British GPS Photos Phaked

dirk-gerhardt.homepage.t-online.de...

Can anyone translate? From the pictures it does look like the location lettering is skewed and has a different resolution that the rest of the screen.

Maybe the photos have been doctored by the author of that document to look fake? Could be a double bluff if this person has an agenda to push. Hard to say without knowing what the text means, though.

[edit on 1/4/07 by Ste2652]

Originally posted by Ste2652
Maybe the photos have been doctored by the author of that document to look fake? Could be a double bluff if this person has an agenda to push. Hard to say without knowing what the text means, though.

The page has a link the the original taken from the UK Ministry of Defense website.

www.mod.uk...

Its real.

i dont understand.whats the pic supposed to mean?

Originally posted by Malichai
The page has a link the the original taken from the UK Ministry of Defense website.

...

Its real.

I'm not saying the original image has been edited by the person in question.

The original image does come from the Ministry of Defence, and it was released by them. What I'm suggesting is that it's possible that the 'close up'/'detailed' parts of the document are edited. If there are discrepancies then I find it unlikely that it's taken until now to find them - ten days into the incident.

[edit on 1/4/07 by Ste2652]

Would the British be outrightly stupid enough to publish GPS images that prove they are in Iranian waters? Highly, highly, highly doubtful.

why would the British have the nerve to use a faked picture in order to proof a point. They aren't that stupid. Digital pictures can't proof anything.

I cant see this being a faked picture - granted, if the UK gov really wanted to, they would have access to the best people / kit available to do so, but someone will still be able to tell.

p.s. remember an LCD screen like that one is at lease 5 mill inside the unit behind a proactive sheet of plastic - any slight angle the unit is held at would be slightly exaggerated by this. I'm no expert mind.

Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
i dont understand.whats the pic supposed to mean?

The pic is supposed to be taken from the British heli which was overseeing the boarding party ops when they got nabbed by the Iranians.
It is supposedly hovering above the merchant ship that was being checked.
The GPS co-ods are supposed to indicate the actual location of the ship, the boarding party and everybody w.r.t. the international border.

I could fake that. Give me photoshop and about 20 minutes.


In fact, lemme try

I don't speak fluent german, but I'll do my best with some assistance from babelfish...
________________________________________________________

Picture falsification?

[PICTURE]

You can find this highly dissolved version on this site:
www.mod.uk...
Picture:
www.mod.uk...

This picture came to us from the British military on, Wednesday, 28.3.07, which supposively proves that the Iranians that the 15 British sailors were arrested by without justification, because that freighter, was allegedly in Iraqi waters.

Exactly determining mbar by means of government inspection department coordinates, "the Global Positioning system", exactly determines the position by satellite-based means.

Such receiver equipment is shown on this picture, obviously with one admission from a helicopter, which flew over the freighter and accomplished locating their position.

By the BBC and CNN was shown among other things.

This photo was developed on Sunday, after the "entfuehrung" of the 15 soldiers, which took place on 23.03.2007. One source tells us this freighter lay there invariably before anchors, which is quite possible, since the territorial waters here are not very deep due to sediment carried by the Euphrates and Tigris.

We do not want to regard times the coordinates more near, since I assume at least that really in Iraqi waters liegen.Und we want also the process of the border, which is possibly not so clearly defined, as it gives those-British government, here ignores.
(Not sure how that would translate to make sense)

Which however it cannot be, becuase there are signs of picture manipulations.

An additional analysis:
..................................................................
Bungle almost starts one.
(Who?)

Only limited time for this:

1. To begin, there is angle deviation in the perspective with the attempt of lining up the numbers. Classical beginner error.

[PICTURE]

2. Sign of a Softselection edge, possibly by an automatic releasing tool:

[PICTURE]

3. Confirmation of the assumption (Selection edge) using wrong color analysis that it raises concerns with the government inspection department over the assigned picture.

[PICTURE]

4. Around depth now sharpness, to pretend the ship/sea did not become softened from the genuine photo, which has an effect on the pixel structure

[PICTURE]

5. The OVERLAY analysis shows clearly that it refers itself around an assembly action with a completely different structure of the JPEG of artifacts on the ship/sea to repeated compression than government inspection department pictures. That is a well-known problem with several types of compressed and/or, increased layers on picture parts when assembled.

[PICTURE]

See also this analysis, which referred however to a lower dissolved version of "the standard":

_______________________________________________________________________
|

(((TRANSLATION ENDS FOR NOW))))
(Someone else want to take over? I get a huge headache when trying to translate things smoothly into english... and Babelfish can only help me so much...

Anyhow, from what the document says it looks like there are pixel anomalies around the edge of the GPS device, and it also looks as though the text on the GPS device displaying the coordinate location has been added after the image was taken. This is shown by the fact that the numbers don't line up with the actual perspective in the image.

Anyhow, someone else translate the rest of it... starting with the article in the big box.

Ok, I just spent the past twenty minutes faking this, only to have my photopaint crash on me.. when I tried to save.

I was doing a half-assed job of it, but yeah, it's definitely doable, even by a hack..

Jpeg artifacts..

there are various ways to save images using a computer, all of which take advantage of different things to save space - a bitmap doesn't save space but assigns each pixel in an image a color value and coordinate.. GIF drops the color depth of an image to 256 colors or less, and JPEG performs an operation which essentially takes the 'boring' bits of an image and assumes they're all sort of the same color.. JPEG artifacts are what you see when you zoom into a picture and see detail where you shouldn't, ie, squarish boxes of color..

I'm not enough of an expert on that to be able to point out differences, however having manipuated enough images in my time, I can say that it's not all that hard to do with the right software and patience - eg, I once removed someone entirely from a photograph of my grandfather, including the hand on his arm and the ground and background beside him..

If you're sufficiently motivated, you can zoom in and edit on a pixel by pixel basis - and if you're working with an original bitmap image, you don't have to worry about duplicating the existing jpeg artifacts, you can just save repeatedly once you're done to naturalize the whole image.

The part about the skew lines is that there's definitely something a little odd about the image on the screen, the boxes don't quite line up right, but that could be an effect as someone else said of the odd angle etc.

Excellent post, I voted you way above for that one.

It's rare to see people actually taking the time to test things out for themselves. I admire that very much.

I believe that the Brits need to find an 'independent' back-up, something from a third party.......say the Chinese or Russians. Could either of them have a satellite that managed to record the position of the ship? Or is that beyond the realm of possible??

In this day and age of photo-shopping, I can't see a photo being used as indisputable proof for anything........

Especially not a digital camera.

I suppose if you took a picture with an older camera, it could be used as better proof. Just make sure that the original film and pictures are left untouched.

If you digitally edit a picture, then place that image onto film, then it will look digital, which would be a dead giveaway, as the camera that took the original picture wasnt digital.

Also, video is more difficult to fake than still pictures, short video clips, instead of pictures should be used if the government wants the public to believe them a little more.

Both of which are still fakable... but not as easily as a digital photograph.

Proof we were there!




[edit on 2-4-2007 by Shar_Chi]

OH NO, PHOTOSHOP WAR!!!

That ship down below doesn't look like a military ship at all, unless the british hang old tiers over the sides of their ships...

erm that's because it was the Merchant vessel

I TOLD YOU I WAS THERE!



This is irrefutable proof. The british used it, I can use it too!

[edit on 2-4-2007 by johnsky]