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.


Image from CNN

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:57 PM
I can tell you exactly what's going on here. The government has been posting multiple jobs for a while, looking for people to do "Graphic Design", "Image Manipulation", etc... This is of course a normal thing for many offices and companies.

However, here's how it works. Obviously, the government posts the job and allows "anyone" to apply who meets the "Qualifications". Usually, a couple of things can happen, one, is that sometimes the departments word the post so that no one can qualify, except for an internal person who is NOT qualified, but for some reason, is being given the job, so you're out of luck.

The second thing that happens is that the jobs are posted and no matter how qualified you are or how many years experience you have, you will never get the job if you are not a Vet. This is because Vets receive a lot of extra points on top of everything else and end up with the job. I'm not making a stab at Vets, because obviously everyone deserves to work. However, what happens is that many of these Vets have only a tiny bit of experience with image manipulation, or may even be exaggerating to get the job, but the point system gives them a win and pushes out all of the outside candidates. Once the less than qualified people go to work, their skills rarely meet the needs or challenges, thus, you see poorly photoshopped images. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that there are plenty of Vets who have the proper skills, but many times it's just a numbers game.

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:01 PM
why is this such a big deal, for every one of us they kill, we kill thousands more. this is a war zone and soldiers kill each other, except for we kill civilians too. i don't know why everyone is so shocked when they kill one of ours, we're not invincible to casualties. if you don't like it, tell them to get the hell out.

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:01 PM
reply to post by ffafguy

Missed it, thanks for the heads up, and for the explanation.

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by Itachimaru

The whole story smells of Malarky, beef, cheese, and really nasty Polish sausage. Complete excrement.

That is my personal and professional opinion of the matter. If anyone wants to confer with me on this issue, I will be in my office.

Namaste and Love

[edit on 26-7-2010 by PsychoX42]

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:07 PM
The zoomed in pic clearly shows this was photochopped. I am positive those guys are Taliban. More CIA coverup.

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:09 PM
One thing I would like to add...

This image is NOT from CNN!

It's from a photographer named "SHAH MARAI". The image was just used by CNN.

Also the original image is 300 dpi! All of you are looking at a severely compressed image. All kinds of artifacts come up when you compress it that much.

So there is basically nothing to this topic.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:15 PM
Yes, this picture looks VERY odd but I think it is just the perspective. Normally pictures are taken from eye level of the picture taker, in this picture it looks like it was taken by a a man with a relative stature to the blonde soldier. In fact, the soldier with his helmet on is shorter than the camera and the blonde man. the dimensions and angles of the background are what throw off our common perception. The trough of soil running parallel with the low wall creates the illusion of a slope, this alongside the downward angle that the camera appears to be facing causes the blonde soldier to appear off or odd.
And also, what is the point of photo shopping a picture that only claims to be 2 guards?

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:21 PM
to my mnd,the pic just does not look/feel right.definately something wrong with the blond guy.

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:43 PM
If it hasn't been said already (sorry, I haven't read all posts), those soldiers aren't the soldiers missing, rather that is just a random pic of two soldiers. How do I know this? Because those soldiers are Army, while the two missing are Navy. The one soldier with his helmet on, is from a "support" unit on Fort Drum, it looks like.

Again, the two missing are from the Navy, not the Army and the two in the pic are from the Army.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by airspoon]

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by airspoon

hurp durp, I feel stupid now.

Thanks man. This glaringly obvious fact seems to have been missed.

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by ffafguy

Very informative reply. Unfortunately, it will fall on blind eyes here on this board.

You'll probably just see a bunch more of "lol luuks photushopped to me lol u rihgt I am expert!"

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by airspoon

You will never see a Navy man be called a "soldier" from a reliable news source. Soldiers are strictly Army.

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by garbageface

Actually, the term "soldier" is generic for any wo/man in a military, though on a more specific scale, it is used to refer to a member of the army. For instance, I have heard insurgents referred to as "soldiers", yet many of them aren't members of any organized, state-sponsored army. It really all depends on how much you are generalizing.

The definition of "soldier", according to Marriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1sol·dier
Pronunciation: \ˈsōl-jər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English soudeour, from Anglo-French soudeer, soudeour mercenary, from soudee shilling's worth, wage, from sou, soud shilling, from Late Latin solidus solidus
Date: 14th century
1 a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army b : an enlisted man or woman c : a skilled warrior
2 : a militant leader, follower, or worker


posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:30 PM
Just thought I would follow up with a few things that I haven't seen pointed out in responses.

1.) The soldier on the right is not carrying an M16A1. He has an M16 (likely a4, possibly a3) slung.

2.) Force Protection can apply to a range of people on FOB's in Afghanistan.

3.) Do you really need a solid reason for the two soldiers to be standing near each other? What if I took a picture of you standing on the corner of a street waiting to cross, and a police officer was next to you. Would I question why you were with that cop, maybe you are undercover....sheesh. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF POSSIBLE REASONS WHY THE SOLDIERS WERE WHERE THEY WERE.

4.) The picture is not a photo of the 2, well, one missing man (rest easy brother).

Thanks to everyone who is providing legitimate information in this thread, but I'm outty 5000. It really seems odd to me that people are coming up with crazy back stories, demanding details on this simple and boring photo. SOMETIMES YOU JUST CAN'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TO ALL THE DETAILS. Short of hopping on a jet or two, going to the FOB and finding the two soldiers, many of these questions will remain unanswered. Adios amigos.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Shark VA84]

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:36 PM
reply to post by Shark VA84

The soldier on our left has an M4, though it looks very similar to the M16A4, while the soldier on our right has an M16A2. M16A1s haven't been used by the US for decades.


posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:42 PM
reply to post by airspoon

That was the point I was making. The m4 is easy to pick out and someone did a couple pages back, but then they stated that the soldier on the right was carrying an M16a1. I was just responding to that letting them know it was not an A1. Before I discharged I was under the impression that the Army as a whole upgraded to A3's and A4's (Marines got a lot of our A2's...sorry boys, talk to the Navy). Then again, I never spent much time around national guard and reserve units (who would likely still have some A2's in service).

By the time I left I was carrying SCARs and an M24, probably didn't pick up an M16 series rifle for the last 24 months of my service.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Shark VA84]

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:38 AM

Originally posted by
coming from a graphic designer. doesnt looked shopped to me at all, and I can spot PS from 100 metres. haha.

Looks like a genuine photo, and I highly doubt that is a photo taken recently. Probably just a stock photo.

all of the angles are correct, shadows are correct. the hair glow is just due to the sun. the sunglasses dont look placed on his head, just very very clean.

I agree, I don't think the 'hair glow' is hair glow, there should be stronger shadows if the light is that bright.
I think it is light coming through a small slot between the concrete panels (possibly used for handling the slabs) and diffracting on exit. I opened it up in photoshop and did an edge detect, the slot is outlined clearly, you can see here:

Edited for spelling/clarity

[edit on 27-7-2010 by pscysm]

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:04 AM
Just wanted to pipe in and say the the "FP" patch is actually an MP patch in Uzbec-cyrillic. It is common for one member to wear the English and the other to wear a foreign patch when doing security patrols in a war zone due to the population not speaking English. The northern regions of Afghanistan will speak Uzbec and understand this patch.

If you look the "F" actually looks like a backwards r.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 10:08 PM

Originally posted by JohnnyR
reply to post by wcitizen

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

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




[edit on 7/26/2010 by JohnnyR]

But wait I thought only fox news did that stuff.

The soldier on the left can cleary be photoshopped. I even see the white backdrop still on the guys neck. The forgot to defringe the pixels for matte painting purposes.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:03 AM
I don't see the point of this discussion. Even if the picture is photoshopped (which several people who use photoshop regularly have already said it is not) what would cnn get out of it? There is no point in hiding something with this picture.

Sigh.. if a random cnn picture has some of you this distracted I would hate to see what an actual distraction from TPTB might do :/

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in