August 7th, 2006
evan:
i agree with you on the quality of the source (or lack thereof), but the quote from reuters sorta speaks for itself:
In the message, Reuters said that “photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvience.”
which, as you point out, does not mean that smoke wasn’t billowing out of the building, or that there weren’t 50 disabled people in the building, but makes you wonder why they would take such measures? if it was simply altered for print purposes, i doubt they would have released that statement.
August 7th, 2006
bozo:
Dudes. Didn’t anyone in this room read digitalFOTO? We were bleeding edge, goddamn it! We had OJ!
August 7th, 2006
Anonymous:
dude. seriously… ynet-news?? and they use “little green footballs” to “back up” their story. seriously, you need to find better sources – ynet, lgfootballs, etc… are basically the rush limbaughs of the “blogosphere”. they’ve been touting this as made-up footage since it happened. same as holocaust naysayers in theory… they deny, deny, deny. Not a reputable place to look for news.
For example: the photo is real. The photo filters used in the “manupulation” were simply contrast/brightness tools to make the smoke more visible in printed form. The way the story is delivered/interpreted here is that the story isn’t true, that the attack was not “as serious” as reported.
Bullocks.
Complete rubish.