Nice Try.

[check]

Just caught this on CNN. Get over to http://www.georgewbush.com/ before they take it down. Take a look at the ‘whatever it takes’ photo. It shows a large crowd of US military personnel standing in formation listening to the president. Problem is, it’s a fake picture. If you look closely, you can see that a lot of the faces are exactly the same. Just thought it was funny. ‘whatever it takes’ indeed guys. :tongue2:

[phatmonky]

I see no GW Bush in that picture.

[russ_watters]

What is CNN saying about it? The photo looks fake simply because the foreground and background perspectives seem unlikely to have been captured at the same time. But lacking context, I can't say whether that's right or wrong (the tv ads have, indeed, been pulled from the site).

[check]

Well the story will probably make it on the CNN website in a little while, but I only caught a bit of it. Yes I noticed there was not GW in the pictures also but that was the description given on the TV report.

Oh, they're talking about it on CNN now. Basically the Bush camp says that the president was in the picture before on the left side speaking in front of a podium. He was then cut out and some pictures of the military personnel were edited in. I don’t know why they’d cut out the president, but ok, I’ll believe that.

[Gokul43201]

I wonder if it was the picture at http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html that made them feel the need to show a picture filled with people...

[check]

I wonder if it was the picture at http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html that made them feel the need to show a picture filled with people...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah, I think Kerry wins that one.

[motai]

I wonder if it was the picture at http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html that made them feel the need to show a picture filled with people...

That's a lot of people. Im not sure if Bush can top that, keep adding more people and they will start to blend into the horizon :biggrin: .

[wasteofo2]

They photoshoped an image so it wouldn't look weird.

Uh...

Scandal?

What?

[Gokul43201]

INDIANOLA, Iowa (AP) -- President Bush's campaign acknowledged Thursday that it had doctored a photograph used in a television commercial and said the ad will be re-edited and reshipped to TV stations.

The photo of Bush addressing a group of soldiers was edited to take out a podium, aides said, and a group of soldiers in the crowd was electronically copied and used to fill where the podium had been.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/bush.ad.ap/index.html

[Evo]

If the pictures check posted are accurate, there were at least three podiums within the group of soldiers according to the Bush press release?

What's wrong with just telling the truth? Ok, someone doctored up the picture, that I can accept, making up a lie to cover it up is pathetic.

[Gokul43201]

If the pictures check posted are accurate, there were at least three podiums within the group of soldiers according to the Bush press release?

What's wrong with just telling the truth? Ok, someone doctored up the picture, that I can accept, making up a lie to cover it up is pathetic.

Evo, do you still continue to be shocked by lies and deception from the Bushies ? Most of us have developed an immunity to such reaction.

[russ_watters]

Could someone help me out here - I'm not seeing a lie. They doctored a photo to make it look pretty for the website and TV commercial and when asked about it, they admitted it. What's the problem?

[kat]

If the pictures check posted are accurate, there were at least three podiums within the group of soldiers according to the Bush press release?


I don't get how you're coming to the conclusion that there would be at least three podiums....can you clarify?


What's wrong with just telling the truth? Ok, someone doctored up the picture, that I can accept, making up a lie to cover it up is pathetic.

So....If the origional is shown and it shows that it was only one podium and the president, as they are saying...then you will find it acceptable?

[Polly]

Could someone help me out here - I'm not seeing a lie. They doctored a photo to make it look pretty for the website and TV commercial and when asked about it, they admitted it. What's the problem?
Are you serious? We are talking about, not just any commercial, but the commercial of a presidential candidate. We have a legitimate expectation of a higher level of integrity.

[kat]

For Evo.
I believe this is the origional unaltered pic.
http://www.georgewbush.com/images/gallery/P20035-07.jpg

[motai]

I don't get how you're coming to the conclusion that there would be at least three podiums....can you clarify?

I think what Evo is trying to say is that since pictures of the same soldiers are shown three times, there should be three podiums, but they appear to be edited out entirely.

[kat]

I think what Evo is trying to say is that since pictures of the same soldiers are shown three times, there should be three podiums, but they appear to be edited out entirely.

Then I'm going to assume that she's not familiar with photoshopping and leave it at that.

[Evo]

I don't get how you're coming to the conclusion that there would be at least three podiums....can you clarify? If you look at the picture check posted check2.jpg, in his first post, you will see three sets of soldiers over a large area, but the picture you referenced has just the single podium covering a much smaller area. That's a really bad job of photo editing.

So....If the origional is shown and it shows that it was only one podium and the president, as they are saying...then you will find it acceptable?Yes, it is acceptable, I don't see what the fuss is about. It's obvious that they didn't alter the photo with the intention of creating a false message and the Bush press release appears to be accurate.

Why would anyone even care about this?

[MiGUi]

Out of US, we are forbidden to see Bush's web.

[russ_watters]

Are you serious? We are talking about, not just any commercial, but the commercial of a presidential candidate. We have a legitimate expectation of a higher level of integrity. Integrity for what? You're implying that altering the photo, in and of itself, is a deception. It isn't. Here is the point: Yes, it is acceptable, I don't see what the fuss is about. It's obvious that they didn't alter the photo with the intention of creating a false message and the Bush press release appears to be accurate. Altering a photo is not automatically an attempt to decieve. There is no integrity issue here.

[pelastration]

For Evo.
I believe this is the origional unaltered pic.
http://www.georgewbush.com/images/gallery/P20035-07.jpg
Trying to look to the link from Europe, but:
Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.georgewbush.com/images/gallery/P20035-07.jpg" on this server

The rest of the world is not allowed. :rofl:

[russ_watters]

Out of US, we are forbidden to see Bush's web. You can find both photos HERE (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/bush.ad.ap/index.html). Heck, it seems to me that Kerry fans should like the alteration: the photo was altered to take Bush out of it.

[pelastration]

Integrity for what? You're implying that altering the photo, in and of itself, is a deception. It isn't. Here is the point: Altering a photo is not automatically an attempt to decieve. There is no integrity issue here.
Of course it is. But it's intended for a naive, simple minded Bush supporters. They must have the impression that a LOT of SOLDIERS were there with their Imperial Commander in Chief.
You can create a lot of possible reasons to cover up this deception, but we don't buy that. We are not that naive.

[Evo]

Of course it is. But it's intended for a naive, simple minded Bush supporters. They must have the impression that a LOT of SOLDIERS were there with their Imperial Commander in Chief.
You can create a lot of possible reasons to cover up this deception, but we don't buy that. We are not that naive.Actually the edit wasn't adding to the number of soldiers in the picture, so they were not trying to be deceptive in that way.

Of course anyone that thinks all of those soldiers packed in there like that of their own free will is naive. Bush is currently Commander in Chief and the soldiers were ordered to be there.

[russ_watters]

Of course it is. But it's intended for a naive, simple minded Bush supporters. They must have the impression that a LOT of SOLDIERS were there with their Imperial Commander in Chief. The edit does not change the number of soldiers implied by the picture. Would you like to try again? You can create a lot of possible reasons to cover up this deception, but we don't buy that. We are not that naive. What cover-up! Jeez, you're trying awfully hard to pump a dry well, here: the Bush team was asked about the photo and admitted it was altered. There is no cover-up.

This is yet another issue that a reactionary left is trying to blow out of proportion, only to have it blow up in their own face.

Did you even look at the two photos yet?

[pelastration]

Actually the edit wasn't adding to the number of soldiers in the picture, so they were not trying to be deceptive in that way.

Of course anyone that thinks all of those soldiers packed in there like that of their own free will is naive. Bush is the currently Commander in Chief and the soldiers were ordered to be there.
Evo I put it on Photshop, different layers and scaled. Then counted. Used also transparency. The doctored image count ± 68/70 soldiers. The Original: 45 soldier faces.
That's only a difference of 23 soldiers (maybe 5 replacing Bush).
Since Russ prefers scientic tests I believe he will not be pleased with your remark that the difference between 69 and 45 is zero. :biggrin:
So let's say only 17 were added, but that's still 38% extra.

[phatmonky]

okay, I'm not rereading this thread....WHY did they photoshop bush out of the pic?

[pelastration]

Did you even look at the two photos yet?
Sure, see my previous post.
This seems your made an assumption, and didn't check for yourself. I did however since I prefer to control things in a scientific way.

[russ_watters]

Evo I put it on Photshop, different layers and scaled. Then counted. Used also transparency. The doctored image count ± 68/70 soldiers. The Original: 45 soldier faces.
That's only a difference of 23 soldiers (maybe 5 replacing Bush).
Since Russ prefers scientic tests I believe he will not be pleased with your remark that the difference between 69 and 45 is zero. :biggrin:
So let's say only 17 were added, but that's still 38% extra. So you're assuming that in Bush's shadow, there is a hole in the crowd of soldiers? Are you also claiming that the change makes the number of soldiers pictured larger than the actual number of soldiers present?

You've also never said what is deceitful about it. Yes, some soldiers are in there twice, but that doesn't say how it is deceitful: what does the altered photo say or imply that the original photo doesn't?

edit: you also seem to be counting the difference in cropping....

Note: in the photo kat linked, the cropping is wider and significantly more soldiers are depicted than in either photo on CNN's website. It was clearly cropped to remove a TV camera from the left side, a SS agent on the right, and top and bottom to maintain the aspect ratio.

[russ_watters]

okay, I'm not rereading this thread....WHY did they photoshop bush out of the pic? They wanted to highlight the boy waving the flag against the backdrop of a crowd of soldiers.

[phatmonky]

They wanted to highlight the boy waving the flag against the backdrop of a crowd of soldiers.

Wow, and this is a big deal??

Maybe if they left Bush in it people would be complaining that he was trying to use the troops to win his election? Instead, there is a photo that is not partisan and is simply people supporting the troops....again, what's the deal again?

[pelastration]

So you're assuming that in Bush's shadow, there is a hole in the crowd of soldiers? Are you also claiming that the change makes the number of soldiers pictured larger than the actual number of soldiers present?
I counted 23 extra faces and deducted 5 faces (about the surface the Bush takes) = 17 extra faces.
So why to add 17 faces ... because of the little boy with it's flag? :cool:
Funning, but not the real reason. :wink:
Russ ... come on ... you know better.

[phatmonky]

I still don't understand the title of this thread - nice try? what was the goal? to disassociate Bush from the military?

[kat]

Of course anyone that thinks all of those soldiers packed in there like that of their own free will is naive. Bush is currently Commander in Chief and the soldiers were ordered to be there.
I don't think you're very familiar with the military... but if these soldiers were ordered to hear the President speak and didn't go willingly I'd sure like to see you show some sort of support or evidence for that.
My knowledge of the military would make me believe that those soldiers would gladly and willingly go see their commander in chief speak with absolutely no extra encouragement and certianly not being "Ordered" to attend.
If that were the case...I'm sure it would be splashed all over the front of the NYT at least....

[check]

I still don't understand the title of this thread - nice try? what was the goal? to disassociate Bush from the military?

This thread was created and posted before the official Bush campaign response. It was a ‘nice try’ to the Bush team trying to get away with using fake photos in their ads. But anyway, ok, so I jumped the gun on this one. Although I still think the alteration of photos in campaign ads probably isn’t the best thing in the world, I’ll accept the official explanation.

[Evo]

I don't think you're very familiar with the military... but if these soldiers were ordered to hear the President speak and didn't go willingly I'd sure like to see you show some sort of support or evidence for that. Ah, there's the key...they were "ordered" to go. How many do you think would have shown up if they weren't ordered to?

I am an ex military wife. My first husband was in Naval Intelligence at NISC in DC. I worked at the Navy Exchange. I spent a number of years living in condemned sub-standard military housing off Bolling Air Force Base in Washington DC. People in the military aren't robots and they do not mindlessly all support the President.

My brother was in the Army during the Vietnam War, as were many of my friends, my dad was in the Marines during WWII, my grandfather was a Captain in the French Navy, don't assume I don't know about the military.

[russ_watters]

This is entertaining (and, I think, representative of a real problem - knee-jerk reactions), so I'll keep it going... I counted 23 extra faces and deducted 5 faces (about the surface the Bush takes) = 17 extra faces.
So why to add 17 faces ... because of the little boy with it's flag? :cool:
Funning, but not the real reason. :wink:
Russ ... come on ... you know better. C'mon, what is the "real reason?" Is this deception so horrible that you can't even say what it is?

[pelastration]

This is entertaining (and, I think, representative of a real problem - knee-jerk reactions), so I'll keep it going... C'mon, what is the "real reason?" Is this deception so horrible that you can't even say what it is?
I should give the reason? :rofl:
I can guess but can never be sure.
Whatever reason ... it shows that the Bushy guys adapt, change, manipulate ... FACTS. It seems to be a habit. A baaaaaaaad habit.

[russ_watters]

So.... you can't see any deception (even though you said before that you could), but you think (want) there must be one? Nice.

...but wait - you said Bush manipulateds facts. What fact, specifically, did Bush manipulate here? Wait - then again, you also just said you didn't know. Hmm....

[franznietzsche]

Are you serious? We are talking about, not just any commercial, but the commercial of a presidential candidate. We have a legitimate expectation of a higher level of integrity.


Since when? I don't remember any historical account of a campaign with anything resembling integrity...ever...People in the senate used to beat each other in heated debates, presidential politics has been entirely about pandering and spectacle since before Andrew Jackson was elected. You have no right to expect anything except the most vicious lies.

[kat]

Ah, there's the key...they were "ordered" to go. How many do you think would have shown up if they weren't ordered to? With a 70% support rate in the army and an slightly higher support rate with those overseas I think quite a few would show up and I don't think you can support that statement that they were "ordered" to go.

I am an ex military wife. My first husband was in Naval Intelligence at NISC in DC. I worked at the Navy Exchange. I spent a number of years living in condemned sub-standard military housing off Bolling Air Force Base in Washington DC. People in the military aren't robots and they do not mindlessly all support the President.

My brother was in the Army during the Vietnam War, as were many of my friends, my dad was in the Marines during WWII, my grandfather was a Captain in the French Navy, don't assume I don't know about the military.
Well, I'm sorry you had to live in sub-standard housing. For the almost 2 decades that we lived in military housing we always stayed in very nice homes...but that may have been because it was Air Force :wink: :biggrin: I still don't think you can support that they were "ordered" to go but if you do...I'll beg your forgiveness and publicly apologize :blushing: :redface: