Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Belz...]

Thanks, Pardalis. I needed that.

 

[Gravy]

Killtown, I see you haven't retracted your remarks about Val McClatchey. When will you be doing so and issuing an apology to her?

 

[LashL]

Where the hell are the people?

According to the makers of LC: "the people are secondary"

(I guess that is why they, and other CTers of their ilk, have no compunctions about spitting on the graves of those who died on 9/11)

 

[Pardalis]

People? Nah... Why bother with them? Conspiracies work so much better without people involved.

ETA: A plane crash in Pennsylvania? Nah, just ask two guys to fake it with a shuvel...
A building collapse? Nah, just ask Dennis to put some explosives inside on weekends...

Geez

 

[simakperrce]

I seriously doubt that the image was retouched. Killtown on his blog stated that because the cloud was against a clear blue sky, it would have been easier to fake in the cloud. That's indicative of his ignorance right there because the opposite is more than true. I started retouching professionally in 1995 and have been doing it as a day job ever since.
Shopping in something like this, without leaving footprints, is next to impossible. so if kt is too lazy to buy a picture and have someone qualified to examine it, then you have to give the image the benefit of the doubt and presume it to be real.

Buck, not to side with KT but just to clarify: Why should pasting a cloud on a clear, evenly structured and more or less monochromatic background be "next to impossible"? And what footprints would you leave?

Again, I am not asking because I want to provoke, or because I doubt your post-processing experience, but I had my share of Photoshopping and I cannot really say that I would wholeheartedly undersign this claim, especially since most (all?) of the copies you find of this pic are most likely downsamples of the original.

Edit1: I DO however think that it would be bordering on the impossible to find a smoke cloud which would have the exact same light conditions and shadow patterns present at the location at that time

Edit2: I do not think the photo is a fake and I think the cloud was produced by the crash of UA93

 

[simakperrce]

One thing, which is not really important, but curious nonetheless: Why did she apparently shoot only one photo?

 

[jhunter1163]

Simak:

I had heard that after shooting the single pic, she dropped the camera. Rather than pick it up and take more pics, she called the cops.

 

[Yoink]

One thing, which is not really important, but curious nonetheless: Why did she apparently shoot only one photo?

I thought about that, too, but when you stop to think it is one of those (many) things that only gets to seem "suspicious" when you start to treat everything in the CT's paranoid way.

Think about it: you're watching the Twin Towers burning on TV--you've no idea what the extent of this disaster is going to be (you don't know if there are more targets, more planes etc.). Suddenly there's an almighty explosion outside your house!!

To me the remarkable thing is that she stopped to take a photo at all. Wouldn't your first thought be a mixture of "I need to find out what the f*ck just happened" and "God I hope nothing happened to my husband at the sawmill"?

CT clowns like KT, of course, see no problem in being simultaneously suspicious that "only one" photo was taken AND that she took a photo at all ("the camera was just sitting there. How conveeeenient.")

 

[Belz...]

CT clowns like KT, of course, see no problem in being simultaneously suspicious that "only one" photo was taken AND that she took a photo at all ("the camera was just sitting there. How conveeeenient.")

It seems the minds of CTers has something in common: the need to find suspicious things, never mind the fact that they're contradictory. I suppose it goes with the culture and current-day litterature.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

Buck, not to side with KT but just to clarify: Why should pasting a cloud on a clear, evenly structured and more or less monochromatic background be "next to impossible"? And what footprints would you leave?

Again, I am not asking because I want to provoke, or because I doubt your post-processing experience, but I had my share of Photoshopping and I cannot really say that I would wholeheartedly undersign this claim, especially since most (all?) of the copies you find of this pic are most likely downsamples of the original.

Edit1: I DO however think that it would be bordering on the impossible to find a smoke cloud which would have the exact same light conditions and shadow patterns present at the location at that time

Edit2: I do not think the photo is a fake and I think the cloud was produced by the crash of UA93

Feel free to ask questions, and don't feel as though you are stepping on toes doing so. First, I had asked killtown several times to get a hi res copy of the original file for study before judging the photograph to the extent that he has, and building his on line conspiracy theory. Knowing that getting access to the file, particularly after running Val thorugh the ringer, would probably not happen, I told him to at least do the next best thing and get a copy of the photograph. While it might or might not be a quality image, it's a mistake to assume that it wouldn't be without going to the trouble of finding out.

So by basing his work on the slop that's out on the web, it short changes an issue like this especially when a trained eye is needed to determine if the photo has been retouched.

And that brings us to the image itself. I say that shopping in a cloud is next to impossible to do seamlessly because in my experience it is. And I have 11 years of 40 hour work weeks behind a computer with this so my estimation carries weight. I started out on Photoshop 2.0. Now we are up to Photoshop 9.0 (CS2).

First, pasting and fairing in an irregular shape like a cloud on a clean slate like a cloudless sky is difficult to do without leaving footprints. You could have a lot more luck doing it on a sky with clouds in the background because they would help to hide evidence of erasures around the edge of the cloud and artifacts from the original background that the pasted in cloud had once laid against.

To do it there are two ways. First would be an automatic grab using either the magic wand tool or the color range selection tool. Either way would be possible, but would leave a hard chattery edge of pixels around the perimeter of the cloud. These would have to be removed by hand either with the eraser tool or the blur tool. A trained eye could spot this method by zooming in 500% and seeing the disruption of crisp pixels where the cloud ended and the sky behind it picked up. This would further be easy to spot by viewing in the RGB channels individually. You'd also want to convert the image to Lab and view the same thing in the luminence channel. Dead giveaway.

Second, you could hard cut the plume from the original image with the lasso tool. Forget cutting around it with a clipping path. You could never do an adequate job running around such a nebulous shape as a cloud. It's just not going to look right. So you chop it out with the lasso tool, paste it into Val's shot and again you have to erase away the perimeter of the cloud to get rid of the original background, and blur the edges.

In either case, some of the edges of the cloud as pasted in are going to need to be more opaque than others because you can always see the sky behind and through the cloud. You can erase away portions of it easily enough, but again, a trained eye can spot this on a print or a hi res file.

Another test is to check the creator code in the file itself, if you can get it. Norton has a file editor feature that will give you data on the file image and if the creator code reads BIM it is a photoshop file, which would lead one to believe it had been reworked in PS. If not, it is probably legitimate.

Finally, I create aviation illustrations in Photoshop using photographs of skies and sometimes you have one you like, but want to put more clouds into a given area. I've tried pasting in lots of clouds, and it is extremely hard to do to make it look convincing. It is nearly impossible to do it without anyone looking. Anyone who knows what to look for, that is.

Hope this helps.

Buck

 

[apathoid]

Feel free to ask questions, and don't feel as though you are stepping on toes doing so. First, I had asked killtown several times to get a hi res copy of the original file for study before judging the photograph to the extent that he has, and building his on line conspiracy theory. Knowing that getting access to the file, particularly after running Val thorugh the ringer, would probably not happen, I told him to at least do the next best thing and get a copy of the photograph. While it might or might not be a quality image, it's a mistake to assume that it wouldn't be without going to the trouble of finding out.

So by basing his work on the slop that's out on the web, it short changes an issue like this especially when a trained eye is needed to determine if the photo has been retouched.

And that brings us to the image itself. I say that shopping in a cloud is next to impossible to do seamlessly because in my experience it is. And I have 11 years of 40 hour work weeks behind a computer with this so my estimation carries weight. I started out on Photoshop 2.0. Now we are up to Photoshop 9.0 (CS2).

First, pasting and fairing in an irregular shape like a cloud on a clean slate like a cloudless sky is difficult to do without leaving footprints. You could have a lot more luck doing it on a sky with clouds in the background because they would help to hide evidence of erasures around the edge of the cloud and artifacts from the original background that the pasted in cloud had once laid against.

To do it there are two ways. First would be an automatic grab using either the magic wand tool or the color range selection tool. Either way would be possible, but would leave a hard chattery edge of pixels around the perimeter of the cloud. These would have to be removed by hand either with the eraser tool or the blur tool. A trained eye could spot this method by zooming in 500% and seeing the disruption of crisp pixels where the cloud ended and the sky behind it picked up. This would further be easy to spot by viewing in the RGB channels individually. You'd also want to convert the image to Lab and view the same thing in the luminence channel. Dead giveaway.

Second, you could hard cut the plume from the original image with the lasso tool. Forget cutting around it with a clipping path. You could never do an adequate job running around such a nebulous shape as a cloud. It's just not going to look right. So you chop it out with the lasso tool, paste it into Val's shot and again you have to erase away the perimeter of the cloud to get rid of the original background, and blur the edges.

Hope this helps.

Buck

I do little bit of work in Photoshop as well and I completely concur especially in regard to the lasso and magic wand borders. They are very easy to spot once you zoom in and the only way to blend them is changing the RGB levels or opacity in the pasted image to match the borders, but the colors wont match eveywhere and you still need to use the blur or smudge tool to blend things out. But, as you said - that is also easy to spot once you zoom in for a close look. In addition, the photoshopping would be very easy to see by pinching the rgb levels togther to crank up the detail. You could also use the unsharp mask to find the border of the pasted image.

Vals photo has no such fingerprints at the edge of the plume. However, its marginally possible that she could pasted the sky in including the plume and blending the the treetops, which would be difficult as well...

 

[Buckwheatjones]

It's all about the disruption of the pixel patterns. In a pure file, the pixels will maintain their linear pattern. In a shopped file, they won't. This is one of the main things to look for.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

BTW, I see killtown picked up one vote. 108-9. He's gaining ground. Too bad the guy didn't see fit to come on here and lend him a hand.

 

[chran]

Actually, I was one of the people who voted for the cloud not being from Flight 93, but that's because I mis-read the question. It was late and what have you

Sorry Killtown, you're back to 8 supporters

By the way, where are you?

 

[Belz...]

Vals photo has no such fingerprints at the edge of the plume. However, its marginally possible that she could pasted the sky in including the plume and blending the the treetops, which would be difficult as well...

You're all forgetting a very important element: Val probably had access to a super-sekrit doctoring software that is far more advanced and competent than photoshop, since it uses artificial intelligence, probably Skynet itself. It was probably develloped for years for just that picture.

Never, EVER forget Smacco's Rozar!

 

[Brainache]

What happened to Killtown? I'm still waiting to see what pictures that Rumple4skin character draws up for him to refute the idea of aerosolised jet fuel and momentum.
Or failing that an apology to the innocent woman he accused of being a fraud.
Do you think I should hold my breath?

 

[Gravy]

What happened to Killtown? I'm still waiting to see what pictures that Rumple4skin character draws up for him to refute the idea of aerosolised jet fuel and momentum.
Or failing that an apology to the innocent woman he accused of being a fraud.
Do you think I should hold my breath?

He's busy looking for a dictionary that defines "vicious coward" as "honorable person."

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Think about it: you're watching the Twin Towers burning on TV--you've no idea what the extent of this disaster is going to be (you don't know if there are more targets, more planes etc.). Suddenly there's an almighty explosion outside your house!!

To me the remarkable thing is that she stopped to take a photo at all. Wouldn't your first thought be a mixture of "I need to find out what the f*ck just happened" and "God I hope nothing happened to my husband at the sawmill"?

That's a good point, Yoink.

On 9/11 after being dismissed from work, I was at home watching the whole thing unfold. About an 1700 hrs a loud boom was heard and I went outside to look. My neighbor (in her 70's) also came out, as did about 10 other adults that I could see. I don't recall any of them holding a camera (still or motion).

Anyhow, my neighbor and I looked at each other and said in unison "sonic boom". She strolled back in the house, and I walked across the street to let the younger adults know what it was, in case they had never heard a sonic boom.

When I got back inside, a local TV channel was reporting "reports of an explosion at the VA hospital". A while later they reported that an F-16 had unintentionally broken the sound barrier while flying a patrol over the area.

I find it remarkable that she (Val) had the presence of mind to get even one photo.

 

[Belz...]

I find it remarkable that she (Val) had the presence of mind to get even one photo.

Don't say that. Now Killtown will think THAT's suspicious!

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Don't say that. Now Killtown will think THAT's suspicious!

Sorry.

Last thing KT needs is more stuff to "research".