Secondly, if you overlay the two images, which I just did in Photoshop, there are definite similarities in the tornado's kinks, but they are not exact. So it's not like someone just flipped the image around and settled for that. This raises the question of how variable are the paths of tornadoes? In other words, what is the likelihood of two tornadoes looking very similar to each other? It doesn't help that the overall quality of these images is grainy, Loch Ness monster–style material.
What is the verdict on the twister pictures?
The jury is still out on this one, but there's definitely enough evidence to be asking questions. Then again, there are coincidences out there. It wouldn't be the first time that two pictures look about the same.
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentActually, a conservative "wing-nut" blog called "Little Green Footballs" (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30606_New_York_Times_Belatedly_Credits_LGF#rss) first discovered the photoshopped photos. The was the same blog that proved that the Bush National Guard documents were faked that then cuased Dan Rather to be fired.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo let me get this right:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am to believe that a country which can't fake a photo convincingly is sufficiently proficient and sophisticated in nuclear bomb technology to be a treat to Europe. Not to mention the rest of the world and ultimately, me, sitting here in NYC.
Is this right?
Please explain
sic, "threat"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGosh the enormity of the concept overwhelmed me.
There are so many missile test by various countries and I dont see so much of noise by neocon controlled corporate media (CNN, FOX, NYT etc) or self proclaimed free and fair scientific magazines. But Iranophobic neocons have enlisted the help of even scientific magazines like Scientific American to propagate their lies and deceptions. At this rate I do foresee Scientific American with drum beat to support attack and invasion of Iran. You need to return to your basics and report on Science rather than proving right Bush and his ideologues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou ignored the most obvious clue. Look at the sky around the plume of the faked missile. It's lighter. A sky usually has a gradient in it, both in hue and in density. It is extremely difficult to match those gradients and the human eye is extremely good at recognizing such anomalies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislahmad, I agree with you that the Bush administration has turned its monomaniac eye on Iran, but this particular article does not constitute neocon collaboration by Scientific American. The photo was clearly doctored and they reported and discussed that. Iran is not the evil thing that our evil government wants us to believe, but neither are they all angels. To point out the wrongdoings of their fringe elements is not to be a neocon, it's just to be a good reporter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJHSibal, it's a good point, but I don't think it was the government itself which faked the photos and certainly not their nuclear scientists. There's no reason to expect that their nuclear scientists are any stupider than ours - we all do share the same human genome and Arab countries have a history of medical and scientific research stretching back a very long time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, I doubt that most Iranians or their leaders would want the annihilation which would result from their use of nuclear weapons, so I think we can safely assume that they want to use the threat of nukes as a shield. Seeing what we did to Iraq it is hard to blame them.
The surgery must be between the two on the right. There is identical print of the ground blast.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this