Image from CNN

That picture is clearly NOT photoshopped. Sometimes I just don't know about some of you. . .

I'm betting everybody who thinks it's shopped has never used photoshop, or a digital camera, and knows very little of either.

Sometimes pictures of a digital camera naturally look photoshopped, because everything is in focus and the colors are crisp with no real depth of field. Digital cameras don't see the same way that we see with our eyes, so it looks a little bit off when looking at a picture. This is why a lot of photographers still stick with film and don't like digital cameras.

There's no reason for this to be a shop, and it simply just isn't. It's just a digi cam photo with no depth of field. This is an incredibly common thing.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by garbageface]

I did some digging and found the original picture.

That didnt work the way I wanted it to. How do you post a picture and it show up on the thred? Not `external link`??

reply to post by tribewilder


ASIDE from the shoulder-patch differences- thet are each carrying TOTALLY different versions, of the M16- one (left guy), a standard M4 carbine, the other (right), a STOCK M-16A1, which I THOUGHT, was NOT in service, now. THAT, is an OLD gun! SOMETHING, is not right, here.

reply to post by Patriotgal


M16's are still used, it's rather common actually. Usually given to logistics units and such, that don't do much of anything outside the wire.

Originally posted by Patriotgal
reply to post by tribewilder

 

ASIDE from the shoulder-patch differences- thet are each carrying TOTALLY different versions, of the M16- one (left guy), a standard M4 carbine, the other (right), a STOCK M-16A1, which I THOUGHT, was NOT in service, now. THAT, is an OLD gun! SOMETHING, is not right, here.

That isn't an A1. A1's haven't been used since, like, Vietnam. They were crappy guns. Jammed easily. It might be an A2 or even A4. You're right, it is an M16, but not an A1. And it isn't uncommon to use M16's. The Navy uses M16's for watch duty aboard ship.

Originally posted by garbageface
That picture is clearly NOT photoshopped. Sometimes I just don't know about some of you. . .

I'm betting everybody who thinks it's shopped has never used photoshop, or a digital camera, and knows very little of either.

Sometimes pictures of a digital camera naturally look photoshopped, because everything is in focus and the colors are crisp with no real depth of field. Digital cameras don't see the same way that we see with our eyes, so it looks a little bit off when looking at a picture. This is why a lot of photographers still stick with film and don't like digital cameras.

There's no reason for this to be a shop, and it simply just isn't. It's just a digi cam photo with no depth of field. This is an incredibly common thing.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by garbageface]

Wow.. such a speech to point out that you don't understand a thing about DSLRs.. Since when do digital cams have no depth of field??

As you can see my DSLR has no DOF either!!


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e493601c1e3e.jpg[/atsimg]

The photo DOES look fake, his face is absolutely obviously put there with no real effort at making it look real.

Purpose? Waste our time probably. They're learning fast!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/97d3be30cd87.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by wcitizen


Yeah, noticed that too, but judging from one of the replies to the article...

So, CNN, you post a picture of 2 navy soldiers along with this article about 2 abducted soldiers but the picture is not of the guys that were taken. So what do you think the family of those 2 soldiers in that picture think when they see it. I tell you what they thought. My friends husband was one of those guys in the picture and she thought it was her husband that had been taken. How cruel it that!!! She hadn't heard from him and to see that. Maybe you should think about what you are doing to these poor familys back home before you do something like that. You certainly owe them an apoligy. Think next time!!!

So it looks like the photo used in the story was a stock photo and the wrong one. Which has been indirectly pointed out by a couple ats members, the soldiers in the picture are not from the navy.

So I'm thinking its not so much that CNN is hiding anything in the photo, its just they suck and are lazy and just through in a stock photo. It was of other soldiers not even related to the story of the missing sailors, and the family members of those soldiers in the CNN article photo got upset because they thought it was their family member missing and or dead. Pretty sad CNN

CNN LOL

Jokers


JohnnyR




[edit on 7/26/2010 by JohnnyR]

reply to post by boondock-saint


looks like an empty water bottle.

my question is this:

are these guys sailors or soldiers? the article and clip say sailors were taken, but these two in the pic are soldiers.

so then why publish a story of two sailors with a pic of two soldiers?

"In releasing a statement Sunday, the Navy confirmed that the two missing service members are sailors."

what am i missing here?

naval police are SP (shore patrol) not MP (military police).

I'm new here and just started posting so be gentle! I've already made my intro thread, but for most of you who didn't see it, I'm a second class petty officer in the Navy (what my rate is is none of your concern at the moment ... if you get to know me, you'll learn more about me) and spent two years out in Middle East and I think I may be able to clear things up with my knowledge or at least make you guys think a bit.

First of all, I don't care if the image was photoshopped or not. IMO it doesn't looked photoshopped. I'm not an imagery expert by any means and the photo doesn't even pertain to the story. Those two in the photo aren't Navy ... they're both Army. The soldier on the left is from the Maine National Guard and the one on the right is from Installation Managment based on their respective unit patches on their ACUs ... it is completely normal for National Guard/Army reserve units (even at the individual soldier level) to be augmented into another unit to perform whatever duty is required. As far as the MP/FP thing ... you better believe the Army has Force Protection individuals ... when you're acting as force protection, you're acting as an anti-terrorism security measure (ATFP ... anti-terrorism force protection). All branches of the military do ATFP training and the fact they both have different role patches is insignificant. You will have MP (military police) and FP folks standing watch together. Heck the fact that the right one is an installation management MP and the other is a reservist doing force protection makes perfect sense ... they're standing "guard" duty after all and they'll more than likely be "guarding" something then won't they?

Both of them are standing watch in Kabul based on the information from the photo description ... the two sailors were taken in the Logar province which borders Pakistan and is NOT where Kabul is (Kabul province is just north of Logar). Yes, he doesn't have his hemet on, but these aren't in immediate danger otherwise they wouldn't be standing in a nuetral armed position with gun pointed downwards, fingers off of trigger. Do you know how hot it gets wearing a helmet, flak vest, and all that gear? It get's EXTREMELY hot ... you will take it off to wipe sweat and to cool down especially when you're standing watch and nothing is happening with no sign of immediate danger. The may even be gearing up during the time that pic was taken or they were turning over watch, or whatever. There's not telling what they're doing since none of us were there. The image is literally one of hundreds of photos MSM uses as "filler photos" ... as mentioned these guys are standing a watch in Kabul and then they go on with a photo description of "these soldiers are standing watch in Kabul ... oh by the way, two soldiers were taken in Taliban territory and a NATO-led search is underway" (not literally, but you know what I mean). These two chuckle-heads have absolutely no ties to the story other than the fact they're standing watch (I mean guard, but I'm Navy ... we don't stand guard, we stand watch lol) in the same country two sailors were captured.

We have two shipmates missing one of which is dead and that in itself is tragic. CNN pulled the photo PROBABLY because it was literally a picture of two Army soldiers, NOT Navy, and not related to the overall story. If you watch the CNN video you'll see a poster with a blurred out face of one of the sailors (the same burred face photo on a lot of different news sites). Why I've seen online news sites use the blurred posters and why the Washington Post (actual physical copy of the paper) this morning actually posted the full non-blurred posters is beyond me. I haven't found non-blurred photos online to show you guys the two sailors who went missing

Regardless, whatever your opinions are, someone serving your country has died and another is missing ... show a bit of respect and consideration for them and their families and hope they return safe

reply to post by SassyCat

Purpose? Waste our time probably. They're learning fast!

Or testing our skills.

Well, our.

Good catch OP, very perceptive.

I saw everyone asking "why", and it made me wonder if perhaps there is a faking of someone's death going on.
I don't know much about this story or the obviously manipulated photo, but that's my 2 cents.

reply to post by ffafguy


Here is a video with their faces shown..

reply to post by Hellas


THOSE are the two sailors ... the first one shown was the same copy of the one in the paper this morning, the second was a different pic of the other sailor than what was shown in the papers (he's wearing civvies in this one). Usually, when these types of posters are made be it wanted posters, missing posters, or PSYOPs posters, several different iterations of the same information will be put out so before anyone jumps the gun: NO, it's not a consipiracy that there are different posters showing different pics or different text lol

EDITED because of brainfart and WTF moment

[edit on 26/7/10 by ffafguy]

I agree it looks slightly odd... and I mean SLIGHTLY. I agree with the other posters that stated: what the exact purpose of photo-shopping this picture would be??? I mean it doesn't look like anything is being covered up at all. The only case of this being something would be if the blond man was indeed dead when this photo was taken then I could see going through all the trouble to photo-shop the damned thing. Otherwise why the hell go through all the damned trouble???

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but the soldier on the left's unit patch is from the Maine National Guard..

www.me.ngb.army.mil...

I still haven't been able to locate the soldier on the right's unit patch..

He's a cut out. Check it. The shadows are coming from the wrong places.


ARRR, THARE BE TWO SUNS IN THAT THAR PICTURE!

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by JacKatMtn


He's an installation management MP ... everyone should really look at what I posted since it explains a lot of things (on this page, just a bit up, and my longer response)

[edit on 26/7/10 by ffafguy]

Originally posted by Hellas
Wow.. such a speech to point out that you don't understand a thing about DSLRs.. Since when do digital cams have no depth of field??

Oh the ignorance!

Digital cameras allow you to change the f-number so that you have an "infinite" depth of field. When you have an "infinite" depth of field you lose all sense of "depth" because everything is in focus. Some consider this to be "no depth of field" because there literally is no real "depth" to the field of view (like 2D).

In order to add "depth" you have to decrease the f-number which decreases the depth of field and makes objects outside of the depth of field become unfocused which then creates a sense of "depth" (like a 3D effect). Some call this sense of depth the "depth of field".

You are argueing semantics.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]