Drugs are Bad...

Apparently, even nominal quantities of over-the-counter cold medications can cause you to see the most interesting things.

I know this, because this Reuters picture has all the earmarks of a crudely-edited PhotoShop, from the rather odd smudges and apparent artifacts around the heads of the two women on the left when the photo is enlarged, to the rather uncanny resemblance that one person in the picture has to someone I feel I should know.

After Adnan Hajj, Reuters wouldn't fall for this sort of stuff again, would they?

It’s a good thing I can chalk this up to cough syrup. If not, I might have to start questioning the media’s accuracy.

Update:Jeez. Take a little cough syrup, disappear for a few hours, and the world goes nuts. FWIW, some credible experts have said that the artifacts that I thought may be evidence of photoshopping may have been the result of JPG compression, and that any resemblence to the President was purely coincidental. I can live with that.

What I do have a harder time living with is the foul language of our left wing guests. As a result, comments are closed, and the most offensive comments have been removed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:29 PM

Comments

1 Your trackbacks appear to be busted....fyi.

Posted by: Karol at November 27, 2006 04:51 PM (CERqk)

2 Seems that Drudge picked up on your drug induced haze, and is now wondering that very question - is that Bush behind the burka? Beats me... but you do raise some interesting questions about the odd artifacts in the image.

Posted by: lawhawk at November 27, 2006 05:30 PM (WfoaK)

3 Well spotted.

No doubt the usual excuses from Reuters will be forthcoming. . . .

Posted by: David at November 27, 2006 05:53 PM (pNRtZ)

4 must be cough syrup and methamphetamines.

don't ever post something this stupid again.

Posted by: jummy at November 27, 2006 06:16 PM (Z81HX)

5 Is it possible Drudge actually poached your find without attribution? If so, sorry about those couple million missed visitors. I made certain to point the link in my post to CY, so enjoy those dozen or so hits as consolation.

Posted by: Flip at November 27, 2006 06:17 PM (sLI85)

6 Geeze, this is a far "stretch" even for Drudge. It looks nothing like Bush. I mean, look at the nose and you can tell its not even a "bad" photoshop try. Give me a break.

Posted by: Danny at November 27, 2006 06:40 PM (NebRi)

7 reaching a little on this one... looks like the nose is different to me... blotches appear on other women in pic.

Posted by: bringemon2006 at November 27, 2006 06:40 PM (Q1s81)

8 It's 56K and a JPG. JPGs are lossy, everytime they are aved they degrade. The entire image has JPG artifacts.

Posted by: ohnohedidnt at November 27, 2006 06:41 PM (s7nkh)

9 It is clearly photoshopped, see here:

http://___371.imageshack.us/___371/2920/shoppedtu8.jpg

Posted by: Captain America! at November 27, 2006 06:41 PM (MYM86)

10 Ok, how was that suppose to prove anything Captain America?

Posted by: Jaggzz at November 27, 2006 06:45 PM (3SiSF)

11 I agree. Nose is different, not him, end of story. Everyone starts to look the same after 60. Drudge is a moron waterboy.

Posted by: Mike at November 27, 2006 06:47 PM (kzOju)

12 It has been edited.. Exif data is not in the picture

Posted by: Harold H at November 27, 2006 06:47 PM (kqoIv)

13 It certainly is not Bush - the hands are too fat.

Posted by: Jeremy at November 27, 2006 06:48 PM (NuXI6)

14 Maybe Bush has some relatives that he didn't know about....

I would assume that if someone did want to photoshop in his picture they wouldn't modify the face.

The arch on the nostril is not high enough and the point is not sharp enough. Plus, the eyes have the same vacant slightly cross-eyed stare as woman sitting down.

Posted by: longlost at November 27, 2006 06:50 PM (Fv+2n)

15 Stick it moron Mike...the media are all scum

Posted by: Glenn L at November 27, 2006 06:52 PM (wqlvy)

16 Here we go again with yet another panic attack over alleged "fauxtography". Is this really the best the blogosphere can do? How is this any better or different than the MSM inventing news to pad a slow news cycle. Dan Rather and the bogus National Guard documents was a scandal. But that was also more than two years ago. This stuff is not a scandal. It's just the pathetic site of the great and powerful blogosphere clinging to the fading memory of Rathergate. Iraq is the most disastrous American mistake in 30 years, and we're going to get our panties all up in a bunch over some meaningless Reuters photo shop, which by the way proves exactly what? Priceless.

Posted by: John at November 27, 2006 06:56 PM (qFJ3X)

17 Spot on, my friend...great catch.

Posted by: touchnova at November 27, 2006 06:56 PM (DhN/7)

18 And what would be the point of this in the first place? Anyone?

Posted by: Stevo at November 27, 2006 06:57 PM (LI1g/)

19 Many of "those" women look like Texas men.

Posted by: GerryLincoln at November 27, 2006 06:59 PM (ZKr6a)

20 It's Helen Thomas.....

Posted by: Ron at November 27, 2006 07:01 PM (WCAF3)

21 Defnitely a photoshop job again from Reuters. They are known for this fakery.

Posted by: KarenC at November 27, 2006 07:01 PM (8bBvk)

22 By "Texas men", Gerry really means former male cheerleaders from Connecticut.

Posted by: Athiest at November 27, 2006 07:02 PM (JPL0A)

23 Nice try, Confederate Nazi, but you can't railroad Reuters like you did to Dan Rather. That's obviously not the Shrub, but one of the many Iraqi wwomen who look like either him or Jack Murtha.

Their concept of beauty isn't as superficial as ours, you fascist.

p.s.
Gratz on the Drudge nod.

Posted by: Liberal Larry at November 27, 2006 07:04 PM (uFGQk)

24 How is this even close to a photoshop? Read up on JPEGs and maybe get off the Kool-Aid/cough syrup. Sheesh. Next thing you know, you'll say Cheney is in the coffin... but then again, you right types never pay attention to the dead.

Posted by: Owen at November 27, 2006 07:04 PM (ZkMP1)

25 This woman is unfortunate enough to look like GW.
It is an interesting novelty
oh by the way SAUL. If someone was "Gay Literally" it would mean they are happy and joyful. I think what you mean is "Gay figuratively"
Not to mention the fact that your comment arises questions about your own sexuality.

Posted by: Shanster at November 27, 2006 07:04 PM (DWOhs)

26 Isn't the woman on the bottom Little Edie Beale?

Posted by: Steve at November 27, 2006 07:05 PM (PHRYM)

27 I don't see any evidence of photoshopping. Maybe, just maybe, of the 6 billion or so people in the world, a sliver of one woman's exposed face happens to share similiar characteristics to George Bush's.

Posted by: payne at November 27, 2006 07:06 PM (N2nfy)

28 thats not bush..the news media these day are so silly and confused...the nose is to big...when bush is out of office who they going to heckel nest? a dem? give me a break

Posted by: bruce at November 27, 2006 07:06 PM (U8OLk)

29 Jaggz

http://___371.imageshack.us/___371/2920/shoppedtu8.jpg

Look at the right angles and lighter skin where the Bush features were photoshopped in.

Posted by: Captain America! at November 27, 2006 07:07 PM (MYM86)

30 Gee,more liberals criticizing Drudge and making fun of gays. I thought they were all gay...or at least pro-gay themselves. Oh, that's right; there are "good" gays and "bad" gays. I guess Drudge is the bad kind to liberals and they think it's fine to criticize THAT kind.

As to this actually being Helen Thomas, there is NO muslim woman anywhere who looks as male AND unattractive as Helen Thomas.

Is it Bush? I dunno. But I do know that, speaking of carrying water, there's no media outlet that carries a bigger liberal bucket than Reuters...except for AP...the aforementioned UPI/Helen Thomas...and the New York Times...and every other major metro newspaper...and Time...and Newsweek...and CBS...and NBC...and ABC...and MSNBC...and, of course, CNN and all derivatives thereof ...and, oh forget it...the list is just too long.

Posted by: Eddie at November 27, 2006 07:12 PM (c1Sef)

31 This is really face on Mars kinda stuff. Let's wait until we have them dead to rights on something material. We shouldn't have to wait long.

Posted by: Carl at November 27, 2006 07:13 PM (ObtAw)

32 Oh that poor woman.

Posted by: lazneeks at November 27, 2006 07:14 PM (3JFL7)

33 whats a pedo-cons..your talking way above my head..you must had went to one of those liberal colleges and got brain washed

Posted by: bruce at November 27, 2006 07:17 PM (U8OLk)

34 Reuters excuse this time:

"This is merely an(other) isolated case and we assure everyone that this won't happen again."

I wonder how many hundreds, if not thousands, of anti-American photos are out there that Reuters has also altered.

Posted by: Medium Pimpin at November 27, 2006 07:17 PM (lKyZj)

35 Here is even a more zoomed in and an inverted blow up next to it. The faces pixels are too uniformed in color, and the cut and past job with the touchups is very clear.

http://___361.imageshack.us/___361/2046/shopped2tu8.jpg

Posted by: Captain America! at November 27, 2006 07:20 PM (MYM86)

36 check out the inverted images Yank :

http://www.fromthepen.com/graphics/bushburqa.jpg

I smell fish.
Regards
buck

Posted by: Bucktowndusty at November 27, 2006 07:21 PM (Z4zgV)

37 Why isn't the fabulous "Crooks and Liars" site in your Blogroll?

Posted by: CJ at November 27, 2006 07:24 PM (MHTKi)

38 Captain America, do you even know how to use Photoshop? I do these sorts of photo manipulations all the time. I don't see any clear evidence of Photoshop manipulation.

Posted by: JPV at November 27, 2006 07:25 PM (79Wl+)

39 Those are not burqas (which are blue beekeeper-like veils from Afghanistan which would completely cover the face) but black Iraqi chadors...and that definitely is not a fake-up of Bush.
Dreary and rather ignorant accusations. Save the blogstorm til you have something worthwhile

Posted by: GOPgawker at November 27, 2006 07:30 PM (zYnK6)

40 Bucktowndusty, those bumps on the head are clearly seen without needing to invert the photo. What's the point? You wouldn't need to alter that part of the photo, in order to blend the face in.

And as for the sleeve being changed, I just don't see it, and I can't figure out why the arm would need to be altered anyway. Makes no sense.

Posted by: JPV at November 27, 2006 07:30 PM (79Wl+)

41 As a professional Photoshop expert for over 10 years, I say you are all nuts!

There is no there-there!

Silly rabbits, tricks are for kids! Get a real job. Hanging out in your parent’s basement doing mushrooms just makes you hallucinating losers. Jet a Job!

Posted by: ESP at November 27, 2006 07:33 PM (RQAk4)

42 JPV - you work for Reuters? Sounds like it. If not, I'm sure they can use your skills.

Posted by: Specter at November 27, 2006 07:35 PM (ybfXM)

43 Same comment to you ESP (Gawwwwd....ESP - you also in on those Comey-Fitzpatrick Mind Rays?)

Posted by: Specter at November 27, 2006 07:37 PM (ybfXM)

44 Specter, how on earth would sharing my opinion on the matter, imply that I work for Reuters?

Posted by: JPV at November 27, 2006 07:38 PM (79Wl+)

45 It's Clinton's mother. Or what Chelsea will look like when she is 60.

Posted by: Kramer at November 27, 2006 07:50 PM (GdxLj)

46 I'm a photographer with a background in image
manipulation and a hobby of analyzing
potentially doctored images. The source image of
Bush when overlayed with the face in the AP
photo match point for point both in facial
dimension and in camera angle. If you don't
believe me, use Photoshop to cut out the picture
of Bush's face, paste it over the face in the AP
photo, and adjust the level of transparency
until you can line them up perfectly. Every
human face is different. In addition, the
slightest difference in position of a camera
will makes two shots of the same subject
distinctly different. The level of facial
congruency present when the images are
overlayed strongly suggests that the images are
one and the same. Granted, the quality of the
image does make it a little more difficult to
prove definitively.

Posted by: kryptos at November 27, 2006 07:53 PM (8mk4Y)

47 For the last time, you homophobic closet homosexual cons are all having gay fantasies about having gay sex with Bush because gay sex is all you ever think about. Gay sex gay sex gay sex!

Perverts!

But once you admit you have a problem, you'll be welcomed into the Big Tent not as sexual deviants, but as opressed victims of a narrow-minded, hetrocentric culture obsessed with primitive gender stereotypes!

Then you can have all the gay sex you want.

Posted by: Liberal Larry at November 27, 2006 07:54 PM (uFGQk)

48 Eddie

You can't really be that stupid, can you? Those aren't comments from lefties about Drudge and teh gay. Look a little closer.

Posted by: Thom at November 27, 2006 08:05 PM (3jLID)

49 Where are you? It's time to wash mama's feet!

Posted by: Specter's mom at November 27, 2006 08:16 PM (uPOOA)

50 Ok, I was reeled in at first, but it boils down to this: without the benefit of a reasonably high resolution image, it is virtually impossible to detect retouching artifacts from the jpeg originally provided on Reuters. Having made a decent living as a retoucher and photoshop guru for the last 15 years, I ran the Reuters image through a battery of filters and adjustments to try and draw out any real evidence of tampering, and nothing came up strong enough to outweigh the jpeg artifacts naturally present. That being said - - does it look like GW? Yes. Could it actually be a fake? Yes. But not because there are some blotchy artifacts on this jpeg, and it sorta looks like the prez. There is a uniformity of artifacts evenly distributed throughout the image and it doesn't seem to be concentrated near the face or anywhere else. But let's keep trying! If someone can get their hands on an authentic, higher resolution jpeg of this image, I'd love to check it out.

Posted by: Bryan at November 27, 2006 08:20 PM (LvPw6)

51 By the way, Kryptos, I did the same thing as you - - superimposed the Bush face over the photo. Not even close.

Posted by: Bryan at November 27, 2006 08:29 PM (LvPw6)

52 Dude, wouldn't the MSM want to "Faux"-tograph Bush smiling under that burqa to make him look bad?

Posted by: Sir Oolius at November 27, 2006 09:13 PM (Krl1c)

53 Heh. For anyone out there wondering what the commentary is like at left-wing blogs, because you're curious to see what "the other side" is talking about, now you know.

Posted by: Floyd at November 27, 2006 09:22 PM (tDtI9)

54 "Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state."
Um..right.

Posted by: pinkobot at November 27, 2006 10:27 PM (jPhXS)

Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0147 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0071 seconds, 62 records returned.
Page size 26 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.