Thread: We need fast research help on this explosive picture

In the photoshopped image please notice that the upper sign at least, has a fuzzier focus than anything else in the entire picture. The lower one is somewhat less, though still fuzzy.

The photoshopped images have a different apparent focus, probably due to differing pixel capacity.

When I look at it with a magnifying glass, there is also some kind of weird highlighting around the Juan word in particular, and to a lesser extent around other words. This is another thing distinguishing it from the sharp focus, high pixel, original photo.

You really need to examine the original photo instead of the image on the computer screen to be sure.
If it's real all the person who took it and put it on the internet has to do is come forward and let the photo be examined.
Otherwise you will never know for sure.

Originally Posted by JBParrothead

Seems like the DHS would be REALLY interested in this photo...isn't that sign actually a TERRORIST THREAT? They go after American citizens for the slightest word said against this government, but yet illegals can threaten to go after American citizens with shovels and pick axes and threaten to harm police and not a peep comes out of Janet Napolitano's pie hole. What's up with that?

They're only interested if it's a threat coming from an American citizen! The reason? Because they have an agenda to turn our beautiful country into a third world cespool and the silent majority, are no longer silent! We're the monkey wrench in their plans so of course they are going to pull out all the stops to silence us.

@Captainron

I'm not saying someone photoshopped the paper on to the sign. I'm saying someone took the existing sign with two pieces of paper, and photoshopped the original message off, then put a new message on. And yes, the writing would be the same in both if you did that, especially if you used a tablet with a stylus to write it. I would assume whoever photoshopped the top sign to say what it says would have done the same to the bottom one. Both are pretty outrageous so I wouldn't conclude that only the bottom sign was photoshopped. I've been doing projects that require similar techniques for the last ten years as a graphic designer. Take that for what it's worth.

It is always possible, but if you all would look at what the guy next to him is holding, it seems to say, in Spanish "ilante" as an end to the word "vigilante" but then something after that to complete the sentance, so to me, it would seem the sign holder may have a mindset that to get what they want is vigilanteism, maybe.

Never put it past these people, their agendas verge on the edge of radicialism a lot, and this would not be wholly out of what we have seen in other protests.

Originally Posted by Specter34

@Captainron
. . . Both are pretty outrageous . . .

I saw one of the organizes of the San Diego rally interviewed on the local news and he stated that their "DEMANDS" are:
"Instant citizenship for everyone already here,
citizenship for everyone who makes it across the border in the future,
better jobs,
higher pay,
free housing,
free health care."

JohnDoe2, why didn't they go further and demand "free all illegal alien criminals" and "if an illegal aliens breaks into someones home, then they get to keep it"?

Wow, the audacity of these people.

Originally Posted by Specter34

@Captainron

I'm not saying someone photoshopped the paper on to the sign. I'm saying someone took the existing sign with two pieces of paper, and photoshopped the original message off, then put a new message on. And yes, the writing would be the same in both if you did that, especially if you used a tablet with a stylus to write it. I would assume whoever photoshopped the top sign to say what it says would have done the same to the bottom one. Both are pretty outrageous so I wouldn't conclude that only the bottom sign was photoshopped. I've been doing projects that require similar techniques for the last ten years as a graphic designer. Take that for what it's worth.

I know. But would not a different pixel level somehow be detectable between the photoshopped words and the entire photograph? Although you probably would not be able to see a difference in pixelation until you had a sizable enlargement of the photo.

Also the upper edge of the bottom poster is rising upward from l-to right and the words written follow that edge. Another detail a photoshopper would have to get right.

There is a website called http://errorlevelanalysis.com that helps detect thee things. Here is a description:


Results
Explanation

Error level analysis is a quick and easy image forensics method, allowing one to determine if an image has been modified by programs such as Adobe Photoshop.

It works by resaving an image at a known quality, and comparing that to the original image. As a jpeg image is resaved over and over again, its image quality decreases. When we resave an image and compare it to the original, we can guess just how many times the image has been resaved. If an image has not been manipulated, all parts of the image should have been saved an equal amount of times. If parts of the image are from different source files, they may have been saved a number of different times, and thus they will stand out as a different colour in the ELA test.

It is worth noting that edges and areas red in colour are often depicted as brighter in the ELA tests. This due to the way the photos are saved by various programs. It is not proof that image was manipulated.

If you are unsure how to interpret the results, please do not claim the results of this tool as proof of anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now using that data, here is the image in ultraviolet: http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/c8761ab/

It looks like the only thing manipulated is the bottom portion about killing cops. I would post the pic myself, but am unable to save the ultraviolet pic. Also, TinEye is a reverse photo lookup. If you put in the URL of the posted photo, then it will search all places the photo came from. This particular photo showed no results.

I LOVE detective work

Originally Posted by DarthIllegal

There is a website called http://errorlevelanalysis.com that helps detect thee things. Here is a description:


Results
Explanation

Error level analysis is a quick and easy image forensics method, allowing one to determine if an image has been modified by programs such as Adobe Photoshop.

It works by resaving an image at a known quality, and comparing that to the original image. As a jpeg image is resaved over and over again, its image quality decreases. When we resave an image and compare it to the original, we can guess just how many times the image has been resaved. If an image has not been manipulated, all parts of the image should have been saved an equal amount of times. If parts of the image are from different source files, they may have been saved a number of different times, and thus they will stand out as a different colour in the ELA test.

It is worth noting that edges and areas red in colour are often depicted as brighter in the ELA tests. This due to the way the photos are saved by various programs. It is not proof that image was manipulated.

If you are unsure how to interpret the results, please do not claim the results of this tool as proof of anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now using that data, here is the image in ultraviolet: http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/c8761ab/

It looks like the only thing manipulated is the bottom portion about killing cops. I would post the pic myself, but am unable to save the ultraviolet pic. Also, TinEye is a reverse photo lookup. If you put in the URL of the posted photo, then it will search all places the photo came from. This particular photo showed no results.

I LOVE detective work

You Da man, Darth!