Sandy Hook Digital Alterations – 2

Cyber-Tiffany

The art of photoshopping is in how well your finished product not only gives the illusion of reality, but also the artists ability to create something that is otherwise not possible. The image above named “Cyber-Tiffany” was one of many I did to challenge myself to create realistic looking images with a fun Sci-Fi theme. I had to build the interior areas, as well as, the neck and head-gear which was just a tad over-done. Too much hard-ware on her head in this case became a distraction to the rest of the image.

This next example was the second stage of another image using a quality of “cyber-ness”  but in a radically different way:  Model-test

I used Bryce to make my interior shots as spacey and colorful as possible to give her interior view a nice 3-D quality. The base-image itself was a fractal I made in another program and was placed into a sphere and rendered.

This example was a straight Bryce figure using the DAZ model program and adding HR to the scene. The result took around 32 hours to render:

Serenity

Trying to get just the right look for an image takes some patience and lots of time to test variations, until just the right combination of factors is just right, or at least possible to render. But these are art projects not pictures being altered to fool the public into believing something which might otherwise be quite obvious as false. To manipulate images skillfully one has to have the time and the tools and most of all a worthwhile purpose.

One of the comments brought up the Tweet showing the students as a class with three woman, presumably teachers. The issue of whether or not Daniel has a missing arm, which would then prove the picture is a fake serves as a good example of Occam’s Razor:

“The term Occam’s razor refers to the philosophical idea or scientific principle that of any given set of explanations for an event occurring, it is most likely that the simplest one is the correct one. Occam’s razor does not seek to offer complete and absolute proof, but to find the simplest probable answer to a question of why an event happened.”

Lets say for arguments sake the poster is right— the kids arm is missing– How? To remove his arm from a picture is to suggest there is a picture– or why alter it at all? The idea that it is a composite image made from separate images then suggests the “chopper” had images of the 15 students/three female adults and the base image to place them together. Where and how did the “chopper”  obtain all of these pictures? To be able to explain those specifics might then well lead to a simple question of why bother at all?

What did the composite picture provide to this person? The next stage is to take the composite and turn it back into a negative and then obtain 8 x 12 hard-copies. This is already quite a bit of work and expense. Now the digital copies are given to at least two parents or there can be no Tweet and there is no woman, attending the memorial with the President speaking,  sitting with a hard-copy in her lap to be photographed by two different photographers. So this “Chopper” had to do this work well before that morning and now is basking in the warm glow that the image is now circulating in the public and eventually a sharp-eyed viewer is going to notice the arm is missing—  the goal has been reached— the picture is now known as a fake and the chopper has a champaign party.

Here is the better picture in question:

s_n18_58438441

Phylax states, “In that photo Daniel Barden‘s right arm is missing, suggesting that it was a work in progress. My question is how did Laura Phelps come by that unfinished composite? There are no flesh-colored pixels anywhere around the right armhole.”

When I “see” a shadow I try to see the object that creates it– shadows do not create themselves– but they are added to give a more realistic look to the finished image– so I will dub this odd Chop style, as  the “Phylax Effect” which is a cool term to describe a “chopper” who attempts to alter an image, but ends up proving the exact opposite the alteration suggests. In this case “altering a photo” by removing the arm gave away that it was fake, instead of adding an arm which would have made it impossible to know that it was a fake. The Chopper faked the photo to prove it was a fake… in an otherwise perfectly looking normal photo.

Logically this also works— is the photo real—of course not the arm is missing– so it must be fake—despite every other factor looking normal.

Another viewpoint—the arm is not missing, but the image is still fake because the kids are not second graders— the teachers as shown are not listed at the school— those other kids do not attend SHE—  these are all positives that can be proved or dis-proven if enough information is known about the subjects in question. To prove a positive is always easier than to prove a negative. To avoid painting oneself into a logical corner it is imperative to look for the simplest explanation first, and then if required, add to the core argument to complete the theory.

The fact is taking a picture of fifteen kids as shown is way easier than to make a digital composite fake of those same kids… substantially easier…. the arm is there… or is it the contention he has no right arm at all? Well, that is absurd since there would be no reason to chop it out… then the picture is real…. removing his arm for no reason destroys the credibility of the picture begging the question of why produce it at all? A sloppy photo-alteration is one  thing, but an other-wise perfect photo— no other body parts are missing—  just to fool people also begs the question of why bother?

If that class picture did not exist, the “Con” works substantially better logically speaking, as there was no other indication that these students might have been in a class other than the ones as publicized. So the class picture, if it is a fake, becomes a smoking gun that something quite foul is afoot. That would mean the Phelps woman is not so bright… ooops if only she hadn’t Tweeted the very proof the whole she-bang was a fraud nobody would be questioning any photo’s at all.

This would also strongly suggest Phelps knows the “chopper” or why would she be fooled by such a “composite” or the other parent holding the hard-copy in her lap in a protective baggy? Once again, the simple answer is usually the best answer most of the time. The picture is real– the kids are real– they were posing with their 2nd grade teachers and one of the parents took that photo and made it into a hard-copy. Who is the question that cannot be answered without more information. The fact is these parents are actually not really saying much about anything—- pivotal to the incident itself. Which is why studying the pictures they have released becomes important in order to understand something about them. I am also not convinced the parents have any control over the pictures once released and are not responsible for altering them. But the question remains why are they not paying attention to what is being done?

This next example is a picture released by the Hubbard family. At first glance it seems like an honest picture of the parents in their living room. That is until my sense of perspective seemed off— its like fixing a crooked picture hanging on a wall… and the more I tried to fix that picture the more I realized it could not be fixed. I then looked at another picture of the daughter and her dog in front of the sofa, which I thought was the same room. But where is the lamp? I then noted the curtain across the room. In the Allison picture  there is also a curtain… do they seem the same….? I have not seen this style of curtain use [not that this means anything] but it struck me as odd and the room dimensions. These small details gain ones attention and persist for a reason.

mistaken identity

time with the Hubbards, whose daughter was killed in the shooting. Animal Sanctuary Planned in Memory of Catherine Violet Hubbard.

Hubbard-odd-2

Now it may well be that these are two different rooms same house with similar looking couches. That is the easy explanation and has the higher probability of being the truth. If only that damn window was straight. And if only that section of carpet was showing a fringe. That section of the wood floor looks too up-close as opposed to the grain of the wood it intersects… as if the floor itself was photoshopped… but that can’t be right… now why would anybody go through all that trouble? I did a test on that window with surprising results and checked the very window frame itself using a commercial photo [cut out the window– shaped it to the other] to compare the dimensions. I placed the changed window-frame back into the commercial picture just to be sure my eyes are not going wacky on me.

hubbardwindow-test-2a

I am pretty sure the building Codes in CT require windows to be perpendicular from floor to ceiling, unless it is a fun-house or something, otherwise that window is crooked as hell. Check it out for yourselves. It is not that easy to even get a straight window to be so crooked— you will need to use every tool in the Transform tool box.  They used a studio room is the simple answer. Then they dressed it up, photo-shop style, but somebody rushed through the job and did not check their dimensions on a grid. Amateurs always in a hurry fail to correct their mistakes. White carpet in one shot and hard-wood floors in another? It is real easy to come to conclusions with only the bare minimum of facts to go on. But that damn window is crooked. And the skull thingy in the corner— kind of creepy, along with what-ever that is hanging in that wall picture box.

I also took another look at the Soto pictures due to the nagging detail that she is dressed in the same clothes for how many shots in the exact same pose? Not likely really…. she seems to have had an assortment of styles she liked and one dress for all pictures makes no sense. Thus I solved the picture puzzle as shown here:

Soto-odd-1

Here too we find the use of “photoshopping” to convey a false impression. The picture on the far right is a superior image to the released class photo, but instead used two “props” to conceal that it is the class photo. The small inset picture shows the teacher I used in another class comparison, as well as, the flag and the side of the stage. This stage wall was cut out and placed into the picture frame to block the view— why?

On the other side [same image] we see the girl and another black-colored, flat-object which is also used to block the real view and makes it look like the girl is simply peeking around the side. But the fact is this image is the class photo and below the dark haired girl is Allison. Why hide this fact? Miss Soto was an intern for the year 2010-11 and she would be in the picture on the stage left-side [blue flag] not the right. The stage itself is quite large and has very identifiable features which would prove what side she was actually standing on and thus prove she was not the “Class Teacher” in the class photo. I also came across another class picture where I thought the male student looked more like the boy said to be Jesse Lewis and so I parked him in there along with a head shot of Jesse for comparison. The shot of Soto where she is standing in front of a green curtain with a woman on one side and another figure on the left— is a real puzzler. Her poses in each picture were also off from one another despite being identical in every way. I wasn’t able to replicate the reason why.

This next example is just a rough shot of the classes in front of the stage:

class -perspective-example

That is a good sized stage. With class pictures out in front, with the correct equipment, a good photo of the correct size would no doubt include the flags, and a placard up front stating the class, teacher etc.  with room left over. There was no need to cut off a teachers head or remove one as well. If the incident was true in all respects there is no need for photo manipulations or any other false, mis-leading information. No matter where I or many others stop to really look at the back-ground information the results are ambiguities piled up on top of absurdities.

The manner, in which people become obsessed with one particular aspect of the over-all scheme, seems to suggest that the plotters understand quite well how to exploit the psychological correlations to such factors, thereby ensuring people argue over the inconsequential red-herrings while never actually putting the “heat” where it belongs… that would be on the “authorities” in charge of the investigation, both on the federal and state levels. But like so many other issues facing the public the truth ceases to be the focus of the actions the minute the political football takes the field. As one crisis over-takes another the small slice of the public attention span shifts right along leaving behind any substantial inquiry which might have arose otherwise. People just have only so much time for any external issues and cease paying attention to anything that disturbs their daily routines. This is not about short-attention spans it is about not having enough time period.

This last example is a photo of a girl in the free stock category.

Happy kid

Too bad the pictures of the Sandy Hook students do not have the same quality like this one.  Not a single digital defect to be seen.

[Update] I came across another image, of Hubbard and Previdi, which a poster– “Fred” on GLP—- pointed out to be rather odd. He was quite right in that regard. The image while looking innocent enough of the two girls sharing a hug,  is quite impossible both photographically and by the Rules of physics which do not allow two solid bodies to occupy the same space. What makes the result even more strange is that the skills to create the image should have been sufficient to also see the result was impossible.

m3s6p

Here we see the two girls looking quite normal and happy. In the background on the board the date can be seen, June 20th 2012. The two girls have just completed a year of kindergarten. As one looks at the photo for more than just a moment something is not right. The two girls are impossibly merged at the shoulders.

Caroline and Catherine

Caroline and Catherine

I highlighted the shoulder of Catherine to help the eye see what is impossible in real life is quite possible in photoshopping. There are the tell-tale signs of a digital alteration to the heads, but very well done and not easy to spot unless enlarged. A minor dis-colorization of Caroline’s hair starting at the bow and going down— looks like a light effect. Catherine has a similar problem with too much lighting on her head as well.  I made another example for people to see what un-altered shoulder hugs look like for easy comparison.

Previdi-Hubbard-example-A-2

I just used stock pictures to show a similar hug position, and to demonstrate that even when it is a close hug, the bodies do not merge against the laws of physics. The girls (white shirts) show the positions of the shoulders correctly, and so does the other added girls. Either the arm is above or below is the rule seen here by example. By merging their arms and shoulders together un-naturally the purpose of the image is now called into question. Why forge a picture which needs no alteration? Is this to prove they are of the 2012 K-class? Did the parents not take pictures of their daughters on such a happy day? Why screw up a perfectly good image…. unless there was nothing else to use?

This is more evidence something is not right and an effort was made to alter enough images to convince people the ages match the school years. This is manipulation of perception on purpose. At what point does this type of alteration become a crime? Well, if the case is closed there will never be any investigation of the pictures for any reason. Nonetheless, these images prove somebody was worried enough about the truth to purposely cover it up.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Sandy Hook Digital Alterations – 2”

  1. Ginger Says:

    In the photo of the couple on the couch, I don’t think it’s hardwood flooring in front of the rug. I think it’s a wooden coffee table. That’s why it looks closer.

    Like

    • megatronicsmedia Says:

      If there was a coffee table in front of the couch– a simple question is how did the photographer take the picture without standing on top of the table? If you look at Mr. Hubbard’s knee and follow the edge down… at what height is the top of the table? Does it not stand to reason that if the edge of the wood section, is a line in parallel to the edge of the carpet, this line must continue beyond the edge of the photo? The purposeful cut of this image does not allow you to see that his feet will be on the floor not a table. Look at the edge of the wood section parallel to the carpet and ask why it does not rise upwards as it intersects the vertical edge of the couch? What kind of table is level with the floor and continues? This is an illusion caused by photoshopping that section. Park a coffee table in front of your couch and see if you can take a picture replicating exactly what you think you see in this trick photograph. If it is a table the type of floor or carpet will not change the out-come of the experiment. You will find it to be quite impossible to make that table merge into the floor.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: