Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

[antipodean]

How come it took surcouf so long to post these pictures ?

[antipodean]

More pictures for smart guys !

How come it's taken surcouf so long to post these pictures?

[kcud.d]

Dean, my friend.

How come it's taken surcouf so long to post these pictures?

Its not easy to post pictures when you get banned by the "smart-boys" and believe me there are more real pictures to prove Flight 1549 was in the Hudson but the "smart-boys" dont want to see them and find out what really happened in the Hudson,lol.

There are a lot more real pictures of other stuff too.

I have seen most of the Fake pics and videos and there are a whole website dedicated to that, so I am not really interested in the Fake stuff anymore cos we know there are tons of it.

I think its time to show some real pictures and I hope the admins are up to that idea.


kcud.d

[antipodean]

D. I take your point. I personally thought the pictures of the folk on the rescue craft etc looked OK in terms of their perspectives, thinking that the whole rescue drama was acted out.

But the stuff posted later showing the clean up, looked ridiculous in terms of their perspective.

If these other pictures had been posted earlier this whole debate could have taken a different direction.

Because unlike some people, I don't believe that 1 faked photo = everything being fake.

So I'm back to my original question how come surcouf didn't post these in the early stages of this/ his thread.

[fbenario]

This image was posted earlier in this thread by somebody.

Notice the 'flag' on the tail of the plane. All the pictures posted today show a different 'flag' on the tail. Why assume today's photos are 'real' and the earlier one fake? Why not assume the reverse?

Actually, you should stop basing ANY posts on your own assumptions. Why do you believe anyone cares what anyone else's assumptions are - especially yours (whoever you are, shootfucgurs)? How about trying to prove an image is 'real', so we all can learn from your work?

[simonshack]

... (whoever you are, shootfucgurs)? How about trying to prove an image is 'real', so we all can learn from your work?

No mystery here, Fbenario : our fresh 'new' member "shootfucgurs" (who registered on February 25th, 2011, 7:31 pm) with IP from Marseille, France - is our old pal Surcouf with new, ominous screen name (French phonetic spelling for "shoot fuckers"). In fact, 'shootfucgurs' is exactly how one would spell (phonetically) the sound of a Frenchman attempting to pronounce these two menacing English words.

While our other fresh 'new' member "kcud.d" (who registered on February 25th, 2011, 9:32 pm) with IP from Stockholm, Sweden - well, just read the screen name backwards...

If you ask me, I have frankly no idea why these two old friends (who both have visited me in Rome - more than once) are now teaming up in tandem to push - of all things - this silly Flight 1549 story. I will leave it up for everyone to figure it out - as I am quite dumbfounded as to the motives for such an obsessive interest in this non-event by those two individuals.

[brianv]

I have some questions first!

Where were the "photographs" sourced? Do we have a url? Who was the photographer?
Why has the Exif data been stripped from the photographs?

They look pretty good for photos at first glance, but I do have some issues with at least one, I'll look at the others later.

The starbucks drinking, lipstick wearing cop in an ill-fitting uniform is so cut and pasted. Cut off at the hips ala Pfeiffer in the rubble. That's a neat trick to avoid the inserted image looking like the dog-walking midget at Arizona, when it's very difficult to make the image to "sit down" properly.



Cop - railings - railings- olde worlde street lamps - trees - airplane. Plenty to work with there!





Notice the ear-transparencies and the very strange shoulder / rigging background!

[simonshack]

Brian,
What happened to the cop's left hand? Also, do we see the white railing through his left coat sleeve?

[brianv]

Brian,
What happened to the cop's left hand?

I did wonder about that too!

Gonna look at that again just noticed the large buff squares by the left eye and cheek of the faceless cop!!

[Heiwa]

Funny tree branch shadow on the plane with windscreen covered by snow. Doesn't look real at all.

[brianv]

Funny tree branch shadow on the plane with windscreen covered by snow. Doesn't look real at all.

Yes I was coming to that! Is it a shadow or a out of near focus branch! It cant seem to decide! If your focus near - the background becomes a backdrop! The background buildings are very weird!

[warriorhun]

Dear Heiwa and brianv,

the object you observed is not a shadow as far as I can see, but a weird out-of-focus tree branch.
They are fucking about with focus, as you see with the Nelson A. Rockefeller green sign, and the aluminium object to its right, both about the same distance from the photographer. I thought focus may change with depth, but I did not know it can change with width. If foreground objects are in focus, then background may be out of focus. But those background buildings are just plain laughable, focus or no focus I think.
If you focus on background objects, than what is in the foreground may be out of focus.
But foreground out of focus, then the plane and people in focus, then background out of focus again? Can those people here who are experienced with photography tell us if such thing is possible?
I would be interested in the origins of the photos, though. As I understand, scrouf and simonshack are in cahoots now. Maybe scrouf collegue photoshopped the pictures hisself, to throw us a bone and have a hearty laugh at our chewing efforts, who knows? So a link to the original fotos from scrouf would be most welcome if he is serious.
Whatever the origins, I found the bycicle in the middle of this photo very funny. I would not want to ride on that one to home:

[brianv]

Dear Heiwa and brianv,

the object you observed is not a shadow as far as I can see, but a weird out-of-focus tree branch.
They are fucking about with focus, as you see with the Nelson A. Rockefeller green sign, and the aluminium object to its right, both about the same distance from the photographer. I thought focus may change with depth, but I did not know it can change with width. If foreground objects are in focus, then background may be out of focus. But those background buildings are just plain laughable, focus or no focus I think.
If you focus on background objects, than what is in the foreground may be out of focus.
But foreground out of focus, then the plane and people in focus, then background out of focus again? Can those people here who are experienced with photography tell us if such thing is possible?
I would be interested in the origins of the photos, though. As I understand, scrouf and simonshack are in cahoots now. Maybe scrouf collegue photoshopped the pictures hisself, to throw us a bone and have a hearty laugh at our chewing efforts, who knows? So a link to the original fotos from scrouf would be most welcome if he is serious.
Whatever the origins, I found the bycicle in the middle of this photo very funny. I would not want to ride on that one to home:

What is your take on the pasted "policeman" photo? Simon and Surcouf in cahoots? good one!!

[simonshack]

*
FRAUD PROOF 0-1-2

As we compare picture A with picture B, the first thing we may we notice is the odd shape of the wing in photo A.
Then, we have that inexplicable object on picture A pointed out by my white question mark (?). What is it? - I don't know.
However, the ultimate proof of photographic fraud is given by the perspective comparison of the areas marked "0-1-2". Now, since the viewing angles of photos A and B are way different, it is obvious that 1 and 2 cannot possibly be equidistant from each other (as they appear to be) in both photos.


(ps: Brian, I have a feeling Warriorhun has a faulty understanding of what "in cahoots" really means...)

[warriorhun]

Dear simonshack and brianv,

That's what happens when you're trying learn new words and phrases while reading English books and trying to figure out the meaning on the go (a dictionary would slow down and destroy the joy of reading), and you use the words without cross-checking the dictionary first.
I was hinting at having a bad relationship or disagreement, obviously the phrase I used did not mean that. Sorry.

My take is: all fake, and the reason for saying it is the strange background buildings on some images, and the total lack of them on others. And yep, that may can be explained away with angles and distances and whatnot, but I kind of noticed in the other fakery examples that they are playing about with disturbing angles and distances and whatnot. So when I see a series of images where one image is clearly faked, like the one with the policeman here, and I detect this disturbing playing about with angles and distances on the other images, that is an indication for me that all images of the series are faked (I bet ron100s wouldn't approve, though)