LCPL Boudreaux Saved My Father and Rescued My Sister? NO.

[GiovanniC]

There's been quite a bit of discussion in recent days of the pictures floating around on the Internet featuring an American Marine posing with two children with a sign, one of which is likely real and the other being a forgery.

Both images can be found here: http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/boudreaux.asp

In both photos, a child holds up the cardboard sign that says in English, alternately "LCPL Boudreaux saved my dad then he rescued my sister" OR "LCPL Boudreaux killed my dad then he knocked up my sister". There is some debate regarding which of these messages is the authentic one, with the Marine in question claiming it is the latter.

One of these things is not like the other, however. On one of the signs, LCPL Boudreaux supposedly did basically the same thing to both the father and sister: he rescued or saved them both. If that were indeed the case, the sign would likely read "LCPL Boudreaux saved my dad and sister!" or something to that effect. Instead, the sign reads as though the verbs were inserted to fit a sentence that was already there. The grammar and sentence structure seems unnatural.

Based on everything I've seen, I'd say that the "Lcpl Boudreaux killed my dad then he knocked up my sister" is most likely the accurate photo.

[DarkPhenyx]

1. Why?

You make an assertion here, but your rational behind it isn't as solid as you'd like to think.

[ET Awful]

3. Actually, he's right, the sentence structure takes an odd twist

in the second version. You will also notice other tell-tale signs (look at the way the word "rescued" starts to "climb" for lack of a better term. The writing is carefully done in most of the sentence, yet it has that tell-tale climb at the end of that word.

I'm going to have to go with the first picture and say it's probably authentic. The guy was screwing around trying to be funny and it backfired.

[DarkPhenyx]

4. So the phrasing is odd.

It isn't wrong.

[GiovanniC]

5. Look,

I'd like to believe that Lcpl Boudreaux saved that kid's dad then he rescued his sister. Failing that, I'd like to believe that was what the sign actually said.

There are multiple reasons why I don't believe that's the case, however. Examination of both photos, enlarged, shows the killed/knocked up photo to appear more authentic. There is little reason to make up the killed/knocked up photo, while there is plenty reason to make up the saved/rescued photo. And the killed/knocked up photo reads as two separate thoughts... he killed dad, and then he knocked up sister. The saved/rescued reads the same, although it shows two things that are basically the same... he saved dad, then he rescued sister. The killed/knocked up sounds more natural. The saved/rescued sounds like someone inserted those words after the fact.

The first photo I actually saw was the saved/rescued photo. Before I had even seen the other, I thought that the language/syntax sounded strange. Perhaps that's different if you've seen the other one first. But once I saw the killed/knocked up photo, I suddenly understood why the other one seemed so suspicious.

[DarkPhenyx]

6. And I am willing to believe in the integrity of our troops...

...until someone with some belivability and access tells us what really went on. So far absolutly noone on here has that going for them.

[GiovanniC]

8. More Power To You

You act like I'm sitting here calling the guy a baby killer and spitting on him, for Christsakes.

There are two photos. One of them isn't real. So we have a couple of options. We can look at where the evidence points with an open mind and make a determination. I have nothing against the troops, many of them are great. But you get a huge group of late-teen and early-20s guys together and you get stuff like this from time to time. The evidence does seem to indicate that the "killed/knocked up" photo is the accurate one.

The second option is to say, "No matter what, I will believe this guy until he confesses to wrongdoing or someone PROVES his guilt beyond the shadow of any doubt because he wears the uniform of a Marine." In my opinion, that option is just as valid. Nobody's telling you that you have to agree with me. But don't get all pissed off because some of us are looking at where the evidence points instead of closing our eyes and ears because of a uniform.

[DarkPhenyx]

9. Here's an idea.

Might they not both be fake? Just a thought.

[GiovanniC]

12. Certainly.

I never claimed that they weren't both fake, but obviously at least one of them is fake (they can't both be real). Considering the possibility that both of them are fake is extremely logical.

In this case, one of them appears to be based off the other, however. It appears that the "saved/rescued" photo was created on top of the "killed/knocked up" photo. If both are fake, the "saved/rescued" photo is more obviously so. The question then is... where is the original? I imagine that this was a digital photo (Does Wal-Mart have a one-hour photo lab in Basra?) and as such it is a little more difficult to determine what the original actually is (real cameras use real film, which has real negatives which can be used for authentication). If the picture is still stored on the camera or a memory card, that would be helpful, but it's probably somewhat unlikely.

The most compelling evidence, however, that one of these two photos is actually real is that Lcpl Boudreaux identified the "saved/rescued" photo as the "real" one. If neither were real, he would have likely indicated that (and produced the actual real photo). But since the "saved/rescued" photo appears to have been doctored, it is very possible that Lcpl Boudreaux is lying.

[DarkPhenyx]

13. Ever try to read...

...a fax, of a copy, of a copy, of a fax, of a copy, of the original?

[GiovanniC]

14. I'm Not Sure That I Have

And I'm not sure I follow the point you're trying to make.

[DarkPhenyx]

17. In short the quality sucks. Serious "pixilation" even in an...

...analog format. My point would be that the more an image, even a digital one, is "handled" the quality degrades. Take a picture on your computer. Compress it, inflate it, e-mail it to yourself a few times. Compress it again...

...you get the "picture".

[GiovanniC]

22. The Photos Are the Same

The only differences between the two photos are the words on the sign. So this isn't about the photo being "handled".

[DarkPhenyx]

24. How do you know they are the same?

You are sure they have been treated exactly the same before tehy arrived to you? Apparently you have a "chain of custody" log I don't have. Cool.

[GiovanniC]

25. Okay, Instead of Being Sarcastic

Why don't you take two minutes and actually LOOK at the fucking things?

Zoom in close and tell me that one of those pictures is significantly more pixillated than the other (except for the letters around "saved" and "rescued").

[DarkPhenyx]

29. I have.

And I am not enough of a digital expert to tell you. Some things about imaging and "hardcopy" photography I do understand though. I am also willing to admit I could be wrong, which is better than most people speaking on this subject.

My point in the last post was that you do not know that they are the same. You have no way of knowing, just as you have no real way of knowing if eitehr or both of the pics are faked. You, like most, are leaping to a conclusion with no good evidence. This is why I am looking forward to the official report when it comes out.

[GiovanniC]

32. I'm No Digital "Expert" Myself

But when I zoomed in on the same exact portion of both pictures and flipped back and forth between them, they were basically identical pixel-wise. The only major differences were in the words printed on the sign. So they are the same, and I do have a way of knowing that. I LOOKED. And it really wasn't that hard.

As far as me and others having "no good evidence" that the "saved...rescued" photo is a fake, that's being purposely disingenuous. There is plenty of good evidence in this thread. You may not believe it is conclusive proof, but there is certainly good evidence here.

[DarkPhenyx]

35. Not really.

Everything I've seen from anyone I trust has said that it would be hard, not impossible, to fake the pic in question.

[GiovanniC]

38. You Need to Trust Different People Then

I'm fairly novice when it comes to Photoshopping, but I could have done that. Faking photos isn't exactly difficult. Faking a photo and then erasing all traces that it's a fake... now that's difficult. But whoever did the "saved... rescued" photo didn't go to all that trouble.

[DarkPhenyx]

40. And the individual making the other version...

...may well have. This would be my point. The same point I've been making since this topic started days ago, and which no, absolutely noone, has said anything to contradict.

This would be why I tried to start a thread on how we can't believe pictures anymore.

We don't know. We won't know until the report comes out, and even then some people aren't going to believe it no matter what gets said. Some people are more than willing to believe anything that supports their world view and will absolutely refure to admit they were wrong no matter what comes. Pres Bush is an excellent example of this mentality.

[GiovanniC]

45. What "World View"

Do you believe that I'm trying to fit this into?

I don't have any pre-existing bias against troops. My paternal grandfather was an Army man. My maternal grandfather was a career Navy man. I have two cousins in the Navy, one in the Marines, and one in the Air Force. So if you're trying to imply that I'm of some kind of "blame America First"/"Blame the troops first" crowd, you can go "F" yourself. But I could see my Marine cousin doing what Lcpl Boudreaux did and thinking it was funny. Hell, I know my fair share of early-20-somethings, and I wouldn't put this past many of them. As much as it seems some people would like to believe this were true, merely putting on a uniform doesn't make a person mature. It doesn't eradicate "sophomoric humor".

The "saved... rescued" photo shows signs of tampering. It uses unusual and unnatural syntax. That is not the case of the other one. To claim that they are equally likely to be fake is to ignore all evidence to the contrary based on sentiment alone.

[DarkPhenyx]

47. Did I say your world view?

I believe I said some people.

In the absense of any further evidence we don't know either way. The syntax evidence dosen't mean anything one way or the other. Yes it isn't standard, but it isn't completely unheard of either. I, and otehrs, would say that while not impossible that it is highly improbable that a soldier would pose for such a picture as the one you feel is real. Impossible? No. Improbable? Yes. Deciding either way is a judgement call and an opinion. Neither more or less valid. As I have said a dozen times we don't know. We won't know.

[GiovanniC]

50. What on God's Green Earth

Leads you to believe that is "improbable"? Do you know this guy? How many people his age do you know? I know a lot, and I could see many of them doing something like this, including some people who are in the military. I love my cousins, but I could really see any one of them doing this. To me, it's not improbable at all.

Or do you not remember this?

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bomb.htm

Further, you act as though there is NO evidence whatsoever to support the opinion of everyone here except you who believes that the first photo is real. The evidence is all here. This isn't just an opinion that some have come up with because we "hate all the troops" or something.

One of us is acting like they refuse to believe anything outside of their world view, despite all the evidence... and it isn't me.

[DarkPhenyx]

52. No, no...I believe the first to be a fake.

I am willing to admit I may be wrong though. When the experts speak, then we'll know.

Why do I think it's improbable? Maybe because I am a soldier as well. I know them at least as well as you do. This would be why I haven't said it is impossible, simply improbable.

Yes, I know you feel that way about my opinon. Don't particularly care actually.

Please point where I said everyone here hates all the troops. Thank you.

[GiovanniC]

56. Very Well

I obviously should have listened to Skittles. You refuse to consider the large quantities of evidence that the "saved... rescued" photo is a fake because you are under the false impression that troops wouldn't do that. I happen to know better than that.

Despite Northwind indicating that the second photo was obviously a doctored version of the first, you continue to claim that the first is actually the forgery, ignoring strong evidence without reason to ignore it, and believing a different premise without any evidence to support it.

I'm not quite sure if your head is in the sand, or up your ass. But wherever it is, reality can't make it in.

[DarkPhenyx]

59. and you ignore where I've said...

...they could both be fakes. *shaking head* yes, prehaps it is best that you listen to Skittles. Just do a better job of ignoring than she does if you go that route.

[GiovanniC]

62. Northwind's Post

shows how the second picture was a fake based off the first picture. So there is the possibility that the first was a fake, and then the second was a fake of a fake.

HOWEVER...

Lcpl Boudreaux indicated that the second one was real. The evidence shows that to be a lie. However, if both of them were fakes, why would Boudreaux lie about it and say that the second one was real? If they were both fakes, why wouldn't Lcpl Boudreaux indicate that when he had the opportunity to?

[DarkPhenyx]

65. Interesting questions no?

Prehaps we should wait for the investigation to be completed before we shoot the Lcpl, no?

[GiovanniC]

67. Nobody's Suggesting We Shoot Him

However, it is fairly obvious based on the evidence that he lied. And his actions refute the possibility you brought up that they were both forgeries. If that were the case, Lcpl Boudreaux would have said so. He didn't, therefore they aren't. Ergo, one is real, one is fake. The evidence shows that the second one is fake, and it shows telltale signs of being a doctored version of the first one, making the first one the original.

This is really elementary logic. Are you not getting it because you can't, or because you won't?

[DarkPhenyx]

70. But you have already decided to "shoot" him.

"However, it is fairly obvious based on the evidence that he lied."

You are making up your mind already, based on the work of a group of people in a chat forum, that he has to have lied. Based on no better evidence, and in teh absence of the official report, your mind is made up. This would get you disqualified on a jury in a heartbeat.

[GiovanniC]

71. Dang, and I Really Wanted to Get on This Jury, Too

See, the cool thing about something like this is that all the evidence is right here for all of us to look at and analyze. My opinion is based on what I can see, with my own eyes, in front of me, as well as the trained and educated opinions of others here who have given well thought-out, well-reasoned explanations for what the evidence shows.

You have given no evidence, excepting for "It's improbable that someone in the military would pose for a picture like that", a statement which is complete, unadulterated, absolute horse-hockey. I'm still trying to figure out if you KNOW it's horse-hockey or if you truly believe what you're saying. Regardless, if you want to defend Lcpl Boudreaux, then do it. Show us that our evidence is wrong. Provide evidence that supports your claim that Lcpl Boudreaux didn't or wouldn't do this.

[DarkPhenyx]

73. You already have a copy of the report?

Can I have the link. I'm waiting to read it. Thank you.

As to my evidence of the soldier in question not being capable of doing this I haven't even said that he isn't. I've said it is possible he could be. I have said it is possible the kill/rape pic is genuine.

Improbable does not mean impossible. What do you think the probability of any given soldier posing for such a pic is? 1:100? 1:1000? 1:10, 000? Give me a probability. Hard numbers ok? At what point does it become improbably that this one soldier of all the ones in theatre, posed for a pic like this?

I can't show that your evidence is wrong. Nor can you show absolutely that it is right.

[GiovanniC]

79. Improbable...

Improbable does not mean impossible. What do you think the probability of any given soldier posing for such a pic is? 1:100? 1:1000? 1:10, 000? Give me a probability. Hard numbers ok? At what point does it become improbably that this one soldier of all the ones in theatre, posed for a pic like this?
There are over 100,000 troops in Iraq right now. So if the probability is even as low as 1 in 10,000 that a soldier would pose for a picture like this, then I don't see how you can say it's improbable that this photo is real.

I can't show that your evidence is wrong. Nor can you show absolutely that it is right.
The evidence is right there for you to look at. It can be shown absolutely that the second photo is a forgery based off the first.

[DarkPhenyx]

81. And if the first is a forgery?

That really is the question isn't it?

[GiovanniC]

89. Okay, Try to Follow Me Here

The second photo is a forgery, and it's based off the first photo. That means that the first photo is, AT THE VERY LEAST, the source for the second photo, which is NOT real.

Logically, there are only two possibilities concerning the first photo. It's either real, or it's a forgery. That seems pretty basic. So we ask Lcpl Boudreaux which is real. If the first was a forgery, and the second was a forgery, Lcpl Boudreaux would say, they're both fakes. The sign actually said, "(fill in the blanks here)". If the first sign was real, then Boudreaux has two choices. He can tell the truth and say, "The first photo is real. It was in bad taste, it was just a joke, etc." Or, he can lie and say, "The second photo is real."

Lcpl Boudreaux chose that second path. Sheer logic alone shows that (a) the first photo was indeed real because otherwise Boudreaux would have said it was a fake; and (b) Boudreaux is lying, because we have already shown the second photo to be a forgery.

[DarkPhenyx]

95. By your own post...

...we have contradictory evidence on the veracity of the second photo. The save/rescue photo. So we don't know anything. Until we get more evidence weighting it one way or another we can't decide. We can afford to wait because we know there is more evidence to be seen. If we only had what we have now then we'd be forced to make a decision. Fortunately we are going to get more, and probably better, information to base our decision on. If we are willing to avoid a rush to judgement and maintain an open mind about it.

[GiovanniC]

100. There Is No Reasonable Question

About the veracity of the second photo. It's a forgery. It's easy to tell that it's a forgery, because we have the source, and it's not a particularly clean forgery.

The authenticity of the second photo is not in doubt... it is certain that it's a forgery.

[DarkPhenyx]

102. Are you sure?

I'm not. For all the reasons I have mentioned over the last couple days. Please read my collected works for reference.

[GiovanniC]

106. If Your Collected Works

In this thread are any indication, then I think I'll pass, thanks.

Northwind made it exceptionally clear that the second photo is a forgery. Although I have no reason to doubt Northwind's credibility, I brought the photos into Photoshop and made the observations for myself. Northwind is absolutely correct and this is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the second photo is a forgery.

[DarkPhenyx]

109. Except there is doubt.

There is also conflicting testimony/evidence.

[GiovanniC]

112. And That Evidence Would Be...?

I am waiting for your evidence that the second photo is real.

However, there is already proof that the second photo is a forgery. That should make your evidence very interesting.

[DarkPhenyx]

114. *sigh*

We have a man saying that he is in the pic and the sign says "saved/rescued". Your evidence isn't proof, it is simply evidence. You aren't working off the original pic. You have looked at only one piece of data. The two pieces of data you hacve to work off of are contradictory.

Now, I'm a research scientist. My job in real life is to find a cure for cancer. Now, this is the though part, when I have only two data pieces and they don't mesh, ya know what I have to do? Get more data. In fact, I wouldn't even begin analyzing the experiment w/o at least three data sets. If I had only two, and I decided "well, I'm going to take this data and write my report" my ass would get fired.

[Skittles]

30. hey GivanniC

the IGNORE function can be a great friend.

[GiovanniC]

31. Hey Skittles

The idea of putting someone on ignore because I disagree with them on one issue rubs me the wrong way. And maybe I'm bashing my head against a brick wall here... I just can't help myself.

[Skittles]

37. LOL, I see "IGNORED" has replied to me

they need to get a life

[GiovanniC]

39. That's Kind of Funny

There's all kind of love flying around here though.

[Skittles]

44. looks like they don't take hints well either

LOL

[DarkPhenyx]

48. Gee...

...more than an infatuation? True love prehaps? Interesting.

It's either that or she dosen't know how to ignore very well. We need more evidence to make a decision I think.

[Skittles]

125. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

HA HA, HA HA HA HA :D

[DarkPhenyx]

128. Cool!

She responded again! It really is true love. Wow. It's good to be right. Must be love as she definately is not ignoring me.

Let's see if we can make a liar of herself yet again. This is too much fun.

[Skittles]

133. :D

:hi:

[DarkPhenyx]

41. And the ignorer has replied to me.

That truly is amusing. How sad that she has me ignored and yet can't truly ignore me. I think it's an infatuation.

[DarkPhenyx]

36. Love you too Skits.

Yeah, ignore works great when you find someone that might actually make you question your position.

[BurtWorm]

87. Very well put, Giovanni.

Why wouldn't the sign say "saved (or rescued) my dad and sister?"

[DarkPhenyx]

110. Becasue it dosen't.

Why does it ahve to be written one way or another?

[BurtWorm]

126. Just talking about plausibility. The "nice" sign is less plausible

for the reasons Giovanni outlined. Of course that's not definitive proof that it was written "mean."

[Media_Lies_Daily]

135. I've had enough of your nonsensical posts..

...I've relegated you to Limbo-Land.

Looks like I'm not the only one.

[htuttle]

2. If you zoom in on the one that says 'rescued',

...it's looks like pixel stew around the letters of the words 'rescued my' and 'saved'. There is no such pixelization around the words 'killed' and 'knocked up'.

I think the 'rescued' one is a fake.

[radwriter0555]

7. I agree. the 'e's and 's's don't match as well as they do on the

REAL one.

[frylock]

26. nor does the letter 'd'..

the letter 'd' in Boudreaux and Dad more closely resemble the lettering in killed and knocked then they do saved or rescued.

This was a bad joke that backfired. I would suspect that anyone who feels that someone like the young Lance Corporal are incapable of such callousness have not spent a great deal of time with groups of young men.

[pnorman]

10. I guess that pretty well settles which is the authentic one.

This was discussed at length on DU a few days ago, but no hard conclusion was arrived at.

To me, the important thing is that the version that would appear to degrade the "integrity of the troops", was apparently regarded with high glee by the Home Guard (aka: Freepers & such).

pnorman

[Cat Atomic]

130. Exactly. The "rescued" one has been Photoshopped.

It's a decent job, but not fantastic. The cloning is still apparent.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

11. The way to tell fakes is...

Pixel Deformation. If there is pixel deformation on the image, it is altered.

HTH.

[GiovanniC]

15. Go To The Link I Posted Above

Download both images. Open them both in a picture viewing software (even MS Paint, which pretty much everyone has). Now, zoom in to about 200%. Now, switch back and forth between the two. It should appear pretty obvious which one is authentic and which one is a fake.

[John_H]

16. I'm a better photoshopper than whatewver CIA guy did the saved pic

and I suck at it!

[GiovanniC]

18. I Believe I Could Have Done a Better Job as Well

n/t

[skypilot]

19. The "S" in "saved"...

...is also different from the esses in "rescued" and "sister". The top part of the "S" in "saved" is rounded whereas the top of the esses in the other words is flattened.

[GregW]

20. OMG! I just found the original!

We were all fooled - Lance Corporal Boudreaux is a hero!



</sarcasm>

[EV1Ltimm]

21. this is the WAY MORE original...

before ANYTHING was written on it

[gasperc]

23. ..killed dad..knocked up sister..IS the original

First, admission by commander, "he didn't do what sign says", oh so it did say killed dad...knocked up sister...ie no one would be bitching up a storm if he saved people.

Boudreaux could not be reached for comment. His commander during the 3/23rd's Iraq mission, Lt. Col. David Couvillon, called the photo a sophomoric attempt at humor.

"Look, he didn't actually do what that sign says," Couvillon said. "This is stupid, lance corporal stuff that he thought was cute. But it's not, and I was informed the commandant of the Marine Corps had it and the Marine Corps will deal with this."


Second, a simple review of the pictures clearly shows all the lower case d's are the same in the killed dad pic, while in the other version NONE of the d's match!!!!!!!!!
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/boudreaux.asp

[Junkdrawer]

27. Great point: Liars keep changing their story....

Look at Condi/Ashcroft. First it's bolt from the blue, then it's "The wall". First it's "I fly private because of a threat assessment", then it's "I only flew private for business". They keep changing their story.

[frylock]

28. but.. but.. the troops.. american.. uhhhhhhhh..

WHY DO HATE AMERICA!!?

[Occulus]

53. ...and, in keeping with

my other posts on another thread on this topic, I'd like to say there's an object lesson here: if you're going to fake a handwritten sign, don't use Photoshop's rubber stamp tool for the letters <snark>

[Northwind]

33. The first pic is absolutely the original.

Opened them up in Photoshop. Here is what I found.

1. Pixel deformation is all over it, and telltale repeated patterning, a sign of the use of the "rubberstamp tool", a tool that allows one to "paint" peices of an image into other areas via sampling. This was obviously used to copy the cardboard texture over the original text in order to create a blank area to write in the altered text.

2. The handwriting does not match. The "d" in rescued has no tail, but every other "d" on the sign does (in the altered, second version). All d's have tails in the original. Additionally, the "u" in rescued shows signs of having been copied and pasted from the first "u" in "Boudreaux". Also as mentioned before, the letters, r, e, and s do not match.

3. The word "my" has also been copied and pasted.

4. Less decisive but also damning, the second image has been recompressed, meaning that whoever did the alteration got the orginal off the net, then made the changes and resaved it. At high magnification, the second image has considerably more compression artifacts than the original.

This analysis was done in Photoshop using high magnification and seperated color channels. For those who do not know, viewing separate color channels tends to how image manipulation in sharp releif, particular when it has been done by an amateur or someone not taking sufficient precautions.

The first image, the "knocked up" image, is the real thing.

[GiovanniC]

34. Thank You, Northwind

n/t

[DarkPhenyx]

43. Dosen't prove anythying.

All it shows is that it would be hard, not impossible.

[GiovanniC]

46. Do You Have Any Idea Whatsoever

What you're talking about?

Northwind gives you the proof that you're asking for about how we can tell that the "saved... rescued" photo is a forgery, and your response is "it shows is that it would be hard, not impossible"?? Hard, not impossible to do WHAT?

[DarkPhenyx]

49. Skip it.

You aren't listening anymore. All of this was covered in our discussion above.

[GiovanniC]

51. No

You responded to Northwind, who provided a preponderance of evidence that shows that the "killed... knocked up" photo is accurate. You responded by saying "that shows it's hard not impossible", which makes NO sense in the context of what you responded to.

I believe it is you that isn't listening.

[DarkPhenyx]

54. You could be right.

I may not be listening. Rational discourse on this stopped days ago when the preponderance of the people involved in the discussion locked in theri opinion that the kill/rape pic absolutely has to be real. Problem is noone has any evidence proving it is real. All we have is evidence that show we can't prove it is faked, which is not the same thing.

We are ignoring the qualifiers that are usually attached to this evidence. "It would take time", "you would have to know what you are doing", "it would be very hard", et al. The qualifiers add doubt. Where the is doubt there is possibility. I'm not ready to railroad someone when there is doubt.

[GiovanniC]

60. Reread Northwind's Post

The evidence that the second picture was faked is there in black and white. Not "may have been" faked. It WAS faked. The pixel patterns do indicate everything that Northwind says. If you need further explanation about how that works, because (as you've said), you're not a digital expert, I can explain it to you. This assumes that you're actually interested in the truth.

[DarkPhenyx]

66. I am interested in the truth.

That's why I am not jumping on the bandwagon and am willing to wait for teh investigation to be completed. What part of this did you miss the first 20 times?

[GiovanniC]

69. Okay, I Get It

We'll wait for the government to tell you what the truth is.

Even with all the evidence spread before you, you can't figure it out until the government tells you what's true and what's not.

By the by, the government says that Bush is doing a great job with the economy, if that give you any ideas about the veracity of what the government says.

Still, failing a complete whitewash, the government will tell you exactly what we've told you, if and when this investigation is made public.

ON EDIT: Then, when the government says that Lcpl Boudreaux participated in a sophomoric joke, will you argue with them too, and tell them how improbable it is for someone in the military to ever think to do such a thing?

[DarkPhenyx]

72. No.

Won't argue with them. If they tell me this then so be it. There will at least be something more offical and dependable to base a decision on. I've already said I am willing to admit I'm wrong on this, haven't I? It isn't waiting for teh Government to tell me what to think. Don't be intentionally daft. It is waiting for the rest of the evidence before coming to a conclusion. There isn't any pressure to form an opinoin net, and we lose nothing by waiting to see what is said. Correct? ON the other hand jumping to the wrong conclusion based on half the data is never a good idea when you have the leisure to wait for the rest of it. Or do you disagree?

You forget, or refuse, to point out that the government is also saying Bush is doing a lousy job on the economy, and in Iraq, and in reference to 9/11.

[GiovanniC]

76. Here's the Deal

I'm open-minded. If you have evidence that either the "saved... rescued" photo is accurate, or that the "killed... knocked up" photo is fake, I'll be glad to admit I'm wrong. But you don't have any evidence to support that, and there is plenty of evidence to support the opposite.

If I was ever accused of a crime, I'd rather have someone like me on a jury, who is willing to look at the evidence for both sides and then make a reasonable decision based on that evidence, than to have someone who refuses to look at the evidence or draw any conclusions from that evidence.

The thing is, though, I don't think you'll refuse to look at ANY evidence. If the same evidence we have on this thread indicated that the "killed... knocked up" photo was a forgery instead of the "saved... rescued" photo, I believe you would draw a conclusion then.

[DarkPhenyx]

78. and I'd rather a juror...

...who hadn't already convicted me, and was willing to wait for all the evidence, not just listen to the prosecution.

[GiovanniC]

83. Well, Juror...

Let's have a trial and you tell me how you would respond.

PROSECUTION: Our evidence shows that the defendant broke into the victim's home. He left fingerprints on the window he broke to gain access to the house. He also cut himself on that window, and blood matching his blood type and his DNA was found on the glass and throughout the house. His fingerprints were all over everything inside the house. An eyewitness places him at the scene. Security cameras also show him breaking in, and show his car with his license plate speeding away. Police apprehended him within a block of the victim's home, carrying all of the stolen goods from the home. His friends have testified that they were present while he planned the burglary and claim he announced his intentions to do so in a bar packed with people.

DEFENSE: Well, it's certainly possible that my client did all this, but I think it's improbable because I can't imagine him doing something like this. That's all I've got, Your Honor.

Jury, how do you find?

[DarkPhenyx]

84. Cute.

The defense hasn't even gotten up and you are dictating their case for them? That's justice.

[GiovanniC]

92. The Defense is You

We, as "prosecutors" have plenty of evidence, all of which seems to point to one conclusion.

You are defending Boudreauxin spite of the evidence, but have zero evidence whatsoever yourself, only sentiment.

The defense Boudreaux himself has already put up shows that he is not exactly forthcoming, as I have illustrated above.

[DarkPhenyx]

98. No, I'm the observer in the courtroom.

I'm the one with the popcorn in the back of the room. See me waving?

[GiovanniC]

104. There Is a Principle in Court

That says that if you are caught lying about one thing, then it can be reasonably assumed that you are not credible and may be lying about any other thing.

Lcpl. Boudreaux was caught lying, by saying that the second picture was the authentic photo. WE KNOW THIS TO BE UNTRUE.

For someone who is merely an observer in this courtroom, you seem to be jumping up a lot and saying that you don't believe the prosecution despite the complete dearth of any evidence supporting the defense's case.

[DarkPhenyx]

105. how do you know?

The evidence presented here? You haven't even heard the defense case about the pic, but you are already deciding he is lying? INteresting.

[GiovanniC]

108. You Are Definitely Not Listening

(1) The second photo is a forgery. Northwind showed this. If you need further explanation of how that works, I'll be glad to explain it, or perhaps Northwind would like to. This is PROOF that the second photo is a forgery.

(2) Lcpl Boudreaux, when asked which photo was real, said that the second photo was real.

(3) Because of (1), Lcpl Boudreaux is lying in (2).

[DarkPhenyx]

111. Unless the second photo is real...

...the evidence saying it is a fake is wrong, and teh Lcpl is telling the truth. Until we have more evidence one way or another we are still guessing.

[GiovanniC]

113. It Isn't a GUESS

It is a fact. The second photo is a fake.

The pixel patterns repeat on the second photo in the area where "saved" and "rescued" appear. This is a clear indication that the cloning tool has been used. The cloning tool allows the user to place a marker on one part of the photo, and then use a brush of sorts to copy the area of the marker onto another part of the photo. Because it is copying that portion of the photo exactly, down to the pixel, you get pixel repeats, where a fairly large section of pixels on one area of the photo repeat exactly elsewhere on the photo. That doesn't just naturally occur. These pixel patterns are pretty unique, and would not repeat in this fashion without tampering.

The first photo does not have this pixel pattern repeating going on. The second photo, however, has obviously been tampered with and altered.

[DarkPhenyx]

115. Do you have the original copy of the second photo? n/t

[GiovanniC]

116. Yes, the First Photo

[DarkPhenyx]

120. No, no, no.

You don't even have the original of the first photo. At best you have a copy of a copy.

So, I ask again. Do you have the original of the 2nd photo? Even the original copy of the fake?

[GiovanniC]

121. My Point is That the Second Photo Was Created From the First

The first photo is the parent image. The second photo is the child image. One does not need to have negatives or originals to determine that.

[DarkPhenyx]

124. Why not?

You have no idea what you are looking at otherwise.

This is why we have chain of custody rules.

[Tinoire]

96. Thanks for saving me the trouble of typing all of that!

I noticed the same thing with the pixel deformation.

The second, more 'benign' one, is a clear forgery when you magnify it and know what to look for.

[Cat Atomic]

132. Also on handwriting, the words "saved" and "rescued"

are the only ones that have an uneven base line. All the other words are on a relatively straight line.

The words "killed" and "knocked up" are aligned evenly on the first photo, just like all the other words.

[BurtWorm]

42. It is most likely accurate, and it is also likely a sick joke

the soldier played at the kids' expense, probably never thinking it would be circulated and discussed. That says something about the Iraqi occupation, about a culture that thinks the picture is funny "leading" one not in on the joke to "freedom and democracy."

[DarkPhenyx]

57. Which is about as solid a statement...

...as can be made. Not until teh experts and investigators speak will we have certainty to replace the qualifiers.

[fob]

75. If there is an investigation it should take no more than 2 seconds

to determine the real one, just look at the piece of cardboard!

So far the comments attributed to Lcpl Boudreux's commander indicate the K/R photo is real, at least to me. Otherwise why not just produce the piece of cardboard for a live camera shot?

If the S/R one was real, where are the dad and sister? I mean the sign implies that that one or both of the boys holding the sign are the son/brother of the persons involved in the saving/rescue. They should be able to tell the Lcpl heroic story, right? If the S/R is the real sign and it was a joke, that's cruel to use those kids like that, not as cruel as the other sign, but bad nonetheless.

BTW, DP, I read your prior thread about the sign and came away as unconvinced either way. In this thread you talk about proof, and beside the anecdotal evidence provided about the pictures themselves, you seemed to miss entirely the Commanders comments. Are you sure you're looking for evidence or just for reassurance?

No flames intended, I don't like "ignoring" either.

[DarkPhenyx]

77. If you believe that...

...no more than 2 seonds of investigation is necessary, then you didn't pay attention the rest of your post. Yes, we have to find the father and sister. Talking to the two boys would be a good idea too. How about we get the Lcpl's comments. Prehaps the person who took the pic? How is that anyway?

Yes, we can definately get all of this done in 2 seconds. And we really shouldn't spend more time than that on something which has become an international incident. You are so right. My apologies.

[fob]

94. Is your patronizing button stuck on, or what?

If you had the sign in front of you how long should it take to determine the truth about which one was real? The investigation of the calims made are a seperate issue.

If it has the K/R words, then you hold him while you investigate THOSE claims, if it has the S/R words then you investigate THOSE claims, if he really did save people the sign will be framed for his award ceremony and bush* will be flown in at taxpayer expense to take political advantage of it, if the claims were a joke simply hold a press conference, hold up the sign for a live camera shot, have the Lcpl apologize and announce his punishment for conduct unbecoming or whatever applies and close the matter.

And again you neglected the commanders comments...

[DarkPhenyx]

97. I have factored in the comments.

Yes, they lean toward the k/r sign being the real one. Satisfied?

But even you are saying, further down in your post, that we don't know. THat until the report comes out we won't know. You are actually saying that until it does we can't decide wether to fly Bush in or hold the press conference.

[fob]

117. Thanks for the clarification.

I think we agree. The proof is a simple look at the sign, however the investigation to follow could get hairy.

My fear is that the investigation moves from following the facts, sign was real/bad joke/disgusting joke and so far the evidence leans toward disgusting joke to coverup because the facts lead to it being a disgusting joke. We'll all see when the report is released. I hope it's unequivocal because the proof(just look at the sign) should provide a clear path for inestigators.

[DarkPhenyx]

122. Valid concern.

Very valid. We'll have to wait and see. Unfortunately this is why I say even when the report comes out there are going to be some who won't believe it, no matter what it says.

[ParanoidPat]

55. It's possible DP is a Lcpl!

:evilgrin: Talk about being obsessed with a non-issue!

It's REAL, accept it and get over it!

[DarkPhenyx]

61. I'm not the one who keeps creating threads on it.

I post once on this issue, and it was about how pictures and video are being created to lie to us, not about these pics specifically.

As to your silly opening statement, no I am not a Lcpl, not even a Marine. I'm an officer in the U.S. Army Artillery.

[JimT]

58. saved...rescued...

Northwind is right on the money with the details that show the "saved..rescued" version is doctored. It appears DarkPhenyx will not accept any evidence to prove this.

[DarkPhenyx]

63. I've already said...

...several times, it could be fake. But hear what you like.

[hexola]

64. Here's my vesion of the photo

In Arabic that says "HELP!"

[redqueen]

68. Sweet Jumping Jehosephat!

Boudreaux could not be reached for comment. His commander during the 3/23rd's Iraq mission, Lt. Col. David Couvillon, called the photo a sophomoric attempt at humor.

"Look, he didn't actually do what that sign says," Couvillon said. "This is stupid, lance corporal stuff that he thought was cute. But it's not, and I was informed the commandant of the Marine Corps had it and the Marine Corps will deal with this."

And some people are still wondering if the thing was real?

C'mon already!

:eyes:

[DarkPhenyx]

74. Yup!

That would be the point.

[wtmusic]

80. DarkPhenyx, you've had some great posts

but you are in denial, my friend.

[DarkPhenyx]

82. What am I denying?

Just curious.

[hexola]

85. You are denying the likelyhood that the picture is real...

[DarkPhenyx]

88. No. Not accurate.

I freely admit it could be authentic. I also accept that it might be fake. I don't like racing to judgement when I don't have to. There is no rush, no pressure on us that isn't on the officials investigating. So I choose to wait and see. Patience.

[hexola]

91. Well, what exactly are you deying?

please don't keep us in suspense...

[DarkPhenyx]

99. I am denying we have enough evidence...

...to make a conclusive statement about the actual issue here. Is the k/r sign authentic.

[BurtWorm]

103. You're presuming innocence, in other words.

That's fine. Does that mean you have no opinion about which sign is likely to be the actual one, if there was one? Are you always skeptical about digital photos now?

[DarkPhenyx]

107. Yes, I am always sceptical about DigPics.

Tried to start an entire thread about it yesterday. I'm also sceptical of digital video. My opinion is that, based solely on a gut reaction, that the k/r pic is a fake. A very good fake. This does not preclude teh s/r pic from also being a fake. The existing evidence and testimony about it is conflicted and will require additional review and evidence to clarify it.

[redqueen]

119. What testimony is conflicted?

His commander apparently thinks it's real. Who directly involved in the matter said otherwise?

[DarkPhenyx]

123. The soldier himself.

Neither of them is an investigator we should point out.

[redqueen]

127. Yeah I saw that later

Seems odd, though, that he didn't just present the original to end all this fuss, doesn't it?

[DarkPhenyx]

129. Definately would help his case.

At this stage who knows whats gong on behind closed doors though. I hate being stuck in a wait and see mode.

[hexola]

131. He just said that the photo was altered by someone else...

...which could suggest a variety of scenarios...

My theory is that the sign actually said something more benign like "Go Saints!" And perhaps the Ltcp or a buddy (perhaps somebody he sent the original picture to...) edited the picture as some weak attempt at humour...

[hexola]

118. Using deductive logic...Couvillon quotes....

Refering to the quotes in post 23...

"Look, he didn't actually do what that sign says," Couvillon said.

This statement postulates that the sign is authentic.

"This is stupid, lance corporal stuff that he thought was cute...the Marine Corps will deal with this."

Saving and Rescuing would not be deemed by anyone as "stupid" or "cute"

Now (adjusts Tin Foil)...you could say that...

He really did kill and rape - and the military is using the controversy over this photo to cover up the atrocity.

[DarkPhenyx]

134. Or you could assume the commander...

...is talking out his ass w/o doing a proper investigation.

[Northwind]

86. It should be noted

That thinking the "knocked up" photo is real is in no way an indication that the soldier did what the sign says.

DarkPhenyx is dishonestly equating "the picture is real" with "the soldier did what the picture says". I am fairly ceratin that those two boys would not pose (smiling no less) with a guy who really had killed their father or knocked up their sister. It almost certainly was a sick attempt at humor. But the "knockled up" picture is the real one. No doubts about that.

And just for the record, I am a digital artist by trade and have been retained on two separate ocassions as en expert witness in civil cases (divorces) where a photo was used as evidence. Once to demonstrate that it was altered, another to demonstrate it was not. I know what I am talking about.

[redqueen]

90. I wonder what's under investigation by the military

Whether the pic is real, or whether he did what the sign says.

*sigh*

[GiovanniC]

93. That's an Important Distinction

I do not believe for a second that the soldier in question actually killed the dad, or actually knocked up the sister.

However, I do believe that the evidence shows the photo is real.

[hexola]

101. I don't think anyone thinks...

that this actually happened...the issue seems to be who executed the joke? Was the the LtCp in question or some other joker...?

I haven't read anything, anywhere that suggests that this guy actually did kill the dad and knock up the sister...