Daily Mail (UK) Blatent Lies About Syria

This article explains about a supposed Tank attack on the Rebbel Army, yet a closer examination of the images reveals blatent photoshopping.

Take a look at the first image in the articles striking resembelance to the third image in the article.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200283/Killed-instant-Moment-Syrian-rebel-checkpoint-takes-direct-hit-captured-powerful-photographs-cost-war.html


Copy and paste link as direct link doesnt work for some reason

reply to post by michael1983l



Use the Link featuring when writing/editing posts.
This pic?



If it is real then that's one hell of a Kodak moment

reply to post by michael1983l


It's because the images are out of order. Try looking at the images in this order 2, 3, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7.

That's just a standard anti-personnel round going off.

There seems to be some differences in the position of the rebels between the two. Scroll back and forth and those subtle shifts in movement will show themselves. This prove that they are two distinct photos taken very close together (at most a second apart), but the flames and smoke could still have been photoshopped onto the second frame.

reply to post by masqua


There is definitely a difference as you've pointed out. Attention to detail is vital in cases like this

They can lie about Syria, but the whole point of the article is that those photos were taken seconds after each other.
the claim is :
2nd photo: People doing stuff
3rd photo: People aim RPG at something
1st photo: beginning of explosion in front of people with RPG
4th photo: Full explosion
5th photo: survivor running away.
All are different photos, there are lots of differences between 3rd and first one, but they were taken really close to each other.
Look at head of left guy - different angle.
Look at feet of guy closest to photographer - he moves and there is blur in first, no blur in 3rd.He is in different spot,too.
Guy with machine gun holds it differently.
Et ctr. Lots of tiny points that are different between two photos.
There is no reason to photoshop too. How it helps with anti-Assad agenda?
Syrian officials acknowledge that there are heavy fightings in Syria. And no sane individual would condamn Syrian soldiers for shooting at someone hostile who aims RPG at them.

reply to post by Swills


Seeing the moment of the explosion in the link you've provided (black smoke and sparks) makes me think these pics are the real deal. Study the positions of those visible in that photo and I think we have 3 pics in very rapid succession.

Milliseconds pass...

The first, before the round hits, shows the position of all the rebels, The second with the flames shows the precise moment when the round hit. The people are actually still not moved far from the positions in the first pic, but they have moved.

Then the billowing sparks and smoke in the third frame, but the positions of those still visible have yet not moved more than an inch from the second frame.

I'm left in awe of what a camera can capture on high speed.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
And no sane individual would condamn Syrian soldiers for shooting at someone hostile who aims RPG at them.

True... but no sane individual can forgive Syrian officials for torturing and killing young children who's crime was spray-painting anti-Assad slogans on a wall.

Which is what started this fight. Remember?

reply to post by masqua


I am not expressing an opinion on whose side is right or wrong or the better shade of grey. I just state that there is no reason to photoshop a photo in which armed people are being shot at in civil war. Those specific photos do not make Syrian army/Rebels to appear morally worse or better as far as i can see.

Welll it is not dubbed 'The Daily Fail' for nothing!

Actually I see 3 shots not 2, that are very similar and must have been taken only seconds apart. I also think photoshopped especially as the soldier in the red t-shirt is still got his arm outstretched pushing onto the back of the one in front, even throughout all the chaos, fire and explosion.
I do a lot of photoshop artwork and I would say it looks shopped. Perhaps there was a real explosion or gun fire and they shopped in some drama (wouldn't put it past them one bit) and perhaps it is all faked up. Not as if the BBC or other 'news' establishments have never been caught faking up photos (some from completely different countries/events to the actual article too).