It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Do you honestly not think this is a nude image?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:46 PM
I am still very much in opposition to this technology; As it can potentially open the gate to so many wrong doings.

However, my personal beliefs also require me to play devil's advocate. So here we go.

Is it possible that these machines are actually NOT intended to be used to search for contraband, or to look at people's naughty bits? Are these scanners being set up for something else? Here are a few questions

Can these machines be used to determine who has, and who hasn't been microchipped? Or rather, can they also equip a stronger RFID reader within the system? Does it already have one? Is this a feature that we overlooked?

Are our intelligence agencies concerned about Manchurian candidates who allegedly have technological triggers within their bodies? These have allegedly come in form of chips that are about the size of a dime.

Can this machine determine if an individual has had reconstructive surgery? We're getting to the point in time, where it's easier to fake your face then it is to fake your passport.

And furthermore, are there any other alternative uses for this technology that have been overlooked? Can this be a silkscreen for something else?

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Unit541
The images in the OP appear to be fake. Dead give away is the fact that these scanners penetrate clothing and hair.

Authentic images captured from full body scanners all have one thing in common. The subjects of the images all appear bald.

It's also interesting how the subjects jeans don't appear to have a zipper, or rivets on pockets. The clasp on her bra strap (which is apparent through her shirt in the "unscanned" image doesn't appear either.

I'm sure if we looked at it long enough, we could pick out a million things that don't add up. Like the bracelet or watch, that seems to vanish in the "scanned" image...

Look, I'm against full body scanning at airports, but this is a contortion of the facts just for the sake of it...

Good points.

I thought it was a little fishy when I first flipped it to negative and saw that the background had been cut out kind of poorly. Not that that indicates a hoax, it just sort of stuck out.

One more facet to look into... It could have even been put out to make people like me easy targets for people to throw HOAX! at, undermining the entire argument. This is a conspiracy website, right?

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:47 PM
Oh, and whether the original image is genuine or not, this whole situation is a bunch of malarkey.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:50 PM
Also good points, especially considering the possibility of a hoax/pot stirring...

Originally posted by patmac
Is it possible that these machines are actually NOT intended to be used to search for contraband, or to look at people's naughty bits? Are these scanners being set up for something else? Here are a few questions

And furthermore, are there any other alternative uses for this technology that have been overlooked? Can this be a silkscreen for something else?

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:57 PM
i don't have a problem with these types of scanners being used in airports and if some poor sod gets to see me nude then i feel more for him than me. i'm also pretty sure he's not going to be standing on the other side snickering and pointing when i come out either.

i'm also not concerned about the images being stolen and misused. even if there was a market for a bunch of grainy human outlines, i doubt it would be profitable enough for someone to risk their livelihood and freedom over. i think a lot of you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

what does baffle me though is why the focus is only on planes and airports. there are plenty of other places where bombs and suicide bombers could be just as, if not more, effective. those places have less security too.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:58 PM
I'm absolutely not a prude. I have no qualms about nudity, in fact I encourage people to get comfortable with non-sexual nudity, both their own and other people's, as I firmly believe that "aggressive prudishness" is a sign of major psychological issues that are easily sorted. I'm also an artist, and for my entire adult life I have been fascinated by nude art, both male and female, and have drawn, painted and modelled in 3d many of my friends and firmly believe that the human body, in all it's shapes and sizes, is one of the most beautiful things in nature.

My issue with the rapiscan is not "oh no, someone will see my winky".

My brother went on holiday a fair few years ago, and met a wonderful girl from England, and a couple of years later, he left N Ireland and moved over to England, got married, and now they have 2 beautiful children, and they're all living happily ever after. When their first baby was born, my parents and sister decided that they would also move over to England, as my folks wanted to have a real relationship with their grandchildren. We all lived in England for a few years when we were younger, and I remember how hard it was being so far away from my grandparents, so I supported them in their decision, but I felt that N Ireland is my home, and I stayed here.

I'm 35, and bar a few day trips to the south of Ireland, and 1 week of rock climbing in France, I've never left the UK. My father was for years a member of the police force, and later worked as a civilian contracter for the military. I've never been arrested or a suspect in any crime, nor do I ever intend to be. I live my life by the philosophy "Do no harm". I don't seek revenge when wronged, I try not to judge when people make mistakes that cause me harm, because I myself have unwittingly caused harm.

All in all, I'm a fairly good person, and I try to live a quiet but fulfilling life, and try to treat people in the manner in which I wish to be treated.

But now I'm told that if I want to visit my family, go and see my little nieces, get some good old fashioned Mummy cooked food, hang out with my brother and sister, I'm going to have to first prove that I'm not a terrorist. Now I know all about terrorists. I grew up in N Ireland. I've had to stand out in the cold waiting to get back to my car because someone planted a bomb in my home town. I've sat and tried to console a friend when she found out that her dad had been shot and killed in his own shop by the IRA. When I was younger, I thought it odd how lax security was in English airports compared to the airports over here.

Put simply, I find the notion that I have to allow myself to be strip searched, albeit virtually, just to travel from here, which is inside the UK, to another part of the UK, is too far. It's wrong. We cannot allow it to happen. We cannot allow our governments to get away with this. They've already tested us for our obedience with their ludicrous smoking bans. There's no need to force smokers to stand outside in the cold and rain when adequate smoking facilities keep any fumes and smells away from non-smokers. It was simply an exercise in testing our obedience. Would we revolt and refuse, or would we bend over and part our cheeks for them? Well, we parted, and now they've got the results back from their test and they're literally going to strip us of every dignity we have left.

It cannot be allowed. We have to refuse. We have to tell them no.

But we won't. We'll bend over again and again. In a few years time, when it's manditory to have webcams online in our homes, we'll grumble and complain, but we'll do it. Mark my words, as a society, we've been broken.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:00 PM

Originally posted by ll__raine__ll
what does baffle me though is why the focus is only on planes and airports. there are plenty of other places where bombs and suicide bombers could be just as, if not more, effective. those places have less security too.

This is dangerous, please think about what that would actually mean. Freedom is not found in between check points. Freedom is found in the lack thereof.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:01 PM

Originally posted by purplemer
Whats the big deal is a picture of a body. We all have one...

The big deal is, that these pics are of people...real people...who unlike yourself, see it as an indecent intrusion on their personal privacy.

No big deal to you.

Huge big deal for others.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:15 PM
reply to post by ll__raine__ll
The idea is that the screener will be in a quiet room and remote, and that it should be a same sex person..not as shown in my link, and the pics are not that grainy at all. Of course if you don't mind being X-rayed, if you don't mind being on a computer somewhere/everywhere? that is your priviledge. BTW it won't stop the bombers, and with a little imagination your spam e-mails will probably increase.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:28 PM
reply to post by TheIrvy
Well said Irvy, as you can see we are in the same place although I am English I've been here for a very long time. This is a biometric ploy, and it does make you wonder.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:28 PM
Thankfully i dont fly, but my problem with it, is how many times do you hear of some perverted idiot making copies of such material for his or her own collection, there are many people of all ages children included going thought these things, the next we will hear is of one of the operators saving them, they can tell you they cant, but how many times do we hear about it? headline news Police officer found with indecent images from a case, social workers, hospital staff, the list goes on, it will only be a matter of time before these pictures end up on some corny website somewhere of a your girl showing her boobs, Not that, that was her intention, she wanted to go on holiday. This is all about controlling people and in your face treating us like sheep.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:29 PM
If push comes to shove, they could install them at certain airports, and those who want to be "safe" can go there.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:34 PM
Yeah smurfy, I noticed, what part are you in?

Again, it's not about who might see the images or what they'll do with them. It's about the fact that we'll allow the government to get away with it, and the fact that it's as plain as the nose on your face that the justification for doing it was staged.

And actually, I did ask a security guy in the airport once while I was removing my belt what exactly would happen when a "terrorist" smuggled in a bomb in his underwear.

So what happens when the next "terrorist" attacks a hospital? Will we have to be virtually strip searched before receiving medical care? What about other civic buildings. What about schools, universities, shopping malls?

If we allow this, and we will, then it's game over. We've just seen the harbinger of it. We no longer have civil liberties. It's a pretense. From this point on, we're herded cattle, merely here to keep the cogs turning to keep our lords and master comfortable. We're slaves, without the right to make our own decisions, go where we please or buy or sell without being stripped, violated and treated like bought and sold possessions.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:38 PM

Originally posted by all2human
i can't wait for the pics of j lo


Yeah jk........
But these pictures will find there way onto the internet due to the nature of human curiosity.

Problems will come up with the system because it's people that run them. Investigations will happen, people will be fired and jailed, but that will help get the bugs out of the works.

No system is perfect in the beginning.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:51 PM
Does an image of a naked person really ruin our children? why is nudity so frowned upon by the American culture?

Are we so insecure about our bodies? is it really such a big invasion of privacy? we all have reproductive parts and federal employees won't judge you, they are just doing their job.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:57 PM
This isn't about someone seeing us naked. Hell, if you really want to see me naked, just ask, I'll email you a pic. That's not the problem. The problem is that we will allow our governments to remove our civil liberties, our freedom to travel, unless we subject ourselves to being treated like farm animals.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:02 PM
reply to post by TheIrvy
That is what I've been trying to say with my posts all along in this thread, just another brick in the wall. I've been looking around the 'net for "stuff" that would defeat these X-ray machines simply because it would not be noticed on bodies and there is such "stuff", and the same "stuff" would never be seen in a suitcase either because it is so small, so no need for placing around the body at all. If I have found this scenario, you can be sure that is already well known.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:05 PM
Ya know, I am not a prude, but, I surely do not want to be naked in front of some scanner worker. Sorry. We have given up so much, I didn't really believe it after 911, I was so angry and upset and it keeps getting worse. This isn't about nudity as it is about civil liberties. I am an artist and my children have seen artistic nudes in books and magazines since they were very small. My daughter at age 10 is quite good at distinguishing art from crap.

I don't want my kids paraded through a machine, my husband point blank said he doesn't want someone else looking at me nude. Its like someone opening up the door when you are in the toilet. Yeah, its natural, but, I prefer to keep it to myself

Wake up people, smell the coffee.

The mack daddy quote by Benjamin Franklin:
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.

Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.-Thomas Jefferson

[edit on 1/7/2010 by llpoolej]

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:12 PM
reply to post by TheIrvy

farm animals don't have to pass through security before boarding trucks to the abattoirs. this type of speech is what i meant by my 'mountain out of a molehill' comment. saying you're being overly dramatic would be more apt though.

i know this is a conspiracy site but in this case, all the government is trying to do is make airliners safer.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:14 PM
It's not enough to avoid it, or to try to get around it, it MUST be challenged and refused.

We do not live in a democracy. We live in a consistent dictatorship, and the people we are told are running the country are merely playing a game to give us the illusion of democracy. That cannot be disputed now that Obama has come into power in America. He was elected on promises to change things and right the wrongs of the Bush administration, and instead he continued the same policies and picked up right where Bush left off. That's because they weren't Bush's policies, and Obama is merely the new face of the continuing government. By switching parties every few years, which we do in the UK as well, the people are appeased with promises of changing things - but first we have to accept new restrictions to "right the wrongs" of the previous administration.

We cannot hide from this, or just avoid airports. This has to be refused. The government is meant to be there for our benefit, not the other way around.

You have to look at the big picture. We're fooled into thinking that things aren't related, aren't scripted, and are stand alone incidents that don't interconnect. Every changed law has a purpose. Everything we see in the news is there to affect what we will accept.

I am a free man, and I demand the right to move around this planet freely. I may choose to remain within the UK, but that is my right also, and it says on my passport that I am to be allowed to do so freely.

If these scanners go through, I might decide to force any offical who wishes to enter my property to first strip naked at the gate.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in