reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
I'm sorry I forgot to address one of your assertions.
You claim my images are illegitimate due to the source.
There were two sets of these images released, one set leaked by the AP in 2002 and another set presented at trial in 2006 which can be found
here. SPreston found these and posted them in his
thread but didn't share. But I can tell you already know why.
The next part is not directed at you, Craig, but for posterity.
You can see from the "high quality" images in the link above that match the frames I analyzed that there are TWO GLARING DIFFERENCES between those
images and the ones I have sourced to 2002. First the Gov't images are obviously a different size. Second if you compare what I have termed IS1 to
this image that when you compare the shadows of the
entry gate housings they are of an totally different contrast. These images have are undeniably different and possibly doctored when compared to the
images from 2002. I would also submit that the 2002 images could be equally as false (but false in different ways from different sources), but that
would either make them both false or the Gov't images legitimate.
Do you like the leaked images better now or the ones the government provided?
My analysis was performed on the best source I could find for the images attributed to the AP and not the U.S. Government. I provided the
source link for my images above. If you can provide better imagery then I will perform the analysis again on those images.
Can you prove that either of sets of these images are faked or otherwise illegitimate? Can you tell me which one is more legit?
Prove it because there's nothing that tells me the 2002 images are anything other than 100% legit.
[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]






