PDA

View Full Version : Iran missile launch photo a hoax



namvet
07-10-2008, 03:00 PM
the photo we've all seen, that has some frightened, now appears to be a hoax. or Digitally Altered


A photo showing Iranian military officials detonating four military warheads appears to have been digitally altered to show an extra missile, according to New York Times blog The Lede.


source (source)


fake city. maybe the entire photo

http://www.foxnews.com/images/393039/3_21_071008_Iran.jpg

so whats the nuke test blast gonna be???? a touch up of Hiroshima????:laugh2:

Gaffer
07-10-2008, 03:20 PM
If you look closely you can see the editing. The smoke is the same along the ground and is the same in the rocket trails. One rocket doctored to look like four. This must have been a rueters photographer.

namvet
07-10-2008, 03:51 PM
If you look closely you can see the editing. The smoke is the same along the ground and is the same in the rocket trails. One rocket doctored to look like four. This must have been a rueters photographer.

2 smoke plumes are brown and 2 are gray. 2 fakes????

Gaffer
07-10-2008, 04:17 PM
2 smoke plumes are brown and 2 are gray. 2 fakes????

Nope, just color change. 3 fakes.

Psychoblues
07-11-2008, 06:29 AM
Then,,,,,,WAR IT MUST BE!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute:

Noir
07-11-2008, 06:34 AM
Thats the first i've seen with 4, the videos we have been getting ahve been of 3 batchs of 3 missiles, hence is it just the photo thats been edited? or the videos aswell?

Psychoblues
07-11-2008, 06:39 AM
Goddamnit, Noir, this is WAR, goddamnit. American Patriots don't need edited photos to go to WAR, goddamnit!!!!! String the bastards up by their goddamed toenails!!!!!!!!!! That'll teach 'em some goddamned common decency!!!!!!!!!!!!!

diuretic
07-11-2008, 06:46 AM
Did the Gulf of Tonkin Incident have photos? Or was it just, okay, if you say so?

Psychoblues
07-11-2008, 06:56 AM
Wuzzup, doc?



Did the Gulf of Tonkin Incident have photos? Or was it just, okay, if you say so?

It was enough for me at the time, don't you know? In retrospect it was rather shameful, don't you agree?

Hagbard Celine
07-11-2008, 09:01 AM
What's the controversy about? Isn't there video of the Iranian missile tests that I've been seeing all over the news for the last few days? Doesn't video trump a single photo?

diuretic
07-11-2008, 09:02 AM
Wuzzup, doc?




It was enough for me at the time, don't you know? In retrospect it was rather shameful, don't you agree?

In retrospect, yes. But it worked.

Psychoblues
07-11-2008, 09:10 AM
And that's the real goddamned shame of it, doc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



In retrospect, yes. But it worked.

Are we any smarter in 2008 or maybe 2003? The goddamned WAR ON IRAQ is so completely wrong then, now and fordamnedever!!!!!!!!!! 4,500 American dead and counting.

namvet
07-11-2008, 09:26 AM
What's the controversy about? Isn't there video of the Iranian missile tests that I've been seeing all over the news for the last few days? Doesn't video trump a single photo?

no. you can edit video.

Psychoblues
07-11-2008, 09:43 AM
And single frames can be presented as photos and photos can be edited, correct? Sheesh, what a fuckin' dumbass?!?!?!?!?!?!???!??!??!?!?

Sitarro
07-11-2008, 10:30 AM
And that's the real goddamned shame of it, doc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Are we any smarter in 2008 or maybe 2003? The goddamned WAR ON IRAQ is so completely wrong then, now and fordamnedever!!!!!!!!!! 4,500 American dead and counting.

Where is your link to the 4,500 dead, ace? Why are you lying, ace? You are, at least, 400 over and misleading with that count because those aren't combat deaths, many are accidents that could have taken place in the states or anywhere else. Convenient for you and your propagandist friends though. You denigrate the sacrifices these brave volunteers have made for their country by using them in a lie to try to bolster you poorly constructed point.

mundame
07-11-2008, 12:24 PM
Did the Gulf of Tonkin Incident have photos? Or was it just, okay, if you say so?


Too foggy for photos.

And witnesses.

Some boat said someone might have been shooting at them, maybe.


Johnson said "SO WE'LL SEND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TROOPS THERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS!!"

It's usually boats. Remember the Maine, the Lusitania, WWI and WWII shipping getting hit..........That's why they hit the U.S.S. Cole, after all. Bin Laden was trying desperately to get our attention. But we just weren't interested. So he tried bombing a couple embassies, that didn't work EITHER.

The thing is, Americans don't care what happens in foreign places. And I think that makes a lot of sense! I agree with that. Except ----

So he bombed New York, then we paid attention.

Hmmmmmmm. We may have to start paying attention earlier.

namvet
07-11-2008, 02:00 PM
Too foggy for photos.

And witnesses.

Some boat said someone might have been shooting at them, maybe.


Johnson said "SO WE'LL SEND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TROOPS THERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS!!"

It's usually boats. Remember the Maine, the Lusitania, WWI and WWII shipping getting hit..........That's why they hit the U.S.S. Cole, after all. Bin Laden was trying desperately to get our attention. But we just weren't interested. So he tried bombing a couple embassies, that didn't work EITHER.

The thing is, Americans don't care what happens in foreign places. And I think that makes a lot of sense! I agree with that. Except ----

So he bombed New York, then we paid attention.

Hmmmmmmm. We may have to start paying attention earlier.


some of you Q's need to answered by Klinton. because he didn't care what happened in foreign places either. not sure i understand boats.

mundame
07-11-2008, 03:54 PM
not sure i understand boats.

The acts of war, or the frauds the government pretends were acts of war, are usually about our ships or shipping.

Probably because nobody since the British dared to invade our homeland, too big.

Actually, even that war of 1812 was about boats --- that was when John Paul Jones resented the British trying to take sailors off his boat for their war (they were doing that a lot, because they needed sailors and of course ours spoke English) -- and fought them, and won.

The Maine blew up in Cuba's harbor and we said it was Spanish sabotage, but it was possibly a fraud or an accident, and we went to war with Spain.

WWI was a lot about our shipping and the passenger ships.

Pearl Harbor was certainly about boats......

Tonkin Gulf, when someone was supposed to have fired on a patrol boat of ours, was a fraud that started the major part of the Vietnam War, the escalations of big numbers of troops.

The U.S.S. Cole was bin Laden's attempt to start a war because of a ship sinking.

Now the main thing about Iran is will they stop the shipping in the Gulf? By shooting or blocking the oil tankers.


Yeah, it's usually about boats.

namvet
07-11-2008, 04:07 PM
The acts of war, or the frauds the government pretends were acts of war, are usually about our ships or shipping.

Probably because nobody since the British dared to invade our homeland, too big.

Actually, even that war of 1812 was about boats --- that was when John Paul Jones resented the British trying to take sailors off his boat for their war (they were doing that a lot, because they needed sailors and of course ours spoke English) -- and fought them, and won.

The Maine blew up in Cuba's harbor and we said it was Spanish sabotage, but it was possibly a fraud or an accident, and we went to war with Spain.

WWI was a lot about our shipping and the passenger ships.

Pearl Harbor was certainly about boats......

Tonkin Gulf, when someone was supposed to have fired on a patrol boat of ours, was a fraud that started the major part of the Vietnam War, the escalations of big numbers of troops.

The U.S.S. Cole was bin Laden's attempt to start a war because of a ship sinking.

Now the main thing about Iran is will they stop the shipping in the Gulf? By shooting or blocking the oil tankers.


Yeah, it's usually about boats.

yeah of course. but didn't politics play into some of these????? like embargo's. ie against Japan. ok. boats. hmmm ill give them sailors i knew a real ass chewing..................

Gaffer
07-11-2008, 04:28 PM
There are ships and there are boats you really need to look into the difference there mundame.

The gulf of tonkin incident didn't involve a boat. It was a US destroyer, and it was blown out of proportion and presented to johnson as an attack. They had been looking for an excuse to escalate things and this was it. He was lied too and made decisions based on what he was told. Sound familiar?

namvet
07-11-2008, 04:36 PM
There are ships and there are boats you really need to look into the difference there mundame.

The gulf of tonkin incident didn't involve a boat. It was a US destroyer, and it was blown out of proportion and presented to johnson as an attack. They had been looking for an excuse to escalate things and this was it. He was lied too and made decisions based on what he was told. Sound familiar?

the theory is LBJ started the incident to start the war. there was never any proof one way or the other. I do know the military and war profiteers put the heat on him to get their war.

namvet
07-11-2008, 04:37 PM
There are ships and there are boats you really need to look into the difference there mundame.

The gulf of tonkin incident didn't involve a boat. It was a US destroyer, and it was blown out of proportion and presented to johnson as an attack. They had been looking for an excuse to escalate things and this was it. He was lied too and made decisions based on what he was told. Sound familiar?

I forgot. we all raised our right hands................

Gaffer
07-11-2008, 04:55 PM
the theory is LBJ started the incident to start the war. there was never any proof one way or the other. I do know the military and war profiteers put the heat on him to get their war.

Yeah the proof has never been fully produced. My impression is he was lied too and made the decisions. He may have been a part of it all along and it was carefully covered up. Depends on who you read as to where the blame goes.

namvet
07-11-2008, 05:01 PM
Yeah the proof has never been fully produced. My impression is he was lied too and made the decisions. He may have been a part of it all along and it was carefully covered up. Depends on who you read as to where the blame goes.

well shit he was a liberal.........:laugh2: they tried the same crap on JFK. but he took a 2nd look and said this is not our war. they were pissed. so after he died they went to work on LBJ and liberal ass gave in. I heard an old archive recording between him and them. he said--ok you'll get your war.

theHawk
07-11-2008, 05:21 PM
the photo we've all seen, that has some frightened, now appears to be a hoax. or Digitally Altered


source (source)


fake city. maybe the entire photo

http://www.foxnews.com/images/393039/3_21_071008_Iran.jpg

so whats the nuke test blast gonna be???? a touch up of Hiroshima????:laugh2:

Its a little hard to believe that two different plumes of smoke look exactly like two plumes from an adjacent missle launch.

namvet
07-12-2008, 09:50 AM
Iran's Troubling Claims of New Firepower Appear False


TEHRAN, Iran Iran's missile test this week demonstrated no new capabilities, according to a U.S. official familiar with the intelligence, and the test may not have included one of the longer-range missiles that Iran said was among those launched.



source (source)

probably painted bottle rockets in some one's back yard.