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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Famous Doctored Photographs

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in

+34 more 
posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:45 PM
Hi there, please take a few moments to check out some of these proven doctored photos from all different sorts of media outlets. These forgeries shown here are both recent and also vintage photographs. These are just a few examples of the deception we have faced and currently face today. I know a few of these photos have been covered here before, but this is a great collection and hopefully you'll find a few interesting ones that you haven't seen before. I found these very thought provoking myself.

Some of these fakes are so blatant its a wonder why they were even released in the first place. A personal favorite of mine is one that many of you are aware of, the Kerry/Fonda picture trying to link Senator John Kerry and Jane Fonda at an anti war rally. Enjoy the pics!


posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:01 PM
Nice post.

Always knew that Condoleezza Rice was a reptile and now I can see the truth in her eyes. lol

edit on 29-5-2011 by jude11 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:08 PM
reply to post by imeddieone4202003

Just finished looking at those pictures. Though I've seen a few before, I have never seen the ones from the past such as Joseph Goebbels.

Thank you OP.


posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:09 PM
Good stuff...thanks!

The one of Oprah was interesting for sure! They are all pretty interesting actually!

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:12 PM
Thanks for posting these.

There has to be laws in place that hold them accountable for this kind of fraud...correct?

With digital images being so easily changed nowadays, it worries what can be out there ,that people would believe is real.

Somebody could take a pic with their camera of me,or any member of my family, photo shop it into something else entirely, and put it up on some skanky website to attract trolls. Its creepy ,and people do it, even for silly retaliation over something trivial , or just for the supposed "fun" of causing pain to others.

Thats why people need to ask more questions, and expose those who stoop to such levels, for whatever reasons they do it.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:13 PM
reply to post by jude11

Yeah, i dont understand why USA Today thought it necessary to brighten Condi's eye's? Its creepy, i guess they thought she looked to dark/sinister in real life. Take a look..

"October 2005: This doctored photo of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appeared alongside a USA Today news story about Rice's comments to U.S. Lawmakers regarding U.S. Troops in Iraq."

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:16 PM
reply to post by imeddieone4202003

Thanks,this was really neat to see.Thanks for posting it.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:18 PM
Yea I was about to mention Condoleezza's eyes, they definitely look a bit reptile-ish.
If anyone in the world is a reptilian its definitely her. shes got the look and the attitude.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:19 PM
How could they overlook one of the more famous doctored images of all, the one they used to frame Oswald:

They also should have distinguished between faked images released to the Web by groups like 4chan for the lulz (the dead Osama image, for instance) from doctored images forged by governments or news agencies.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:26 PM
edit on 29-5-2011 by Aliensun because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:28 PM
I have to admit that I've only had a quick look over these photos, but I have to say that the most obvious fake is that photo of the guy in New York which was supposedly taken a few seconds before the first plane crashed into the WTC. The plane is just so artificially and unrealistically placed into the photo and it has absolutely no blurring around it whatsoever !

Also, I'm going to go on a bit of a rant about the airbrushing of women in magazines... Faith Hill looks far more naturally beautiful in the undoctored original photograph than she does in the airbrushed, unnatural version that the magazine decided to use as their cover-shot. I think it's sad that magazines feel the need to show an unappealing, almost doll-like quality to the women that they feature. This really isn't particularly attractive. You only need to compare her real skin-tone with the porcelain quality of the touched-up image to see which pictorial representation is the more genuinely attractive !

edit on 29-5-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:48 PM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

You are correct. That picture when analyzed shows a bunch of discrepancies. The paper is off, the angle he's standing is off ect. Thanks for posting it.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:58 PM
Very Interesting. S&F. Here's another very famous photo that while not doctored, was in fact staged.

Marines at Iwo Jima.
Here is the original:

Now after the one above was shot as it happened they decided to retake the picture with a larger American flag and with the Marines hoisting it up all together:

Anyway just some food for thought on how images can affect our perception.

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:55 AM
so they have been phostoshopping pictures for well over a 150 years. wonder how they did it back then?

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 09:10 AM

Originally posted by angelas210
so they have been phostoshopping pictures for well over a 150 years. wonder how they did it back then?

Prolly drawing / composing by hand... and then taking another picture at the finished altered picture. Gives you a new real picture that due to low quality looks like an original one... I think.

Or just drawing.

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by imeddieone4202003

Interesting thread, nice to see some of those golden oldies of censorship up there. Though a few are hardly "manipulated". for instance Coldaleeza Rice, as well as the childrens author, were merely processed to clear the image up. That's not exactly the same as adding or removing elements.

But for those who like to claim photoshop is to blame for all the doctored photos, not so, photoshop is the digital method, these old images used hand drawn stuff in some cases.

to us, they are pretty bad.

To people back then "the camera never lies"

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:54 AM
The classic picture of Isambard Kingdom Brunel was shopped to remove the cigar from his mouth when it was included in a book aimed at 5 to 7 year olds

edit on 30/5/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by imeddieone4202003

To people back then "the camera never lies"

But these days its the "Video Camera that never lies" People are aware of photo manipulation but find it hard to believe that a video of an event shown to them can be manipulated just the same. You cant trust either one 100%

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:10 PM
The people have been played and manipulated for so long, it's a wonder that
anyone believes anything put out by the media.
Yet the game goes on and billions swallow everything blindly, unquestioningly.
9/11, 7/7, mumbai and tucson shootings are examples of recent contrived hoaxes
passed off as devastating reality with the aid of computer generated technologies.
The lies continue, the perpetrators strive and the people sleep on.

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:19 PM
The random black guy head is the best one.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in