Hand-scrawled, with the exact same misspellings. Identical.

I got in a back-and-forth on Facebook over the pics. I questioned their authenticity, seeing that the same sign was showing up in different pics. I was called a hater, of course. It's Facebook..."why couldn't people have been sharing the same sign, huh? Why do hate Libya?"

Anyway, is anyone familiar with photos, and have any info on them? Post a link if you can!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. There has been at least one thread where someone claimed irregularities in those photos

The discussion quickly became uncivil, but there may well be some merit to those claims.

[aquart]

5. Show your evidence, please.

Or I might dismiss your remarks as smearing innuendo and who wants that?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Easily

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240143199

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1331089

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. And what about 'may well be some merit'?

That hasn't been demonstrated in those threads at all, IMO.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. You are welcome to that opinion

There are several posters here at DU who think they were edited. My take is that it is looking like at minimum there was some staging and possibly some editing. Doesn't mean the participants are not sincere, does not mean that the pictures are fraudulent, just that there may have been some help.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. It would help if you gave some reason for why you think there may have been some editing

which no-one has successfully done so far (the newb who tried looked like a complete fool).

Also, what do you mean by 'staging'? It probably wasn't a spontaneous gathering, in which people pulled out the paper and markers they happened to have on them in the street and joined in when one person started it. Someone probably said to friends, people on the internet etc. "hey, the embassy attackers don't represent us - let's have a demonstration to let America know". And only some will write English, so they may hand out the English signs to others, and they may get passed around. Is that 'staged'? Or are you implying something more - if so, what?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. The DU member you lambaste is not alone

And others have pointed out situational unlikelyhoods.

My take is that there could well have been some staging and potentially some editing but there is nothing to show that it was an outright fraud.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. That's largely an unhelpful repetition of your previous post

What are the "situational unlikelyhoods"?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. And you are being "unhelpful" for not rading the other posts and threads and keeping up

On this issue any number of people are expressing doubts about the bits and pieces of the pictures. However no one is claiming the piece in its entirety it is a fraud.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. I've read 2 other threads about this, and have seen no doubts explained

Instead, I see dull claims of "dunno, looks 'shopped to me - and I is an expertt ...", implying conspiracy theories that would require multiple photographers to photoshop in signs or people for a demonstration that everyone swears did happen anyway. Why the hell would these photographers go to such bother if the demonstration happened? Reply #26 is right - it's a ridiculous world where people leap to the conclusion that signs are photoshopped, rather than shared.

[Enrique]

46. the pictures I saw were badly sourced

Buzzfeed just had the photos up, they didn't say where they got them, and they had no story giving any context. That is always a red flag to me. On the other hand, Richard Engel on MSNBC said something in passing about pro-US demonstrations in Benghazi.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. All 15 of the BuzzFeed photos I saw had a 'Libya Alhurra' symbol on them

which is a Libyan internet tv stream.

https://www.facebook.com/LibyaAlhurraLivestream (has video of the demonstration, which I presume people won't accused of being photoshopped, frame by frame).

[progressivebydesign]

79. so the women crying as they held up the signs, were faking it? n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

88. Is that your opinion? It certainly isn't mine

Much more has come out since this thread started but my position is has been clear. They could have been minor photoshopping and some mild staging (which formal group picture is not?), but I don't and have not seen anyone say the entire thing was a sham

[truth2power]

99. The second of the links posted by the professor, above, is the one where "glitterati" says

the pics are photoshopped.

He keeps saying that he needs help posting an image and everyone except one DUer ridicules him. That DUer posts instructions.

When I read that thread this afternoon, it seemed to me that people were trying to sabotage glitterati's assertions instead of working together to try to find the truth. JMHO.

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. And when glitterati finally posted something, it was an obviously computer generated picture

that had nothing to do with combining 2 or more photos. It looked like a still from a computer game. Glitterati went on to make a bunch of nonsensical claims about photos taken at the same demonstration by another photographer. The photos actually supported the veracity of the demonstration (the same people, but taken at different angles), yet they crowed as if they'd proven Photoshop had been used.

People found it difficult to believe that some "with Photoshop credentials" had no idea how to put a photo on the internet. That does seem unlikely, doesn't it?

Glitterati's assertions were just that - assertions. Why were they asserting it? Why was it so important to them to disprove that some Libyan people wanted Americans to know they condemned the killing of the ambassador? How mistrusting of the entire world must you be to think that a basic show of sympathy is actually faked?

[justiceischeap]

15. I have no specific "evidence" other than experience

but my first thought when I saw the photos was that some of the signs looked photoshopped. I don't know if they are but, as a designer, some of them look like they came straight outta photoshop.

[demwing]

58. God forbid someone gets dismissed /nt

[Ian David]

2. Here...

A peaceful demonstration from Benghazi, the Libyan city where a U.S. ambassador was killed in a consulate attack Tuesday. “Chris Stevens was a friend to all Libyans.”
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer

[aquart]

3. At demonstrations I always hand off a sign I can't hold anymore.

Holding flat rectangles is uncomfortable and awkward.

[SaveAmerica]

37. That's what he said...

[sendero]

4. These people mostly do no speak English.

.... so they have to copy their phrase from somewhere.

A simpler question would be this: do you think most or even many Libyans support the embassy killings? I don't.

[Atman]

7. I didn't/don't question the message.

Merely the authenticity of the pictures. When I suggested the appeared Photoshopped (they do), a few people got quite irate and insisted I must hate Libya. I don't...I just dislike a Photoshop con job.

[zonkers]

21. Agree. Pics look weird and manipulated.

[tdb63]

8. Pay attention to what you are seeing.

It is the same piece of paper that different people are getting their picture taken with, they are simply passing it around showing the sign speaks for them. No photoshop, nothing shady.

[Posteritatis]

28. It stuns me that people find "dozens of photos are doctored" easier to swallow than that. (nt)

[Scootaloo]

60. Everyone Knows™ that Muslims hate America

So of course DU'ers, being no less Islamophobic in general than the rest of the nation's populace, is going to look for shady dealing, fakes, and insincerity rather than allowing them to think hey, maybe these people are earnest about it.

[Barack_America]

41. That's the logical explanation.

No one without a sign is getting their picture taken, the sign gets passed around so that everyone can get their picture with it and say "me too!".

[pampango]

9. To some degree (how much?) attitudes towards the veracity of the photos mimic our dis/agreement with

the message they display.

If we think that most Libyans must hate the US for what happened to Gaddafi then we tend to see something shady in the demonstration. If we think that most Libyans support events there in the past year we tend to see something genuine in the demonstration.

I wonder what the freeper/teabagger take on the photos is? We all know that the facts (which haven't been determined yet but eventually will be) regarding the genuineness of the photos will be irrelevant to them. The "truth" of the photos to them will be whether they agree with them or not.

[Atman]

11. You seem to be inferring something I didn't say at all.

I directly stated that I don't doubt the sentiment is real. The only reason I asked the question in the first place is because I saw the photos in different places, not as a group like the Buzzfeed link upthread. So I said, "Hey, I've seen that exact same sign in three other photos." And at least a couple of them appeared to be easily Photoshop-able. So I asked. But even on the Facebook thread, I didn't question these Libyan's support for America, I merely asked if anyone knew whether or not the photos were real.

.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. But you have said you think they look photoshopped (reply #7 above)

which is beyond "easily Photoshop-able". Are you sure you "merely asked" on Facebook too? Or did you assert they look photoshopped there as well?

[jp11]

14. People do share signs and when you have a limited number of

signs in english I'd imagine it would be more pressing to have more than one person hold it to show they too support that message which is aimed at an English audience.

I've looked at the pictures and as someone who did cut and paste picture editing as an amateur I saw nothing 'obvious' as some have claimed. I specifically looked at the signs to see if they were being blanked or pasted over to insert pro american messages. I did not check every single person, their hands, their shadows, their lighting, their spacing, etc to see if they all belonged in the photos though.

I don't think they are fake as you see several people in several different pictures with pro american signs, the angles change on the people and the signs. None of that is so easy to do or so obvious as has been claimed by the few (one) person I've seen saying they are fakes. It is harder to reuse the same signs and place them at different angles it is much easier to use one or two pictures and use different signs so you don't have to recreate the signs from different angles with lighting/perspective/etc.

Regardless of whether some of the pictures are fake or none of them are and I don't think they are fake the point that sadly many people are missing is that the people who committed the crimes in Libya were a small fraction of the people in that country.

The people who protest and burn flags, etc over this stupid film are a small fraction of the people in Libya/Egypt/Yemen.

Just as the people in our country who decided to go to war and were careless with our own troops lives as well as the lives of the people in the countries we attacked and occupied do not represent our entire nation. Nor do those soldiers who acted dishonorably in torturing prisoners, desecrated enemy bodies, etc represent our entire military.

[dipsydoodle]

18. DU link to pictures here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014227574

Looks staged for the benefit of the media to me.

[pampango]

20. If I were holding such signs in Libya I would look for the foreign media if I knew where they were.

Otherwise my message would never reach my intended audience.

[SaveAmerica]

39. As they did in NC during the Edwards trial to get attention for Marriage Amendment Bill

They were going to have a rally in the Greensboro WS area and took it to the trial area where the media circus was. I wonder if anyone shared/ passed a sign? Which is what I felt happened here from the moment I saw the pictures not a big deal.

[Posteritatis]

27. You mean to say a message directed at a foreign population was aimed at their media?

Astounding.

[dipsydoodle]

34. Pictures were posted by Jessica Testa

an associate breaking news editor at BuzzFeed in New York so no - not their media.

[Posteritatis]

44. Uh, Reuters took the photos. (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Every photo says 'Libya Alhurra' on them

https://www.facebook.com/LibyaAlhurraLivestream

[joshcryer]

103. The shameful part is that they felt they had to do this.

The Libyan people are regularly slandered as jihidists or al-queada sympathizers.

[treestar]

19. Right wingers don't want you to believe any single Muslim can ever be

reasonable and other than hate filled and wanting us all to die. Those signs bely that, so they claim they are photoshopped.

Right wingers hate Muslims, they cannot believe a single one is not willing to kill themselves to kill one of us. These photos obviously upset that apple cart and so they resort to the obvious way to deny them.

[WilliamPitt]

22. The Atlantic thinks they're real

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/does-not-represent-us-moving-photos-pro-american-rallies-libya/56803/

[Indpndnt]

40. Shh!

You're making sense.

[Atman]

73. But Will, The Atlantic only re-posted the original post.

They didn't make any effort to discern the veracity of the photos. They just re-posted the photos. So what?

[Posteritatis]

26. Nice world, where "they passed the English signs around" is harder to believe than "omg shopped!" nt

[patrice]

35. +1

[patrice]

29. Interesting that there is so much more interest in false photos than there is in an entire FALSE WAR

on Iraq that killed about 5K Americans, maimed about 30K and destroyed an entire country, killing about 100K Iraqis and made refugees and/or orphans of about 3 million other Iraqis.

[patrice]

30. There was a very aggressive attack upon a critique of those photos here last night. It was implied

that the graphic artist who made the critique is a hater.

[patrice]

32. What if those were real protesters who were afraid to be together, because that would be taken

as more of a threat to those who did the violence, so they were scattered around, some even photographed in private, and then photoshopped together?

[Posteritatis]

43. *facepalm* (nt)

[patrice]

48. Tell me what's so far-fetched about that hypothesis. Isn't the fact that this was concurrent with

activity in Egypt indicative that this is a much bigger deal than just Libya and, hence, more dangerous?

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. I think they're real

But, here is the caveat, important caveat, notice the number of them that have their media logo or national flagged? It would not surprise me if it has a tinge of staging.

But the photos are real, and the sentiment probably is as well. The staging...it's the nature of the society. Here the media manipulates opinion, in places just emerging from dictartorship this goes tripple so.

[Cleita]

36. Isn't there an easy way to find out?

I know many of our DUers do Photoshop. It's my understanding you can go in with a zoom and magnify the pixels that give away whether there is Photoshop involved. If the signs were that amateurish, surely so were the Photoshops. Now I have never done this or know much about Photoshop. I'm just passing on what I have heard.

[Glitterati]

38. There's a VERY easy way to find out

I've contacted Reuters and the photographer. Just waiting to hear back.

[Posteritatis]

45. Of course, that won't convince the "it has to be a shop! it doesn't fit my narrative!" crowd. (nt)

[patrice]

49. Has anyone counted yet how many different narratives are possible? Let's forget "probable" for

a while, since we aren't really subject matter experts and there's a bunch of stuff we don't know, let's just think about the number of different combinations of factors/actors that would result in something other than straight un-touched photos.

[Posteritatis]

54. QED. (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. You know what is sad

I recently took a photo of a bad crash on I-125. We really did not feel like stoping.

Guess what? The photo, (the good one, sort off) that the paper ran, had a tinge of post processing, to fix some issues with light.

By your definition, you know how many photos the media runs in the US, regularly mimd you, that are post processed?

Jaysus, there are days.

There is another photo we took at a fire, that was not post processed, and it probably should have been.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

72. There are clearly levels of photoshopping

Minor touch ups do not constitute fraud. I don't know if anybody claiming that they are fraudulent. I have never seen a group photo that was not mildly staged to some degree, at least to say CHEESE

[zinnisking]

97. There are people here claiming they are fraudulent.

A least two people are *certain* they are a fraud.

One of them called the photos "bullshit".

I don't think 'bullshit' means "a slight touch up".

But I'm not a professor.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

98. I had not seen that here when I posted that

I have seen it elsewhere.

It would not surprise me in the least if lighting or contrast was touched up in the originals. Its rare to get things perfect in the field.

Some are using "photoshopping" as a pejorative...which I think is uncalled for.

[Glitterati]

55. Did you see someone say that?

Because quite frankly, I've seen no one on DU say such a thing.

[Posteritatis]

59. You mean the numerous people in this thread insisting the photos are fakes? (nt)

[Glitterati]

61. No, I mean ANYONE

Who said photoshopped pictures mean the Libyans aren't demonstrating in favor of the US and the Ambassador.

I've not seen one such post on DU and would like a link to any you have found here. Even deleted posts can still be viewed.

[Care Acutely]

42. <------ . . LINK TO REUTERS PHOTOGRAPHS/SLIDESHOW VIA ABC

http://gma.yahoo.com/photos/libyans-denounce-acts-of-terrorism-slideshow/demonstrator-holds-message-during-rally-condemn-killers-u-photo-225806960.html

[patrice]

57. k, so those look authentic, so photoshopping was to remove some of the people we see

in these photos??? If that's what happened, why would someone want to do that?

Some sign content rather tentatively suggests a possible mix of meme-demographics/intents here, so has their message been edited through photoshopping?

If so, why?

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. "remove some of the people"?

WTF are you talking about?

"has their message been edited through photoshopping?"

It's up to you to make it clear what editing you are thinking about. Tell us what you think was there in reality, and what has been added or removed.

There's a video at #53 to help you explain what your questions or doubts are.

[patrice]

66. You've heard of working hypotheses? & I answered my questions down thread.

The only photos I have seen, until just now, had waaaaaaaaaaaaay fewer people in them, so that was my first hypothesis. These people are, after-all, doing something really courageous in these circumstances, so it is reasonable to form questions around the possible dangers in THEIR context.

You know what muriel? SOME of us don't start with conclusions and look only for support for that, but you DO have to have a starting POINT/start somewhere in order to have some TESTING structure for whatever the data is. That's what rationalism does.

[patrice]

67. Please note my use of question marks. Why do you assume those are not authentic? Are questions

not permitted?

[patrice]

64. posted in the wrong place. nt

[patrice]

65. posted in the wrong place. nt

[joshcryer]

101. Does it change the narrative of the photos? I don't think it does.

It's bad when you modify a photo to change the narrative from what actually happened. Such as in the case of some journalists adding in explosions or erasing actors acting violently or something.

All the few photos did were to place some people with other people. edit: that's wrong.

It looks like they actually just brightened the guy up a bit so the sign stands out better:



Compare to photo #5 here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer

[patrice]

105. I don't think so, but I never thought there was anything dishonest going on with those photo edits.

When I first saw them last night, I couldn't figure out what the edits were for, until I saw the whole video posted in this thread today. The video explained the facts to me, that is, the video enlarged the narrative for me. The video shows all of the Arabic (or Berber ?) language signs. There are only a very few English signs scattered around in the big crowd, so the edits were made to place the English signs next to one another for pictures to be used for English speaking viewers.

The even bigger story that the video tells though almost moves me to tears. It is about these brave people coming out in public in an uncertain situation to hold Arabic signs in order to communicate with other Arab speaking countries about what the Libyan people think and feel about what had just happened to Ambassador Stevens and our Libyan embassy. That communication with their own culture was their much larger intent than just getting attention from Americans. Violent people did these murderous crimes in their country and these ordinary people, men, women, some of them very old, children, and youths came out to "speak" to the Arab world about it.

Arab speaking Muslims showed their solidarity with the English signs in their midst; that is part of the bigger narrative too that was missing from the original, somewhat puzzling, pictures that we saw last night.

[joshcryer]

107. Ahh, OK, sorry for any misunderstanding.

And thank you for the thoughtful reply. BTW I edited my reply a bit because I think that the only modification there was that the guy was brightened up.

[patrice]

108. There's a thread here somewhere from late last night, in which a graphics person goes into some

expert detail about just a few traits of the photoshopping in the photos and got roundly attacked for his troubles too.

I was in that thread too, but didn't take sides. I was just puzzled by the photo edits and thought there was a reason for them that we didn't know. It did seem to me at that time that people in the photos had been re-positioned for some reason, something to do with composition perhaps, but I didn't guess that the demonstrations had been so big and had included waaaaaaaaaay more Arabic signs than English signs. I thought the demonstrations were kind of small with only a handful of English signs, silly me.

[joshcryer]

109. They were posted on Libya Alhurra's Facebook page.

I feel for the one person who did the edits though because it seems as if they are getting heat over a well-intentioned edit. It's not like anything nefarious was intended.

Here's their Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/LibyaAlhurraLivestream

Libya Alhurra represents the best of Libyans. Mohammed Nabbous founded Libya Alhurra and led the charge to getting out information about the regime after the internet was turned off there. He was later killed for trying to cover the war (who did it is immaterial, could've been looters, rebels not wanting to be filmed, or Gaddafi loyalists; we'll never know 100%). I watched him many nights in the early phases of the revolution there.

[ck4829]

47. He was spelling it as it sounded and that's the same guy at different angles

There's also a photo of a kid with the sign, could have very well passed it along.

[HappyMe]

52. Here ---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021335757

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. YouTube video of the demonstration, from the outfit that took the Buzzfeed photos

(as opposed to the independent Reuters photos)

Is everyone happy now? Can everyone find the sign/demonstrator they thought was photoshopped?

[PotatoChip]

63. Aha! Thanks muriel! (nt)

[patrice]

68. English content signs at: 1:57-2:40, 3:00, 3:24, & 3:40, possible others. nt

[patrice]

69. Answer: Photoshopping was to pull out ENGLISH content signs, since most of us can't read Arabic. nt

[joshcryer]

102. Ahh, yes, that makes sense. My other reply to you doesn't consider this.

If they focused on gathering up English signs so that people could see what was being said in one photo I don't see a problem with it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

111. It doesn't make sense to me

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer

I don't see that they've 'gathered up English signs'. BuzzFeed published mostly photos with English, unsurprisingly; the count of English to Arabic in each photo was (English, then Arabic):
1 : 1
1 : 0
2 : 3 (2 signs in both English and Arabic)
3 : 5
1 : 1
2 : 3
2 : 3
2 : 4
4 : 5
0 : 3
2 : 0
0 : 0
2 : 6
3 : 6
2 : 1

Those counts include signs visible in the background. One can argue about glimpses of corners of signs and whether they should be counted, but I think those numbers are reasonably correct.

In what way is Photoshop involved in this? Are you saying they've moved people around in the pictures with Photoshop? Any time there are several English signs visible in a photo, there are also several Arabic ones, usually more than English.

[joshcryer]

112. I originally thought they had.

But on further inspection it appears that the "altered photos" are simply those which have had a "brighten" filter applied.

[riverwalker]

71. thank you muriel!!

perhaps the OP, upon use of what they call "the Google" should have found this before placing "apology" in quotes.

[Atman]

74. I just want to know the truth. Please help me.

Where in this video is the man or the child holding the sign in question? I watched it three times. Maybe I just missed it. I saw the man, but he was just taunting the crowd, not holding a sign. I saw the child, but he was never even holding a sign. WTF did I miss????

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. Which 'man' or 'child holding the sign in question'?

You haven't posted a photo, nor linked to any, in this thread. We've seen over 20 of them in various places.

On edit:

The wording you refer to in the OP appears in the 1st photo of this OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1331089

That man in in the video, bottom centre, from about 1:57 to 2:47, with that sign. Too far away in the video to read it, but you can see the rough positioning of the writing is the same, and it's the same man and size of paper.

[Atman]

76. It's just shockingly obvious.

"The wording you refer to in the OP appears in the 1st photo of this OP:"

I'm sorry...I have worked with Photoshop since Version 1. I can make a convincing photo of you riding a unicorn with W while smoking a crack pile. Really...just try me. And when you do something like this every day, and make your living off of it, you get pretty good at spotting other people's shoddy work. These photos are freakin' obvious. The hands on the signs, the shadows...just so much about them is fake. Good Photoshopping makes it hard to spot...bad Photoshopping makes it stand out the moment you lay eyes on it. The moment I looked at these pics I said "bullshit."

Further, several posters assert they were just passing the same sign around...but the text doesn't match the wrinkles of the paper. Not only the "apology" sign, but even moreso in the sign held by the woman behind him. AGAIN...in the video, there are NO English signs. None, except for the poorly-worded banner. Every other sign is hand-drawn...except for these pics of the man and the boy both holding the same sign, in English. Yet there are NO English signs in the video of the same event.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. Seriously, you need to get your eyes tested if you can't see the English signs in the video

Or replace your monitor or something. The one with the wording you quote in the OP is hard to read, but you can see it's the same man who is holding it in the still photo I linked to. There are plenty of English signs visible in the video. If you can't spot those, there's no way your eyesight/monitor combination is good enough for you to spot a photoshopped picture.

Here, I'll help you with times and places:

0:40 'Thugs and killers...' held by woman in back headscarf, middle of screen -see http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1331089 pic #3
1:17 "this does not repesent us' - right of pic, woman in black, behind microphone

1:22: "...Not... revolition fail" in red, woman in red headscarf
2:04: "Chris Stevens was a friend ..." left of video, 'back row' see man in pic #2, #4

3:20 "no to insult our prophet..." colour, printed, centre

3:39 "no to insult our prophet..." black and white, printed, bottom left

3:55 2nd "thug and killers" banner, whitish headscarf, left bottom - pic #14 here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer - centre of pic, right of 'Chris Stevens' sign (the 1st "thugs and killers" banner was still visible in same tracking shot, 3:45)

[Atman]

81. You pointed out the same ones I pointed out.

There are a couple of "Budweiser Beer" distributor-style banners, with the same bad wording. You point to those in your response. Except for those slick banners, no one is holding an English language sign. No one. Except in these close-ups of the man and the kid, holding the exact same sign.

The "Thugs and killers" sign is even more suspect. The type doesn't match the wrinkling of the paper. Once again, I Photoshop for a living...the Photoshopper here should have set transparency to "multiply" before he posted the image. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you don't know what you're talking about.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. I pointed out 5 English signs that you didn't mention

All are hand-written. 4 held by a woman, 1 by a man. Go and read my post again.

Which "thugs and killers" post? I pointed out 2, but you can't even seem to see that. The one in #8, #9 and #11 of the BuzzFeed photos, or the one in #14? Both appear in the video. Just how much frames of the video are you accusing them of faking?

[Atman]

86. I guess I'm not sure where you're vested in this.

I simply questioned some pictures. I know Photoshop, I use it daily to do the very stuff I've noticed "unusual" in these pictures. I've seen the videos which are purported to be from the same protest. I just raised a question. I am sure the government would be happy if we just accepted everything presented to us as the truth. I was just asking a question.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. I'm worried your eyesight has got too bad for your job

Seriously, if you can't see the English signs in the video, you are in trouble for work. If you want to know "where I'm vested in this", that is now my first concern. Clean your glasses, buy a bigger monitor, see an optician - just do something.

Yes, you question the pictures. So I show everyone the video which is plainly, obviously, clearly, undeniably from the same protest. You deny, despite the evidence that others can see (eg patrice, #68) that there are several English signs in it. They are recognisable as the ones in the still photos. You say you 'know Photoshop'; you seem to be claiming to use it to fake writing on signs every day. Fine. But the sign you claim has to be photoshopped, if it's the one we see a good face-on shot of in that other DU thread, appears in 2 other photos in the Buzzfeed collection, and multiple times in the video (I didn't bother cataloguing reappearances). And in the best shot, you can see how the creases in the paper affect the 'p' of 'represent', for instance. Perhaps you are saying that your work is that detailed too. Are you saying you fake videos as well?

[Atman]

89. No, you are wrong.

I did NOT deny there are English signs in the video or still photos. I specifically addressed them. They are the "Budweiser" banners, and the big "Thugs and Killers" sign. I mentioned those before, I didn't deny their existence.

Oh, and Patrice #68 agrees with you. Lots of people agree with me. So what? I just asked a fucking question.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. Here's your denials:

#76: "AGAIN...in the video, there are NO English signs. None, except for the poorly-worded banner. Every other sign is hand-drawn...except for these pics of the man and the boy both holding the same sign, in English. Yet there are NO English signs in the video of the same event. "

#81: "Except for those slick banners, no one is holding an English language sign. No one. Except in these close-ups of the man and the kid, holding the exact same sign. "

No, you did not 'just ask a fucking question'. You said

"These photos are freakin' obvious. The hands on the signs, the shadows...just so much about them is fake. Good Photoshopping makes it hard to spot...bad Photoshopping makes it stand out the moment you lay eyes on it. The moment I looked at these pics I said "bullshit." "

[Atman]

93. Sorry, you're STILL wrong...

#76: "AGAIN...in the video, there are NO English signs. None, except for the poorly-worded banner. Every other sign is hand-drawn...except for these pics of the man and the boy both holding the same sign, in English. Yet there are NO English signs in the video of the same event. "

#81: "Except for those slick banners, no one is holding an English language sign. No one. Except in these close-ups of the man and the kid, holding the exact same sign. "

You only read what you wanted to read.

.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. No, I read your whole sentences

whereas you bold only phrases in them ,and think you've shown something. You've denied, time after time, the existence of the hand-written English signs. Saying "there are only one or two" when there are at least 7 in the video is an idiotic denial of the English signs.

Are you now admitting that your eyesight is good enough to see them?

[Atman]

95. Nope.

I'm admitting that it is pointless trying to discuss this with you. You clearly think I'm saying something I am not saying, and I am trying to point that out to you. You just love to be contrarian, and you appear to love to fight. Fine. I'm done.

.

[Posteritatis]

90. I'm not sure you really have much room to claim other people are getting too into this. (nt)

[Atman]

91. Cool.

I made an observation. I asked a question. I'll be sure not to let it happen again...you can PM your list of acceptable topics you're willing to discuss. Thanks!



.

[zinnisking]

96. Change the video quality to HD and watch it in full screen. The apology (sans quotes) pictures

are in plain sight.

2:00: Chris Stevens Was a Friend To all Libyans

This one is way in back but very easy to read when the video is in HD.

2:00 - 2:45: Sorry People of America this Is not the Pehavior Of our Islam and Profit

The "Sorry People of America..." sign is in the front. Most of the time the light is glaring off the sign making it hard to see. But keep your eye on it and you'll make it out when it's at the right angle.

The photos are not bullshit. I didn't see them in the video either until I changed the quality.

HTH

[joshcryer]

104. You can see the sign here at the 2:00 mark (screenshot):

I don't know what the big deal is. While that is definitely the same guy even if they were passing signs around it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.

edit: hell, if you compare to photo 5 here (the photo in "question&quot it looks like it's the same people standing there: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer

I don't even think the guy was put into the photo. He may have been darker in the picture so they brightened him up to make the sign stand out better. If you look at the woman in #5 her sign is distinctly darker.

Wow, much to do about nothing. It doesn't even look like in picture #5 anyone was erased or put in!

[joshcryer]

106. OK now I figured it out. This video PROVES that the only "photoshopping"...

...was to brighten the guy up and such. It does look like he could've possibly been "put" in the image but this clearly shows that he was standing next to those people:



If you compare to photo 5 here (the photo in "question&quot it looks like it's the same people standing there: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer

He may have been darker in the picture so they brightened him up to make the sign stand out better. If you look at the woman in #5 her sign is distinctly darker.

Wow, much to do about nothing. It doesn't even look like in picture #5 anyone was erased or put in! The most ironic part is that in the YouTube thumbnail that guy is clearly visible even if it's blurry.

[PotatoChip]

56. The signs in Arabic are consistent with the pro-American

Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:26 PM - Edit history (1)

messages in English (imho).

The Atlantic Wire had someone translate what the Arabic signs said. Here is one example:



Update: In the photo above, the sign held by the man on the far left says "No to al Qaeda, no to violence, this is a youth revolution." The middle one says, "No No No to Al Qaeda." The sign held by the boy on the right is hard to read at this angle, but says something against killing.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/does-not-represent-us-moving-photos-pro-american-rallies-libya/56803/

[Cicada]

77. Polls found 90% of Libyans had favorable view of USA.

A poll of western Libya, including the city Berghazi, found 90% had favorable view of USA. I also read 10 Libyans died trying to protect our ambassador.

[Atman]

82. AGAIN...I am NOT questioning Libya's favorable view of the USA.

Not once...not in my OP, not in subsequent posts. This thread is about whether or not the IMAGES are real or Photoshopped.

[riverwalker]

80. some original photos here from source

https://twitter.com/#!/ASanalla/media/slideshow?url=pic.twitter.com%2FnQBRDC9b



Genevieve Belmaker‏@Genevieve_Long

@ASanalla My newspaper is running story about Libyans protesting burning of consulate. Can we use your photos in our story?

7hAhmed Sanalla‏@ASanalla

@Genevieve_Long Absolutely.
7hGenevieve Belmaker‏@Genevieve_Long

@ASanalla Great, thank you. How should we credit the photos? What name and organization (if any). Where and when taken. Thank you again.


@Genevieve_Long Taken in Benghazi Alshajra Square (Tree Square), wednesday 12th September. A.Sanalla

[Blue_In_AK]

83. I've been to lots of demonstrations where signs get passed around.

I have no idea if these pix are 'shopped, but it wouldn't be unheard of for different people to be photographed with the same sign.

[FedUpWithIt All]

85. They are real.

Apparently a man and a boy shared a sign but in many of the pictures it is clear that these are real people holding real signs. I think there is even a video floating around.

The same signs prominently shown in the foreground of some images can clearly seen, in natural angles, in the background of other images.

http://gma.yahoo.com/photos/libyans-denounce-acts-of-terrorism-slideshow/demonstrator-hold-placard-during-rally-condemn-killers-u-photo-231334268.html

[joshcryer]

100. Yes, they are real. A few of them were enhanced by photoshop.

But the people in the pictures really were there and what was written on the signs was real.