“Reuters” faked images of Georgian victims

[logic bomb]

“Reuters” faked images of Georgian victims allegedly killed by Russian attacks.

August 30, 2008

How psychological warfare was used during the Caucasian War by western corporate media against Russia.
Tlaxcala published these evidence weeks ago. It is time to realize the dimension of effect on our minds by modern media warfare.

http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m46819&hd=&size=1&l=e

http://www.radio-utopie.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/first-film-set-near-curbstone.jpg
The caption Reuters gave to this photo is "Georgians stand next to the body of their son in the town of Gori". The woman is looking up towards the sky from where, presumably, death had stricken "her son".


http://www.radio-utopie.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/second-film-set-away-from-curbstone-body-removed.jpg
But for the purposes of this photo the body of the "son" has been obviously moved quite a bit away from the curb. This was clearly not done in order to cover up the naked parts of the dead man’s body, nor to allow some measure of dignity to the dead. Was it done for the light? (One should challenge Reuters to find a mother — any mother — who would allow the body of her child to be dragged through dirt half naked like this, while she is taking instructions from a photographer where to stand, where to look and what to do next).

[nothingspecial]

Someone remind me who owns Reuters.. :D

[lightworks]

thats interesting

[knut]

I have looked at these pictures and the ones provided by the link, and clearly theres something wrong, but whats higlited in the two pics provided in this post can be explained. The body has not been moved, but the photographer has changed position, and also changed objectives. Thats why it might look like
the body has been moved. In the 1. pic, the perspective is compressed because the photographer has used a tele objective.

Im no expert, but thats what it looks like to me :)

[dooby]

There is a comment on the same page as this:

"the two photos of the father and mother stood next to the dead son are in exactl y the same place, the body has not been moved, the prespective is just different , as the photographer will have used two different lenses, which will give the i llusion that the background has changed. the first image has been shot from much futher away with a telephoto lens, giving a shorter depth of feild, the second with a wide angle, that makes the background appear further away.

look at where the curb at the mans back is, exactly the same place. so unless yo u're suggesting that the road has been streched also, you're wrong on this one."

This is from a supposed photographer. To me, there are differences in the two photos. Even if the body hasn't been moved, that wound is more conspicuous in the second photo than the first. There are some creases that have disappeared from his shirt in the second photo too.

[krakhead]

This is from a supposed photographer. To me, there are differences in the two photos. Even if the body hasn't been moved, that wound is more conspicuous in the second photo than the first. There are some creases that have disappeared from his shirt in the second photo too.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

I noticed that too - moved or not, in the second photo the rip in the t-shirt looks a LOT more open than in the first. :confused: