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.


Photoshopped AP Photo... Further Proof of Fakery... And for no reason

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:36 AM
Here is a perfect example, picture proof, of the MSM over-editing the news ... and for no known reason. This picture is circulating today in most articles about this drunk driver in Oregon who dangled over the side of a bridge, inside his truck, for an hour until he was rescued. This is not just Fox News... this is a photo released by the Associated Press.

See anything wrong in the picture in this article?
Pickup truck driver dangles from overpass after crash Read more:

Picture pointing out the "oddity":

edit on 11/25/2012 by dreams n chains because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by dreams n chains

Almost all news comes from AP's content management framework. They are the distribution mechanism that large media outlets leverage.

You put your story in AP's system, associate meta data to the assets and then FOX, NBC, CBS, etc; can have their "NEWS" applications automatically pull it.

Look at sites like and you'll see where all stories have dozens of sources. There is really only one or two sources.

As far as the OP picture; it is probably several pictures stitched together poorly because of all the commotion occurring during the incident. Not sure it is a lie, as much as poor use of tech.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:47 AM
ugh people on facebook are so damn dumb. All the comments about the two trucks being similar.... i guess they don't read much.

Anyway, I don't think it's proof positive of photoshop because some of the "panorama" style pictures can have oddities. That being said, I don't doubt that the MSM presents false or misleading photos. They are trying to sell a product and they want it to be as attractive as possible so it follows that they will alter pictures. I don't think it's always because of a cover-up or insidious purpose, but it might be sometimes.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:11 PM
To me, the picture screams double exposure rather than then lying about the incident.

I've had a few instances when taking pictures of my animals where they'd have disembodied body parts, weird "growths" about their bodies, or sometimes they'd only come through as a shadow or "ghost" image because they were moving too damn much or my camera had a hiccup.

Just because there's a hiccup in the image doesn't automatically mean they're lying about the story or over-photoshopping anything.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:21 PM
"Picture photoshopped for no reason".

Thats true cause, there is no reason at all to photoshop the picture, which then make this an error, propably a double exposure as mentioned above.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:40 PM
Ok. First of all, ew. That just looks weird and irks me.

Second, seriously? What's the point in editing out a fireman. Speaking of which, under the arm we can see a pair of legs next the vehicle, so they edited out that guy too. Really? There had to be some reason to this, be it yellow journalism or other.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:41 PM
The first thing I learned in college photography is that EVERYTHING is photo shopped. If it's in public, it's published and it's within the last 10+ years.....It HAS been edited. period. No exceptions and no debate. The question is not 'has it been edited?' but 'did they edit anything material for importance?'. Almost all photos look like crap in one way or another. Exposure, lighting or some idiot putting his hand where it shouldn't have been at the wrong second. all gets a treatment before the public sees it.

One thing they did with the class I'll never forget was to give us all a stack of 'error' examples. This represented the majority of magazine covers that one would find in a Walmart magazine section. All had gross Photoshop errors we needed to see and learn from. The thing that stands out? All were post-production prints. These were final versions that were sold on shelves with the major screw ups. Some took effort to find and some were as bad as this..

The bottom line though is that "it didn't need photo-shopped" is irrelevant. Yes, actually, it did need it to the minds of the editors.....just as every photo they handle gets 'treated' and they have a whole staff whose job is largely if note specifically about photo-retouching and processing. Almost makes ya doubt anything that doesn't have a physical film negative to support the original version, eh?

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:41 PM
One persons "dumb" is another persons "conspiracy". The people on ATS are the people on Facebook are the people... get my drift?... the worlds population and your fellow co-habitants on this planet. "Those people" are us. It is what you make it. Time to stop with the self-righteous bad-mouthing flooding ATS.

The picture, no matter what caused it, is innacurate and further proof to take MSM with a grain of salt and a lot of doubt/questions. That is the reason for my posting it. Interesting, unadultered factual proof... no "dumb" conspiracy needed.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:45 PM
OP, if you don't mind, I posted the photo here, just in case you want to take down that link because... you know...facebook

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:48 PM
That is what fascinates me...... that these instances of obvious error escape the editors eyes and are published. I've seen magazine covers with peoples navels completely airbrushed out. Associated Press should be more discerning and reliable. I can imagine a thousand scenarios that a picture like this could cause trouble or become an Urban Legend.

Anyhow... it is posted for anyone so inclined to also find it interesting the way I do.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:50 PM
See, that doesn't look like a photoshop to me. If they were going to edit out a fireman, they would have done the entire thing and not leave his hand floating in the air.... AP is better than that. Is it possible that it was a bad photoshop job? Sure....But, it is fairly rare. Yeah, you can find cases of bad photoshop jobs online... But such glaring mistakes from professionals are pretty rare if you think about the thousands of new pictures released by the media every single day.

I am thinking that likely, this is the result of an artifact in the picture. It could be a double exposure if they were using film rather than a digital camera. Could be an artifact if perhaps they were doing a panorama style shot with a digital type camera....

There are just many options here that make more sense to me than a horrible photo shop job that leaves a mans hand and forearm floating in mid air....

Peace and love
edit on 25-11-2012 by DirtyLiberalHippie because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:52 PM
reply to post by mr10k

I am the same person, no matter where I am on the internet and I am perfectly fine where-ever the photo is posted. I've never been one to bow to peer pressure.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:57 PM
I think this is intentional,
Any picture in daylight would be an exposure of 1/60th of second or faster.
If we had a disembodied arm there would be other blurry objects somewhere but there aren't any.
It's a "where's Waldo?" picture, intentionally made to bring hits to the websites it's published on.
They're know how to generate traffic and have been at this game for a long time.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 01:04 PM
Not a "double exposure". In that case, there would be a "ghost image" overlayed on another one, not one body part floating about.

It may have been edited to move the arm out of the way, to keep from distracting. Still, there's no excuse. With the advent of digital imaging, it's just too easy to move things about.

Just look at the Obama "birth certificate" that was on the White House website. It was shopped extensivly, and so poorly that they guy or girl who did it HAD to want someone to notice. Anyone who has a little experience in Adobe Illustrator could see it.

So yeah, the fakery is everywhere.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 01:06 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

It is published by the Associated Press and is on various news sites showing an image with the story of the drunk driver.

I'm wondering if it is to hide the fireman's face for some reason... as the fireman in the forefront looks photoshopped in also. The lighting just does not look the same as the rest of the picture to me.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 01:14 PM
To get real technical about it after looking harder at this? If I was handed this photo at school to critique and not shown the byline for where it came from? First of course would be the automatic fail given to the photo editor. One simply doesn't leave articulated appendages out where they can't attach to something.

I looked real hard at this though....and the details are telling. The area would seem to 'imply' a line back to the fireman which is the focus of the shot on the right...or perhaps one next to him and further into the scene for depth/size. Hard to say with the CS 6 tools for content aware (It means you can move things in a photograph now and the computer will auto-fill what is open in the absence of what got's almost magic when it works right).

However... like a bad TV show, I'd draw everyone's attention to the smoking photo detail. :
The truck and ground details between the arm and it's owner. They're perfect. Not a line out of place or a smudge to the lighting reflections from the lower % of the area forward of the wheel well. You can even see a line in place there which is unbroken and perfect in alignment to everything else around it. All...under where the arm should be covering.

So how the.... What the... How'd they do that?? Well... It's only one way, but I can very easily see everything here being done and screwed up by simply overlaying and then aligning TWO photographs (Photoshop does it automatically and specifically for this with the arm extended which they WANT the rest of...and another of the same scene for reference of background detail) then using masking effects to remove the big arm that takes up the left 'third' (a photo "rule" for layout of photos) of the picture here. Masking and the POOR use of it would explain perfectly how you get a piece of an arm with no apparent owner nearby...yet ALL detail and imagery where the rest of the arm should be is perfectly in place and where it should be. AP needs better photo editors.

Hope that helps! ..and remember, if you didn't take the photo yourself and it's modern? It's been photoshopped.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

One simply doesn't leave articulated appendages out where they can't attach to something.


how you get a piece of an arm with no apparent owner nearby...


Sorry.... you've got me ROFL with those statements! Thank you... you've made posting this worthwhile!

EDIT TO ADD: I think it might be the "panoramic anomaly" compounded by two photos spliced together.
edit on 11/25/2012 by dreams n chains because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 11:24 AM
Could this be fake video with fake witness testimony?
They longsince have the capability to fake realistic scenarios using
100% computer generated imagery.
Notice in the video how the photos attributed to the interviewed witness to the accident
show no sign of the injured man or the airbag she talks about, even though she states
she saw movement from him in the car while she was driving away from the scene??
Did she drive back to give an interview?

The missing arm photo is ridiculous and blatant, and cannot be simply overlooked.
Is someone trying to tell us something? Is a certain cat being freed from a certain bag?
It would be interesting to see if anyone can connect 9/11 to this story, as
9/11 comprised predominantly of faked video (including GC backdrops, planes and
tower demolitions) and fake witness testimony. It was essentially a hoax, just like most
of the other news we get offered up.

new topics

top topics


log in