4 votes

Key FBI photo of Dzhokhar shows strong evidence of Photoshop JPEG Compression


mod note:
http://www.dailypaul.com/287068#comment-3090850
http://www.dailypaul.com/287068#comment-3090872


At:
http://digitaljournal.com...

The photograph released by the FBI alleging to show Boston bombing suspect Dzohkahr Tsarnaev fleeing the scene without his backpack shows clear evidence of being a composite image made with software such as Photoshop.

This reporter went to the scene of the photograph and took pictures for comparison purposes, shown below.

The image is touted as evidence that the younger Tsarnaev brother arrived with a backpack but left without it, therefore possibly planting one of the bombs. In the image, a different color and pattern of brickwork can be seen adjacent to Dzhokhar's head, within a rectangle similar to what would be visible if the image were cut and pasted from a different source. The brickwork inside the rectangle also appears to be more sharply in focus than the brick around it...

...

Images from article:

Corner of Boylston and Fairfield Streets, Boston


READ FULL ARTICLE: http://digitaljournal.com...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It's called lossy

It's called lossy compression. JPEGs use lossy compression. What you are seeing is data loss, not some massive conspiracy. This kind of nonsense, coming from unqualified people, only makes it more difficult to make the case for legitimate questions in cases where there is a true lack of concrete evidence supporting any argument.

If you didn't already know the difference between lossy and lossless image compression, then this post was made by someone who was unqualified to argue that the images were manipulated. If you know ANYTHING about Photoshop, you know the difference between these two basic categories of image storage.

dang..

I am colorblind. I withdraw myself from this investigation.

The evidence was compelling enough for Digital Journal to print

Digital Journal is an Canadian Internet news service that blends professional contributions with user submitted content.[1][2]

Digital Journal began as a technology and gadget magazine in 1998[3] and evolved into a global citizen journalist news hub in 2006.[4][5] The company is headquartered in Toronto, Canada and shares advertising revenue with citizen journalists who report for the site[6] and it has control mechanisms to ensure content is accurate and well written.[7] Contributors submit a sample of writing and are asked to demonstrate expertise to Digital Journal's editorial board. The company has an assignment desk where contributing journalists are informed of news items ripe for press coverage.[8] The Board of Advisors includes:[9] journalist; Jack Kapica, business executive; Andrew Waitman, law professor; Michael Geist, business executive; Kerry Munro and business executive; Jennifer Evans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Journal

Joη's picture

look up jpg compression artifacts, that's the brick "texture"

I unambiguously guarantee you that's it.

Compression artifacts are the result of lossy compression algorithms like JPEG.

Heck, look online at examples and discussion of this.

Knowing that, the FBI would have sought the original RAW source images from the hardware, uncompressed by the jpeg algorithm, zoomed in there, then released the higher-res images, to then be disseminated as jpegs online.

So...this claim makes no sense at all.

You surely see this photo now, as a jpg, because it was uploaded online.

Here's the "full size" dropbox one, right?

A jpg compression analyzer can detect this was last saved with the jpeg compression algorithm at 75% quality.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

HE'S ONE OF THEM LIZARD PEOPLE!

YOU CAN SEE HIM SHAPESHIFTING!

THEY'LL TRY TO EXPLAIN IT AWAY WITH FANCY TERMS LIKE "JPEG COMPRESSION" AND "ARTIFACTS", BUT IT'S ALL LIES!

HE'S A LIZARD MAN!

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Here are same photos

I don't see anything funny, any disfigured bricks or what not.

bump

.

photoshop

Sue,

Have you used Adobe Photoshop, or any other similar imaging program? Are you trained in any such application or have any significant experience using them?

I am not a Photoshop expert, but I have used Photoshop for years. In my opinion, without researching for FBI-released information of any enhancements or altering, what your concern focuses on seems a simple answer: the FBI used the Lasso tool, and without being entirely constrained to just the actual facial outline, included small portions of brick. Some enhancement was applied for more clarity, probably including Sharpen, and that also affected the portions of brick.

http://www.photoshopessentials.com/basics/selections/lasso-t...

I think that, while your intention is good, this is a non-issue and a false lead.

Um, yes I know Photoshop quite well

and other image editors. Yes, your lasso tool can be used in the manner you describe. But it still doesn't produce half-bricks in a wall. Also the focus is different. The blurrier large brick wall was obviously shot at a different distance than the Green photo from 50 feet away.

The sharpening tool does not add mortar lines to brick. I never thought it did much of anything myself.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Has the FBI

denied applying enhancements to the photo?

Defend Liberty!

"Enhancements" like adding in face?

No I don't think so.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Even if I did see evidence of

Even if I did see evidence of photoshop in these pictures, which I don't, I don't see why these pictures even matter. What matters is what they use as evidence in the trial. They have it down in writing that they have video of both brothers basically leaving the bombs in the complaint against Dzokhar, so that will be the main evidence. I don't see why they would even need these pics at all when they have video. I also see no reason or precedent to why they would need to photoshop pictures, makes no sense.
Look, multiple witnesses saw these guys throw explosives, including a freaking pressure cooker bomb, at the police in the Watertown shootout. Add that with all the other evidence and I can't see how you could come to the conclusion that these guys are innocent and being framed or something. There is fishy FBI ties and things with this story, but even if the FBI were involved that doesn't at all mean the brothers are innocent of anything.

Good points, but if it turns out to be a frame-up

in the picture then the whole story falls apart. I have been thinking the same thing, it is a puzzle, and we have to figure it out. But since we know the FBI's M.O. since 9/11 has been to use patsies or "entrapment gone wrong," (WTC 1993, Lee Harvey Oswald) we can construct a scenario.

The mother says the FBI had been in frequent contact with Tamerlan, and the FBI ADMITS it knew him and interviewed him at least once. Suppose FBI undercovers tried to encourage them in a plot, and they said no. (Recall this is what may have happened to Tarek Mehanna.)

Now you have "bad cop" FBI trying to get them to do something, "good cop" FBI saying "are you guys being good?" - and maybe Tamerlan in the middle laughing and taking all their money. He was wearing fancy clothes and driving fancy cars, but he was on welfare? Hmmm.

Now they are playing along, suddenly see their pictures on TV. At this point YOU KNOW YOU ARE BEING SET UP AND NOTHING YOU SAY WILL MATTER. Because you won't live out the day. YOU DECIDE IF YOU'RE GOING TO DIE, YOU'RE GOING TO GO DOWN SHOOTING.

Who knows where the pressure cooker bombs came from? Remember the Underwear Bomber? The FBI supplied those too. Read LewRockwell:

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/haskell2.1.1.html

Release the Sandy Hook video.

My big problem with this and

My big problem with this and alot of theories like it are that they assume ridiculous risk and stupidity on the part of the FBI, and I don't believe that to be the case. I mean why would they doctor this pic, especially in a way that is possible to detect? They know for a fact that not only are many in the general public going to be looking over their evidence very extensively, many foreign intelligence agencies will as well, making the likelihood of getting caught very high. That makes no sense to me, they are not that dumb. There were thousands of people there, anyone or many people could have been taking pictures or videos as well and caught whatever it is they supposedly shopped in or out of the picture and they would be busted very easily. They would have no way of knowing who all caught whatever they wanted or didn't want on camera.

The underwear bomber wasn't innocent either.

Do you know of another instance where the FBI has doctored a photo? Not that it has not happened but I can't think of one. Certainly not of something that a hundred other people could have a picture of as well that could prove their picture to be doctored.

I'm a web designer

It isn't the simplest task to Photoshop something in that shouldn't be there and make it look like it should. You have to think about lighting, shadows, perspective...everything.

The FBI has doctored many photos I'm sure

I seem to recall one with Lee Harvey Oswald in it (anyone? Anyone?)

As for the risk, you see commenters right here saying "camera light reflection" and such nonsense. They know not one in 10,000 people will notice it, and that person will tell a few people who will think nothing of it and wouldn't know how to tie it all together if they did. In any false flag the people's own need to deny is the most important weapon, not any photoshop skills.

As for cameras everywhere, what are the chances of someone else capturing this exact frame at this exact moment in time? Zilch. Few seconds later? "oh he went around the corner. He's gone."

Release the Sandy Hook video.

So what is being claimed,

So what is being claimed, what was doctored? Is the claim that he STILL HAD the backpack and it was doctored to look like he didn't? If so, then anyone or many people could have a picture or video of him from other angles walking away STILL with his backpack. It doesn't have to be the "exact frame and the exact moment in time" like you stated. If anyone or multiple people took a picture or video after the blasts that caught him in it STILL with his backpack, then that would be enough to blow the plan.

They just confirmed that guy they killed in Florida was unarmed

They murdered him. And the two guys in the training exercise in Virginia. Who wants to start keeping a tally on these unusual deaths?

http://rt.com/usa/tsarnaev-todashev-unarmed-fbi-975/

You either don't have photoshop

or you are a completely blind monkey or you are a bombastic fool or you are benefitting from being a masculine exotic kitty cat.

Yes this photo is clearly photoshopped

The brick angle may be valid, but the left arm shoulder section of the photo is what should be focused on. In the original NY Times photo a half blind monkey with a severe stigmatism in his/ her good eye would be able to see the funny business quite clearly.

Yes, he would have to have been born with an arm deformity

Many people have gone into great detail on this. You just have to search for it. I would post, but I don't think DP readers could comprehend. Too many closed minds and eyes.

It's all true, Sue

.

Interesting

My first thought, playing devil's advocate, was that Ryan might have actually off-loaded the video to a portable computing device before handing it all over to the police on the 15th -- or, like sending it to the wireless cloud for his own keeping. These days, it isn't absolutely necessary to get back the "original" unless you didn't keep your own copy.

But that is not -- by itself -- a reason to dismiss this analysis. The compelling question raised is the "bad key" in the video.

And on this point, I have two thoughts/questions.
1) Remember the FBI press conference where they said "look for these two guys, help us find these guys" ? I distinctly remember the FBI guy saying that they were more interested in the second brother (Dzokhar). Remember that? This would not fit at all with the notion of the big brother is the one standing next to Jeff Bauman.

2) Even with video of brother standing next Jeff -- there just isn't video or photo evidence that is going to prove they did it. You would need to see him put the bag down and see the bag blow up. Otherwise, all you have is circumstantial evidence. This is why they needed to concoct "testimony" a la Jeff's "I saw him" and also the convenient confessions to a (now mysteriously absent) carjacking victim, as well as in the hospital and in the boat. Talk about an embarrassment of riches! It's so over the top. The fact is, there is no forensic evidence that can tie these brothers to the bombings but it hasn't stopped the whole world from convicting them.

I'm afraid all of this is getting "away" from people b/c of the other big "scandals," and once again -- the psychopaths pulling the strings around this will get away with it -- just like Sandy Hook.

Um...

...well, my reply to Ralph here would make more sense if the video he had in his original comment were still there.

It's gone. Huh?

I removed it to prevent the hystrionics at the mod

tattle tale box. I watched it again and the very last minute they posted the no-no word: F^#e Bl##d. I didn't realize the no-no word was in the vid until I watched it a second time, so I removed it.

The video was made by youtube user Anonpyrates. They have several satire videos about aliens at the Boston Marathon and a couple of good ones.

Ahh

...yes. The "F" phrase. LOL

Not Strong Evidence

I would be interested in strong evidence, but this isn't it.

Of course. We are in the age of 9/11, what your own eyes

tell you is no longer "strong evidence." We will TELL you when it is strong evidence. Until then it's not, because I say so.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Yes of course if he/she comes

Yes of course if he/she comes away with a different opinion than you, than he/she has to be a sheep just blind to the gov't tricks right? Get real.

No, this is completely wrong.

No, this is completely wrong. The irregularities are distortions caused by the light reflecting off of him and the fact the camera wasnt the best in the world. Notice that there is alot more distortion around his white hat, this is because white reflects alot more light; in otherwords, its basically flare. I have seen this kind of thing on many pictures and saying its because of photoshop is rediculous.
If anything, I would expect it to have a sharper edge than it does if it was edited.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.