1 If I was Lesbianese, I probably would not be kissing a picture of some guy, even if he is all beard.

2 Are there protein stains on that last pic of Nasrallah?  Is that the difference?

3 All his pictures of Nasrallah are all stuck together.

4 In one picture he says Nasrallah is no. 1, and in the other he says Nasrallah is number two? Obviously he can't be both.

5 JC---Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

6 Have you seen these videos? Bomb-cam films showing Hezbollah mobile rockets launchers staged, even firing from within built up areas in Beruit. A bunch more in the "More Videos" box next to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ8fSkSMhjw&mode=related&search=

Do people not understand that Israeli has one of the most accomplished and technically advanced Air Forces in the World? Do they really think that a UAV can’t track a missile leaving a launcher using FLIR and real-time video? Or that the IDF might have a bird or two on station overhead with 1,000 pounders under each wing, waiting for a target to show itself?

7 Okay, so Johnson kind of made a name for himself with the smoke over Beirut photos. You're kind of pushing it, though. These are just silly.

8 Len is JEALOUS!

9 Len,

perhaps these are a bit of a stretch, but check out the ones below that Bluto posted.

10 Darth... yeah, right.

Jesusland Carlos... so the guy's hack. Point has been made already.

11 Len is probably upset the point was ever made to begin with.

Len, a member of Hizb'Allah.

12 Len, I believe the point is that the sky, in two photos, is cloudy or smoke-filled. In the third, it's clear. In all three pics, it's the same guy -- same clothes, same pic of Nasrallah.

Was the sky clear or foggy/smoky?

Were the pics taken at the same place? The two with the smoky sky were clearly at the same place; the one with the clear sky appears to be at a different location.

If the pics were taken on different days, or in different locations on the same day, how did the photographer manage to get pics of the same person, doing the same thing, in multiple places or times?

And, no, the point hasn't been made. Until the freaking press owns up to the fact that their habit of hiring terrorist agents to gather "news" turns them into terr propaganda channels, then turning up these little "coincidences" is necessary. The extent of the problem has to be exposed.

13 The MSM, and the rest of the world will do, and say anything to make Israel look bad. Those Jewish folks are really hated for some reason across the world.

Friday, I am sending 50 bucks to One Family to help support Jews who have been harmed by terror. I am doing it because I think the world is screwed up in the head, and I want to support who they hate.

14 I dunno.....looks to me like maybe the smoke is being carried by the wind in one direction, and the photog got a picture in the other direction.....

15 PS-But it is still clearly staged.  This is one of thoe Hezbollah tours that they take the journalists on.  This guy is probably giving the V sign to a crowd of photogs, not just a dude.

16 So it doesn't seem strange to you, Len, that the sky went from clear and blue in one pic to impenetrably dark and smoky in another pic taken at the same place at approximately the same time on the same day? I've never seen the sky go from bright clear blue to dark grey that quickly. That's just my personal experience.

Now, maybe the pictures reflect exactly what happened on that day. On the other hand, maybe the photographer decided that a blue sky just wasn't "dramatic" enough for war photos and decided to enhance them with a heavy "touch of grey."

Do I have proof that the grey sky was a photoshop effect? No. Even if I had the time to travel to Reuters HQ to investigate, I doubt they'd grant me unfettered access to their files. Does that mean I'm somehow forever precluded from questioning the veracity of a Reuters stringer photo unless and until I can prove it isn't legit? Thankfully, no.

I'm not asserting that any of these photos is bogus. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. I am suggesting that, taken as a group, these photos look fishy. Nothing more, nothing less.

17 By the way, if you look closely in the background, the same buildings are present in each of the first two pictures--reference the "scallopy" building on the far right, the "eggcrate" building just left of it and the shallow "hangar" building in the middle, which is visible in the first pic only by its right front upper corner (disposed to the right of the old man's head.)  All three of these can be seen in the first two pics.  A portion of the "hangar" is also faintly visible in the third pic, just above the old man's head.
 
In other words, the three pictures were taken along the same line of sight in the same vicinity.

18 Darth:

First I'm jealous. Then I'm a member of Hizb'Allah.

Thanks for the laughs, my friend, and for the evening's entertainment. It has been fun.

Take care... don't let the evildoers getcha!

19 FYI - I've changed up the post to better illustrate the above points.  I removed the third pic, since the point was made just fine with the first two and they show the issue most clearly.

20 The shadows on the old dude don't line up with the ones cast by the buildings.

21 Although this won't explain the smoke . . .Over at LGF there is a comment explaining the use of differet camera lenses yielding different perspectives of the same location.

These photos do appear to be staged.

Perhaps a file called "Hajj's Central casting" can be opened to track how many photos can be credited to Reuters/Hezbos/Hajj's star performers . .. i.e. green helmet guy, white t-shirt guy, most unfortunate Lebanese madame landlord, the above Hezbo groupie etc.

22 link to discussion by Seerak regarding camera lenses -

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21982#c0078

Regarding your recent post "A Bridge Too Weird", I think you've gotten a bit caught up with the storm over Adnan Hajj's duplicity. With one exception, your inferences are quite far from what the image evidence shows.

For brevity, I'll refer to the images by sequence, #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

My qualifications: over 12 years in the visual FX industry, and 19 years of experience in photography.

Regarding shot #5, there is no doubt that is a different bridge; the lack of rebar is the big giveaway.

But the others are all consistent with being shot around the same time and place. The wrecked car isn't moving at all; Hajj is switching lenses, using both very long telephoto lenses and wideangles (probably 20mm wide and a 300mm telephoto, assuming standard 35mm framesize... that means film or either of the full-frame digital cameras, Canon 1Ds mark II or a Canon 5D. I happen to own the latter).

Shot 1,3 and 4 were all shot wide, probably around 20mm. The characteristic distortion of the tower roof in #4 demonstrates this. Shot #2, however, was shot with a long telephoto, probably around 300mm; this shot shows a lot of telephoto compression (i.e. the background details are all a lot bigger in frame, even though the subject remains about the same size). The smashed bridge is indeed in that shot, but it's barely visible because of this flattening effect; all we can see of it is the rebar "fur", behind the three red-and-white posts. The rebar shows that the bridge is NOT open in shot #2.

In shot #2, the car is sitting at precisely the same angle (relative to the ground) as shot #4, even the lighting on the dented corner of the car's door (to camera right of hole #1) that we see is *precisely* the same. That shows that the car *did not move* between those two shots; there is no way anybody can manipulate a 3000-pound car that precisely and that quickly. It also shows that they were shot very close together in time, as the sun hasn't moved enough to alter the highlight.

Shot #4 thereby shows how much room there is between the bridge and wrecked car. That leaves leaves lots of space for Hajj to shoot #3 without the car in it.



***

Geeez, it's late (12:11 am) here - I'm watching Fox News and it appears that Jennifer Griffin just interviewed a witness in Lebanon . . .the witness has a remarkable resemblance to the ever famous incompetent photoshop photographer, Hajj Ali.



Shaking head and going to bed.

23 The thing is, the background seems to be real. Somewhat that fellow is out of place. If you look carefully, in one picture you see him from the side and in the other from the front. That is strange!

24 I don't think there has to be anything wrong with the buildings. The photo is just taken from different plase using different focal lenght. If you compare the visual sizes of the wide building in the middle and the one at background, you see that in first image the wide building is taller than in the second, where the background building is much taller. This is not Photoshop, but different focal lenght. An example can be found from this site: http://www.kevinwilley.com/l3_topic04.htm

As the focal lenght changes, the guy at the foreground has to move away from the buildings for few dozen meters with the photographer. This makes them to move at the front side of the collapsed building. The smoke is not blown backwards, so it is not visible in the first shoot.

Of course it can be photoshopped, but why should they in this case? There surely are lots of smoking rubble at the area and willing people to pose. Why bother PS:ing when you can just take local supporter and give him a photo?

25 it will be nice if you kiss my lebaneese ass

26 The second picture (with the smoke) looks to me like it was shot from the same angle and orientation as the first, only the photographer backed up about fifty yards, and the subect also came forward (from his perspective) fifty yards. Note the shadow of the building just to the right of the subject in the first picture. The same shadow can be seen in the second picture, only it is much less distinct because the smoke blurs it, and it is now about fifty yards further into the background. The photographer just had the suject come forward about fifty yards for the second photo.

27 What stands out to me is this: in the second photo, the Nasrallah pic has no perspective, like it's 2-dimensional. It's bright, high contrast, but has no cast shadow on it. The man has some pretty dark cast shadows, which should have been softened by the light filtering through dust in the air. You can see in the first photo that the Nasrallah picture was curling, which would cause it to cast a shadow on itself.
Also look at the shadow under his raised arm -- in both photos it's in the same position (under his arm). So unless these photos were taken many hours apart to give the suna chance to move, the same buildings should be behind him.
My analysis: photocomposite. The huge dusty building on the left was added, and the curling, shadow-obscured picture of Nasrallah was replaced with a flat one in Photoshop.
Much less clumsy than Hajj's though -- this one probably used layer masks.

28 I'm gonna retract what I said about the building being photoshopped in. The sun in both photos is high and in the direction he's pointing, so it's possible the building was in front and to the left in the first photo without casting a shadow. The sun is in the same place, so no time passed except what it took for the subject to walk forward. But the flatness of the Nasrallah picture in the second is really really fake looking. His picture was curling, and looks like it was "fixed" in Photoshop in the second one.