Fauxtography(?): Fixing-a-hole edition
posted at 9:52 am on November 10, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Election hubbub caused me to miss the awful story in Beit Hanoun, where an IDF artillery shell hit a Palestinian apartment complex on Wednesday and killed 19 people. Ehud Olmert claims it was a misfire, that the target was an orange grove from which rockets were being fired located 500 yards from the building.
Verbal Caricature’s been watching the photo wire and now the inevitable charge of fauxtography has been leveled. The hole does indeed appear to get bigger from one photo to the next; at first I thought they were shots of different buildings, but the whitish stain on the wall is consistent from one to the next. Maybe they widened the hole … for structural reasons? Because somehow that would make it easier to repair? Where are our construction-worker readers?
Omri Ceren’s following the propagandization of Beit Hanoun, too. I take back what I said about that Media Fund stem-cell ad: the perfect victim isn’t a living little girl, it’s a dead baby. Why? Because a dead baby — or rather, a dead Palestinian baby — can justify anything. Including calls for genocide:
[L]et’s assume that this was entirely Israel’s fault – that the Palestinian terrorists who choose to use these people as de-facto human shields bear zero moral culpability for their deaths. Obviously, it’s untrue, but since everyone else seems to be assuming it let’s bracket it for the sake of argument -
In what moral universe does that make it totally natural for the Palestinian government – not some mob, not some random guy, but the government – to threaten to eradicate the Jewish state? Because the Israeli government never threatened to eradicate the Palestinians in response to any of the hundreds of mass murders that the Palestinians have committed – and we’re very sure that if they had, they wouldn’t be getting this kind of “well, of course they’re angry” coverage.
WHERE IS OUR CYCLE OF VIOLENCE COVERAGE?
Why aren’t we reading ledes in British and French newspapers about how “the cycle of violence in the region threatened to spiral out of control as the Palestinians threaten retaliation”?…
Is it because they just don’t expect any better from the Palestinians?…
Is it because they just don’t care about the cycle of violence when Israel is on the immediately next rung?
Rhetorical questions. Of course.
Consensus emerges in the comments: As I suspected, nothing to see here by way of fauxtography.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Hmm. The first two shots look like they could be the same hole. The second photo was shot with a wide angle lens,which is going to distort the image espcially details in the periphery of the image. The last two photos, however, definitely look screwy. I think that’s the technical term for it.
vcferlita on November 10, 2006 at 9:59 AM
Do we have a chance when we are up against a media willing to kill us with a thousand cuts?
AngryHank on November 10, 2006 at 10:02 AM
Fauxtography…our old friend.
You’re just trying to cheer us up, aren’t you?
Slublog on November 10, 2006 at 10:02 AM
This one looks like much ado about nothing, to me. The hole in the first photo certainly appears to be created by a large weapons system. In photo two, the hole looks the same, just distorted by the lens of the camera itself (a wide-angle lens will often stretch the image around the edge, like a fish-eye effect)
The last two photos have some sort of barrier placed inside the hole (maybe to seal it up?) The enlarging of the hole is likely to be existing damage where they just pushed the broken concrete out of the hole. Concrete is brittle and shatters when hit with explosives, that additional damage could have easily been caused in the initial attack, and the pieces just remained in place.
It also comes down to the gain to be had by enlarging the hole or doctoring the shot – it wouldn’t appear to me to make the damage any more spectacular nor would it make or break the story to enlarge the hole…
RustMouse on November 10, 2006 at 10:06 AM
RustMouse has it right on photo 2…wide angle lens….the top of the hole may be bigger because of collapse?
Bottom line. It is a calculated strategy. The terrorists want civilian casualties because it furthers the cause.
Sorry libs, but if the target is in a civilian area, and it is shooting at me, I’m shooting back. If I miss and a innocent dies am I a murderer? Nope.
Anyone here that thinks that human shields negates your right to shoot back, when it is your family being shot at from behind that shield, won’t have a family very long.
Limerick on November 10, 2006 at 10:18 AM
The holes don’t appear to be getting larger.
Perspective changes may make them look different sizes, but if you look at the edges, the details seem to be consistent throughout the set of four.
I don’t think there is anything here.
EFG on November 10, 2006 at 10:19 AM
Because a dead baby — or rather, a dead Palestinian baby — can justify anything.
Where can I get me one of these dead Palestinian babies?
EF on November 10, 2006 at 10:22 AM
Green helmet guy could probably hook you up.
vcferlita on November 10, 2006 at 10:29 AM
Um, not really a joking matter, ok?
Allahpundit on November 10, 2006 at 10:30 AM
Then you shouldn’t have written they “can justify anything” because that can only be interpreted as a sarcastic joke.
EF on November 10, 2006 at 10:34 AM
Sarcasm, yes. Joke, no.
Allahpundit on November 10, 2006 at 10:35 AM
Sarcasm is a form of wry humor. But, look who I’m arguing with — the do as I say, not as I do, guy.
EF on November 10, 2006 at 10:36 AM
Well, my comment was definitely meant to be sarcastic. I mean how many times have we seen the Palestinians and Hamas do crap like this? Their behavior is a joke. Do they really think the west is so freakin’ stupid that we don’t see what they are doing? Anyway, sorry if I offended anyone.
vcferlita on November 10, 2006 at 10:40 AM
Quit complaining ya wuss, at least AP didn’t remove your post!
fogw on November 10, 2006 at 10:48 AM
I just can’t imagine how anyone could come to the conclusion that firing back was wrong. Was it tragic? Yes.
Do I grieve for the dead? Yes. But we sit here nice and cozy with the View and the Vent and put some third grade answer on Israel’s moral responsibilty.
I know it is over simplifying but geez people…if Cinncinati was shelling Pittsburg, and your sister just got splattered all over the street, are you telling me you would condemn Pittsburg from shooting back?
There was NO Palestinian nation. Ever. That is the bottom line here. On the night of May 15, 1948, Golda Meir secretly traveled to Amman, Jordan, and met with the head of the Arab Legion. Israel had accepted the United Nations partition and CONCEDED Jerusalem would be kept as an international city. Golda Meir informed the Arab Legion that if the arabs chose war then Israel would have the right to secure herself by force of arms. The arabs chose war and they lost. It was only then that the ‘Palestinian Nation’ was the cause de-guerre. The Arab Legion fought to TAKE Palestine and Jerusalem, not for ‘Palestine’ but for Trans Jordan. Every nation on this planet has secured itself by RIGHT OF ARMS. Every one.
Limerick on November 10, 2006 at 10:51 AM
But, unlike you, fogw, if he did, I wouldn’t whine about for days, you big poofer.
EF on November 10, 2006 at 10:52 AM
Picture 1 and 2 are the same. two may be stretched a little on teh edge but to no real effect. Look at the circular piece of plaster on the right hand side. I believe it is attached to a structural member or plumbing and in pisture 3 the plaster around it is gone along with some of the plaster to its right. You can see the newly exposed cider blocks.
I think the hole is being opened up so they can better fix it. See the wood covering in the last picture. They most likely want to get to some solid wall and trim off the half broken stuff. I don’t thinkk there is much fauxtography here.
DrM2B on November 10, 2006 at 10:54 AM
My what a short memory you have. Don’t like it much when the shoe is on the other foot, do you?
I eventually apologized to AP for crossing the line with my sarcasm.
Waiting for your apology now, Mr. Hypocrite ……..
fogw on November 10, 2006 at 10:58 AM
Don’t hold your breath, whiner.
EF on November 10, 2006 at 11:00 AM
What would be the reaction if someone held up an aborted baby…?
SouthernGent on November 10, 2006 at 11:07 AM
The hole definitely changes from pictures 1 to pictures 3 and 4 where it is the same but the distortion technique is being used. There’s also some weird pipe holding up what appears to be a piece of concrete like it was some plumbing entering the building there that is only present in one of the photos that I can tell. Minor but some changes had been made.
The real telling thing is that all the pictures feature are women and children. They are strategically placed in the photos to convey an idea of vulnerability and oppression.
The dead baby parade is just grotesque and shockingly enough I just had a liberal friend I IMed with the picture say, “Whats the big deal pro-lifers use kids in their rallies too?”
bj1126 on November 10, 2006 at 11:07 AM
Wow, this thread took a big turn didn’t it.
vcferlita on November 10, 2006 at 11:08 AM
I won’t waste any more time interrupting the topic of this thread on someone who can dish it out, but can’t take it.
Poofer? Whiner? The inner child in you reverts to name-calling when challenged. And you’re a therapist of some kind? Pretty pathetic.
Oh, and I knew you wouldn’t be man enough to apologize for your brazen remark.
fogw on November 10, 2006 at 11:13 AM
Wait! I’m The Therapist. And I’m trying to figure out the origin of this picture–at least I can win a Peet’s Coffee card, instead of a cold sholder from a media that thinks Iran will be nice guys now that Pelosi’s gonna have the gavel.
But as to the pic, I think the fauxtography assertion might be a bit weak here, although maybe some of those benevolent Jihadist pilgrims have picked at it a bit, for panoramic effect.
-T
The Therapist on November 10, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Great. The tone of this thread is really something I can be proud of and want to show people as an example of good conservative thought and political commentary.
A host makes a tactful suggestion to a commenter about the appropriateness of a comment.
Suddenly, the host gets attacked and accused of hypocrisy by his guest.
And now commenters are flinging insults back and forth at each other.
Super.
Yeah, I can be a sarcastic jerk at times. But I hope I don’t come off like this. Attacking the host. Poo flinging insults at fellow commenters. Etc.
I’m asking everyone, not telling you all, to please consider your comments a little more carefully.
Thank you.
Very respectfully,
EFG on November 10, 2006 at 11:20 AM
Oh, I doubt that. If your track record proves anything, it’s that any chance you get, you are going to whine about having a post removed.
EF on November 10, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Oh, and Limerick, you need to go read the comments in the “well timed leak to NYT propelled democrats to victory” right here EFG on November 10, 2006 at 3:53 AM to understand why I think you are worse than Hitler.
;-)
EFG on November 10, 2006 at 3:53 AM
EFG on November 10, 2006 at 11:27 AM
Oh, can it. Allah’s a big boy. I think he could withstand the comment that it was he who set the tone for the thread.
No, the host was referred to a joke he made in another thread several days ago.
I just love people who pretend to call for peace while throwing gas cans around. You want the subject dropped? Then drop it.
EF on November 10, 2006 at 11:34 AM
EFG….I am still waiting for the make-up guy before I get that photo taken……maybe a trim to the ol stash….some dippidy-do for the hair. I’ll get back to ya.
Limerick on November 10, 2006 at 11:46 AM
No problem Limerick. It’s all in good fun.
EFG on November 10, 2006 at 11:58 AM
As someone noted earlier. Concrete is brittle so before they could start to repair the damage they’d have to get rid of the cracked and damaged material.
When repairing a damaged structure the first thing done is to strip back the damaged material to a stable starting point, whether it’s concrete or wood-rot you’re dealing with the principles are the same. You don’t start building on a faulty foundation.
That being said. It looks like the damaged material has been removed and photo’s snapped to show the increased damage.
If they’re in the process of repairing the building once the damaged materials have been removed they’ll remove some of the “good” material to square edges of the hole. From there its drill holes insert rebar pour concrete.
At least that’s the process used around here when bridges / buildings get damaged.
phineas g. on November 10, 2006 at 12:40 PM
I have my questions as to whether its even the same building..
Viper1 on November 10, 2006 at 12:51 PM
…OK…looked at the pictures.
The hole in the wall gets bigger the more you scroll down the page. The shape of the hole changes, and not because it’s viewed from different angles. Head on, it’s bigger further down.
Is it faux-tography? I doubt it.
Look at the structure. Folks in that part of the world build their homes out of graham crackers, for one. Things have been moved on both sides of the hole, for another. I also know that any missle which would’ve killed any significant number of people would’ve made a damned-sight bigger hold than that.
I look and look, and still all I see around the site are the usual Middle Eastern cannon fodder.
…and I didn’t see any dead babies in any of the pictures, Palestinian or other wise (do they label their offspring?)…home-made or delivery…
That said, folks are killed in wars. If the Palestinians — who love faux-tography so because they are a faux-nationality — want to reduce the number of times they’re handed their a$$es by Shlomo and Ari, they need to learn to get along…not dance around in the public square, alternately cheering for the deaths of others and slapping themselves on the tops of their noggins at the deaths of their own….
The Israelis didn’t thwart the national ambitions of the Palestinians or any other psuedo-nation. What’s got some of these bozos steamed is that the Israelis founded a nation and took large swatches of land, particularly on the West Bank…land in the families of these Christian and Muslim Arabs for hundreds of years…land, especially on the West Bank, which has water under it. A *LOT* of ‘em don’t look at it as a contest of governments or borders but of getting Grandpa’s acreage back so’s they can go back to pasturing their goats.
…this is land that Israel took…largely because these folks grandparents were in effect ordered to get off of it and out of the way of the “victorious” Arab Legion and assorted other tools of assorted other dictators. They split, and they haven’t been back…and we’re still waiting for the “victorious” Arab Legion to win something.
Mind you, the Israelis aren’t exactly a nation of Pollyanas. They play hard-ball. They *HAVE* ripped people off. They don’t play well with others. They chase guerillas down and shoot them out of trees…with attack helicopters. That said, they’re only doing what we *should* be doing: taking their enemies at their word. These hummus-smelling goons and comic-drama field marshals keep talking about “Death to the Zionists”, to the point that many of their clerics won’t even bring themselves to use the word “Israel”, I can’t blame the Israelis for being less than sympathetic.
…and, truth be told, the Israeli armed forces are the most unsympathetic group of people on the planet.
These Lebanese/Palestinian/Whatever-European-Socialists-Are-Buying-This-Week were subletting their houses out to a hostile armed force, allowing the Hezbos to launch missles from *within* their homes. That’s apt to provoke a response from the aforementioned unsymathetic Israelis. Again…they take Hezbollah at its word. “Death to Israel” means, for them as for the jihadis, that they want to destroy, kill, and dance on the ashes of Israel. ‘Nuff said.
I’m still waiting, months along not, for the media to cast a more critical eye on the Lebanese. The “civilians” represented by “Green Helmet”, the “Amazing Chest-Slapping Woman”, a pile of dead children near-at-hand, and a dust-free wedding dress were part authors of their own ruin. The British didn’t weep for the Dresdners, no did we or should we weep for the citizens of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. As Paul Tibbets said, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time…supporting, by and large, the wrong side.
If San Diego were to suddenly be rocketed by drug-lords/coyotes/jihadis from Tijuana, I’d expect our armed forces to flatten Tijuana. They wouldn’t, of course. Our bombs are getting smarter day by day, and when we use smart munitions we can pick which pane of glass in whichever window we want to the bomb to enter in the building we want to make disappear. The Israelis have the same stuff. America’s response would be too little, often too late.
Can we then blame Israel for being more johnny-on-the-spot, maybe even killing some of the guilty?
Puritan1648 on November 10, 2006 at 1:03 PM
Hey EF…G,
Never thought about how much difference a “cap g” could make – until now.
I don’t know who was here first, but man… EF/EFG can get confusing some times. But hey, the tone/quality of the posts usually gives it away.
My 2 cents about the “trophy baby:” This usage of a tragically deceased baby to engender outrage is inhumane, perverse, and indefensible. We all know what a dead baby is, and have some idea what it looks like, and we all agree that it is a tragic element of warfare. We dont have to watch you desecrate the child for your politically gainful purposes.
Don’t confuse this with anti-abortionists using pictures (or cadavers? or whatever you’d classify an aborted baby as) to make their political point. The whole anti-abortion point is that this is (was) a living child. Many pro-choicers NEED to see these pictures to “cure” the disconnect that has been caused by 30 years of “it’s a choice” indoctrination. It’s not a choice, it is (was) a baby, and here’s a picture to prove it. That’s radically different than the loser in that pic holding up an accidental casualty of war for all the world to gauk at.
y2church on November 10, 2006 at 1:40 PM
We have known EFG for a long time and EF is no EFG.
Entelechy on November 10, 2006 at 2:33 PM
Thanks guys. Seriously.
It’s always a pleasure to read some of the great posts and comments I read here.
EFG on November 10, 2006 at 2:48 PM
Thank, God!
And y2, I’m not impressed with your tone, either.
EF on November 10, 2006 at 2:50 PM
*sigh*
EFG on November 10, 2006 at 3:02 PM
Lets do this the old fasion way, put your back together take 15 steps and turn around.
rocked on November 10, 2006 at 5:35 PM
In photo #3 of the progression, work has been done to remove the damage at the bottom to a solid level rebuilding point. It does not appear that anything odd has been done to the photo. Photo #4 might just have been a poorly composed shot, or intentionally low-res so that afterwork would be harder to detect. DrM2B has it right, the oval-shaped piece was held up because of what appears to be some plumbing. By #4, the pipe has been pulled up and set on the outside, and is holding the concrete piece up in almost the same position. Look at the nearly intact brick in the right side to judge the progression. By #3 material has been removed beneath it, and in #4 much more has, along the top of a course of bricks.
My gut impression is that the kids were ’shopped in, but I don’t see any added value for doing so. Not a big deal either way. Palestinian civilians believe that hamas and hezbollah are doing the right thing by being embedded among them, then they have to accept the risk. They know Israel fights back, and my sympathy for them is thereby limited.
EF,
Dude, get over yourself. Try and get away with that garbage aimed at the manager of most blogs. You only pull that with AP because you know how thick-skinned and reasonable he is. Taking advantage of it, or weakly attempting to, is just sad.
Freelancer on November 10, 2006 at 5:39 PM
Comment pages: