Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

warriorhun wrote:Folks, there are no Western reporters in Libya taking pictures, every image is faked, I claim. I challenge you: give me just one reason, why should Western reporters be there...considering the 5 reasons I have given in one of my previous posts on why there sholdn't be a single one of them...

Warriorhun, c'mon. Reporters have not to be "western". All they have to do is to work for agencies that eventually sell pictures to western media. They can be Libyans, Saudi, Algerians, arab-looking Israeli, whatever. Besides, any jerk with a point-and-shoot or a cell phone can be a journalist, so I wouldn't fixate on "western reporters".

Al-jazeera also I believe is doing reports fro Libya these days. In the capital right now there are numerous TV journalists probably, and I think you can watch their contributions on TV channels from everywhere.

I don't think Gaddafi would stop journalists from getting inside the country. To stop reporters is actually a very bad move, when you don't want the west to pick up any excuse to send the soldiers in. At most he would bar them to go in one area or the other, for their "safety". Many of them were probably already in when the supposed revolt started, and it's not a good move either to "send them out". Media are fucking powerful, my friend. I think the 9/11 story proves it.

Besides, you are always careful in stating that you are being logical, so for the sake of logic I ask you this: if everything is fake, and there is no real action going on in Libya, why Gaddafi would keep journalists away? If anything he should welcome them to show them how peaceful the country really is. We are living the Saddam script all over again, and I am sure Gaddafi doesn't want to find himself in a corner like it happened to Saddam.

That said, the picture. It seems a funny one, but i wouldn't call it "outrageous"...

If the guys facing the camera were facing east, then the sun would be north of Libya, which is not bloody likely. They're not praying. The guy in the back genuflecting must be the one praying. He's facing the "right" way, facing the sun (supposedly it is early morning) while the guys facing the camera are just ritually washing-up. The guy with the hood in the back I don't know what the heck he's doing, that's the funny part I guess.
Of course they could be a bunch of actors, 3D posers, the background could be fake, everything you want. But the line is too thin... I agree with Hoi that on this grounds we should spend our life calling fake every single news picture we step into.

As to the "praying before the battle" thing: you're fantasizing on a media label, man. Of course there is no real battle, so there is no "praying during the battle" either. Once again, this does not cry "fakery"... just regular media propaganda and dramatization...

simonshack wrote:*

Comparing 1 and 1 : Evidently the two pictures were shot at very different times of the day. So, are we to believe the photographer just hanged around for hours in that courtyard?

Comparing 2 and 2 : Evidently, the 2 shadows do not match. One appears to be shot at noon (man standing on car) - and the other appears to be shot in the late afternoon. Something is VERY wrong here.

Comparing 3 and 3 : Evidently, that park bench has been moved from one place to another. Ok, so it doesn't really mean much - but why on Earth would anyone move a park bench in such a situation? Is it perhaps more likely we are looking at a movie set ?

Over and out.

I agree that many of these pictures look staged, especially those with few characters. My point is that the quality is not bad enough to make them valid, solid proofs of fakery. So instead than having them exposed one by one on the forum threads like trophies, I would just wait and maybe link to them suggesting there might be fakery there. I was just proposing a more careful approach, especially thinking about the outsider, a new reader of the forum, someone coming from a google search months from now, and finding us discussing not-outrageous pictures as if they were outrages. That's all.

As to the picture you discuss:

1) Maybe the building is just about the only place that suffered some damage around that place. I think this proves the lack of "destruction" to showcase more than everything else.

2) it is true that the shadow of the shoe tip of the guy standing on the car looks weird. But look also at the rest of the figure: the shadow of the arm, the shadow of his robe, the shadow on his face: they are ALL consistent with the other shadows in the picture: Light coming from right-side as if from a low sun.

3) so they moved a bench around. Hours have passed, there is no real battle going on. You gotta move a bench

Points taken, nonhocapito - (although not quite so for the shadows) yet something really doesn't feel 'right' in many of those 'rioter' photos. I agree however we shouldn't spend too much time on these pictures - as there are surely stranger matters to study around all of this chain of sudden and - shall we say - bizarre Middle East 'uprisings'.

Dear nonhocapito,

I say: For the sake of logic,
1. If there is nothing going on in Libya, then why would a single reporter want to be there?
2. Why would there be reporters before the event in Ras Ranuf for example? What was there to report about?
3. Why would reporters risk their lives, if something going on, if they can fake the pictures just as well? (All the pictures are credited to Western names, by the way.)
4. If Gaddhafi's military intelligence followed the happenings in Egypt and Tunisia, why would he let in Media?
5. Any reporters must have an official Libyan guide, so see only positive things, where are those reports?
6. If this is civil war, than the end is not decided yet: why would the rebels let their pictures taken, because if they fail, they will be identified from pictures and hanged, as Hungarian rebels in 1956?
7. Why would rebels let their pictures taken, when they can be identified and their relatives in, lets say, Tripoli, will get hauled in and tortured?
8. If there will be no invasion, because, lets say, Gadhaffi is in cahoots with the West and the whole thing is a farce, then?
9. If there will be invasion, contrary to all is well in-country, then? (Invasion if all is not well, see my previous points about rebels and civil war...)
10. Are you telling me that all AP, AFP, Reuters, LA Times, BBC, etc... pictures with impossible angles, debths, backgrounds, and people sizes can be produced with cell-phones and point-and-shoot cameras? What pont-and-shoot camera will give you this picture?:


All points towards all is faked in my opinion...

It has to be a hoax. I've not seen one convincing piece of footage or photograph at all about Libya. But the interesting thing is that it is so obvious that it's quite funny really. Why replay the scene of a white car going up a freeway ramp three times during the story? Has anyone noticed that the same footage appears in multiple stories on different days? What if Kadaffi is part of the hoax, but not the Western powers. Is he purposefully sounding crazy? Part of the overall humor? There seems to be one pick up with some outdated anti aircraft gun that is scene over and over again being pulled by one of the many white pick ups that make up the body of the 'rebel forces.'

Why so funny? Why so obvious?

First off, warriorhun: I am not trying to debunk the whole "insurgency is fake" argument: only to question the "clues" of fakery you point our attention to, and the logic behind it you claim makes the pictures incontrovertibly fake.
I agree with the fact that most of these pictures are probably propaganda and possibly staged: I just tend to doubt the utility of using of them as irrefutable arguments in our analyses of a situation that is in fact difficult to understand and not so obvious like you claim. Maybe I will be proved wrong as this story develops, and you will be proved right. But in the meantime, I state my case (which, in one sentence, would be to slow down).

1. If there is nothing going on in Libya, then why would a single reporter want to be there?
2. Why would there be reporters before the event in Ras Ranuf for example? What was there to report about?
Well my impression so far, my speculation if you will, is that there is some action happening in Libya, maybe caused by manipulated insurgency or mercenaries, and a lot of spin and fakery on top of it from the media. In this scenario, you would want reporters on the ground, to capture things that can be spun and twisted. More than everything, the mix of fakery, deceit, and actual turmoil would be meant to cause reactions from the Libyan government, the Gaddafi family, and the army, and reporters might be needed to capture that as well.

3. Why would reporters risk their lives, if something going on, if they can fake the pictures just as well? (All the pictures are credited to Western names, by the way.)
I don't think they are risking their lives because I think the claims of fighting and war are grossly exaggerated if not invented OR, if they're true, they happen in places where the reporters are not allowed or do not go. But this doesn't mean they wouldn't be there to gather material to build up better lies. I seem to remember the same happened in Iraq where reporters all stayed in the green zone, while free-lance locals where sent around to danger zones risking their lives. In the end the credit was given to western reporters, of course.

4. If Gaddhafi's military intelligence followed the happenings in Egypt and Tunisia, why would he let in Media?
I don't know. Maybe they know it doesn't make much of a difference whether you let them in or not, since they can hire locals to gather material for them anyway. As I said, there is no much choice: the media are very powerful, and keeping them out would result in even more demonization and spin (see on this my responses to other points below)

5. Any reporters must have an official Libyan guide, so see only positive things, where are those reports?
I don't know about this. I doubt Libyan guides can impose to reporters the subject of their reports. It is not Soviet Russia.

6. If this is civil war, than the end is not decided yet: why would the rebels let their pictures taken, because if they fail, they will be identified from pictures and hanged, as Hungarian rebels in 1956?
7. Why would rebels let their pictures taken, when they can be identified and their relatives in, lets say, Tripoli, will get hauled in and tortured?
These are good points that give credit to the fakery idea, which I certainly do not deny. On the other hand, it could mean that those are mercenaries, or actors, or rebels who have lost so much they are past being worried. Or they are just naive, because every generation makes the same mistakes in new ways, and they have no notion that something similar happened to an european country 55 years earlier.

8. If there will be no invasion, because, lets say, Gadhaffi is in cahoots with the West and the whole thing is a farce, then?
That's a scenario we have to consider. And I'll be happy to discuss it with you in its pros and cons. But I don't think the discussion would benefit from being pushed ahead by declarations of unquestionable fakery based on these pictures.

9. If there will be invasion, contrary to all is well in-country, then?
Then the fakery helped to spice-up a situation that was certainly started with pretend-insurgents that created turmoil and anarchy to put the Libyan army in a spot where the invasion would be more justifiable.

10. Are you telling me that all AP, AFP, Reuters, LA Times, BBC, etc... pictures with impossible angles, debths, backgrounds, and people sizes can be produced with cell-phones and point-and-shoot cameras?
No. I was saying that if Gaddafi blocked reporters, then a guy with a cell phone or a point a shoot could do their job and send the pictures in. Hence, it is pretty useless in this day and age to block reporters. Again, not Soviet Russia.

Dear nonhocapito,

Well my impression so far, my speculation if you will, is that there is some action happening in Libya, maybe caused by manipulated insurgency or mercenaries, and a lot of spin and fakery on top of it from the media.

Agreed.

In this scenario, you would want reporters on the ground, to capture things that can be spun and twisted.

Quite the contrary. There are Western advisors: news of Holland and SAS soldiers captured speaks volumes. The pictures had to be saved, and manipulated, or sent to manipulation. What if the reporter is captured before he sent or deleted them? The Libyan military intelligence will have loads of info.

Lets pretend the rebel pictures were real (as Libyan intel will get them before altering): what would Libyan intel say?:
I would say, the rebels have new weapons but keep them in good order. Main weapon is AK-63D, but some have suspicious new Western arms, like the FN-FAL, and they have PKT machine guns, but there are no snipers.

-Sorry to chip in, Colonel Yusuf, but some of those AK-holding rebel pictures are pertty weird, I mean the sizes and angles and all, I have never seen such pictures before. Do you think the captured reporter faked it?
-Lieutenent Hassan, do not interrupt. Of course they are not faking the pictures. Next time you will suggest 9/11 was faked, too. Where was I? Yes, their weapons...

Their weapons are clean, their clothes are clean, they are lead by professional officers who know the importance of hygiene: they are probably westerners. They have some weak artrillery, anti-aircraft machineguns, so careful with sending helicopters against them. They move around in Technicals, but they use it as stationary fire support platform, they fight on foot, without radio communication: cut them to peaces, segregate and encircle the pieces, annihilate them. Send against them a battalion of tanks with infantry after a few air strikes from MIGs, and the insurgency is over tomorrow. The tank leaders should beware: they have RPGs. See?

I seem to remember the same happened in Iraq where reporters all stayed in the green zone, while free-lance locals where sent around to danger zones risking their lives.

That would be plausible, if there were no Western advisors/units helping: they won't let pictures to be taken. Westerners heard about 1956, too.

Maybe they know it doesn't make much of a difference whether you let them in or not, since they can hire locals to gather material for them anyway. As I said, there is no much choice: the media are very powerful, and keeping them out would result in even more demonization and spin

Disagreed. They will be looked on as spies, and helpers of enemy propaganda. Massacres and invasion? More demonization??? At least no foreign spies will roam the country.

warriorhun wrote:The pictures had to be saved, and manipulated, or sent to manipulation. What if the reporter is captured before he sent or deleted them? The Libyan military intelligence will have loads of info.

The thing I had in mind was more like: The media is informed via special channel that the insurgency/mercenaries have burned a building or an oil well. Or there is some unrest of the population in this or that area. They send a reporter to take pictures of such places, since they quickly need base-pictures to prove the figthing is real, then do the alterations necessary to sell the story. As to the western "instructors", if any: No need for the reporters to capture "real" action and "real" armies. But some real effects and actions and reactions, those can add the flavor of reality to the scene.

It is so early to call complete fakery. The thing is, differently than 9/11 it is just NOT right to say that ALL images from Libya at this stage look fake. Judge this page, or this one. The sources are not reliable, the captions are probably misleading, and some of the pictures look really staged: but is this true of the majority of the pictures? If we are intellectually honest we must say no: most of the pictures show some kind of unrest or activity that seems plausible. They don't make the call.

Anyway, I find it peculiar that while you Warriorhun try to support the idea that Geddafi is keeping the media out, and thus that the media is inventing everything, every little detail or picture, you quote the same media for the news of the SAS soldiers captured.
You gotta pick your line: either nothing is believable or, if something is believable, then there is a margin for truth to be mixed in with fakery. This means that the pictures in question have to look much more fake by themselves (without any "logic" supporting their being fake, because it is too early to apply that logic) to be used purposefully in the research.

nonhocapito wrote: The thing is, differently than 9/11 it is just NOT right to say that ALL images from Libya at this stage look fake.
(...)
This means that the pictures in question have to look much more fake by themselves (without any "logic" supporting their being fake, because it is too early to apply that logic) to be used purposefully in the research.

Dear nonhocapito and warriorhun,

I am enjoying your ongoing dialogue - it is clearly perfectly honest and motivated by a genuine drive to make some sense of the bewildering and contradictory flow of information (in the form of written news reports/ or photographic material) we are offered by the media. Needless to say, at this time and as long as we don't have the budget to fly our own spy-drones over the Middle East, this is all we can do: strive to decipher and scrutinize what we are served with - either from dubious, unverifiable sources - or from proven deception-machines such as Reuters or the Associated Press. Nonhocapito rightly points out the difficulty of discerning between the written reports, for instance: how can we lend credence to the story of the SAS boys being arrested by the Libyan rebels - while questioning at the same time the veracity of any other reports?

Now, the current line of your debate also seems to question the relevance of analysing the pictorial documents we are offered. As already stated, I agree we should observe increasing caution on this front - paricularly in view of the superior image manipulation technology available today (as opposed to 1969 or 2001). However, allow me to provide a little reminder (from page 6 of this thread) concerning one of the very first videos which the media offered at the 'outbreak' of the Libyan events:



As it is, Nonhocapito grabbed this video from the "La Repubblica" and wisely published it on his YT channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLXlD4BXJZE

My point is: have we established that at least SOME incontrovertibly fake imagery has been manufactured and aired on the mainstream media in the context of these extraordinary string of "Middle East uprisings"? Well, yes - I'd say we have.

What does this simple and undeniable fact tell us? Could it possibly be that a wide range of doctored imagery is programmed in anticipation of such military operations? The first of which are entirely computer-generated while the next get gradually upgraded with 'more credible' images - filmed on location (or in movie sets) as the action gets going - possibly staged with the participation of crowds of the Soros-funded Otpor type?

****************************************************************************************************************************************************
Now please don't be fooled by what you may read about the 'liberal' Soros fomenting/financing those 'colored' revolutions. He is quite evidently being used in pure "double-think" fashion to confuse everyone about what entities stand behind the whole affair. The Soros figure is a blatant sample of the "by deception we rule" trickery meme. Here's an article which apparently denounces Soros and his "liberal" plots - only to conclude with these words:

Despite the troubling events occurring around the world, much of which is due to one seriously misguided individual [*Soros*], we are all truly blessed to be able to hold onto the fact that Israel still stands as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, and America still remains a “shining city on a hill” — heralding the blessings of liberty to a broken, hurting, and sometimes very angry world.
http://www.jewishindy.com/modules.php?n ... &sid=14440

simonshack wrote:Could it possibly be that a wide range of doctored imagery is programmed in anticipation of such military operations? The first of which are entirely computer-generated while the next get gradually upgraded with 'more credible' images - filmed on location (or in movie sets) as the action gets going - possibly staged with the participation of crowds of the Soros-funded Otpor type?

Agreed Simon. The fakery teams work mostly for the "benefit" of the hollywood-shaped masses of the west who need these early impressions to get the stories going in their imagination and perception according to script, and eventually generate the consensus for invasions and taking overs.
That repubblica video is awfully fake and probably I agree with warriorhun 100% that in light of that, and of many other considerations, we have to be vigilant and expect fakery in this story around every corner. It is just not that easy and obvious anymore to spot it for everyone to see, and we have also to probably watch over the reputation of the research, in a sense. I don't know if this is heretic/lame thinking or not...

nonhocapito wrote:

simonshack wrote: It is just not that easy and obvious anymore to spot it for everyone to see, and we have also to probably watch over the reputation of the research, in a sense. I don't know if this is heretic/lame thinking or not...

I trust you may imagine what sort of resources are being deployed today to discredit our TV Fakery research. Would it be presumptuous to suppose that BILLIONS are invested to counter it? Put yourself in their clothes, for a minute: wouldn't you put to full use the full clout of your resources, activating an armada of military psychologists, CGI experts, social-network spooks and the like to combat the findings which our grassroot network is uncovering? Of course you would. We learn - but they learn too. This is a war of minds - and that's why we are going to win this game: no amount of criminal intelligence can beat intelligence 'tout court'.

Dear nonhocapito,

you say:

The thing is, differently than 9/11 it is just NOT right to say that ALL images from Libya at this stage look fake. Judge this page, or this one. The sources are not reliable, the captions are probably misleading, and some of the pictures look really staged: but is this true of the majority of the pictures?

I did some reconsidering, and what I came up with: all images are faked, but not all CGI: some are staged images, taken outside Libya, in another desert.
God delivered into my hands with your links if I can prove what I intend. Both from your second link.

First, CGI:



Tell me, where is the cab and the nose of the recurring white Technical?

Okay, you look for small clues in pictures, like a missing numberplate or other. Take a step back. Look at the pictures, the angles and sizes of objects and people compared to each other and to the background and to the depth of the picture. See all pictures of your first link from this step back. You can not produce such pictures with no available camera, even if you tilt it. These, in my opinion, are generated by the same computer program. All pictures with such characteristics are CGI in my opinion.

Second, staged event:

A rebel militiaman runs for cover during a government helicopter attack on the frontline March 5, 2011 in Ben Jawat, Libya.

Captions are 50% of the story for human psichology, we can not discard the, if caption lies, the message is fake.
So, there was a visual contact with a military helicopter which is zooming in to kill. The photographer does not give a fuck 5 metres from the rebel, he probably has an evil mother-in-law so he does not mind dying. Zooming heli looks for movement and shape, so the rebel should lie down asap, he is far away from the Technicals which will receive the good news first. However, his clothes will not blend in, the hovering heli will find him. So, his only chance is staying on the back of the Technical, behind the anti-aircraft machinegun. Why did he left it? And why is he alone? Where are his mates, who drove the car? Why don't they represent a moving target for the heli in their Technical instead, opening up with all the weapons they have?
So, this is a staged event, and a quite stupid one at that.
These are the harder to spot, and that is why it has to be backed with a theory, a better staged picture is not so telling.
Which brings us to:

Anyway, I find it peculiar that while you Warriorhun try to support the idea that Geddafi is keeping the media out, and thus that the media is inventing everything, every little detail or picture, you quote the same media for the news of the SAS soldiers captured.
You gotta pick your line: either nothing is believable or, if something is believable, then there is a margin for truth to be mixed in with fakery.

EXACTLY. This, sir, a very sharp observetion. I was juggling with it logically myself, before I decided even to mention the SAS soldiers. Why I did it then?
Because the news was: SAS soldiers captured, during helping evacuating civilians and diplomats. The news was a lie. I did not believe it, and started thinking what is behind. I do not know if Libyan media mentioned them or not, but if yes that would mean the Western media had to deal with it too, so they lied.
And I said, no way were they evacuating civils. They were advisors to the rebels. They covered it up with a lie. The media lie was my key of understanding.

warriorhun wrote:Dear nonhocapito,

you say:

The thing is, differently than 9/11 it is just NOT right to say that ALL images from Libya at this stage look fake. Judge this page, or this one. The sources are not reliable, the captions are probably misleading, and some of the pictures look really staged: but is this true of the majority of the pictures?

I did some reconsidering, and what I came up with: all images are faked, but not all CGI: some are staged images, taken outside Libya, in another desert.
God delivered into my hands with your links if I can prove what I intend. Both from your second link.

First, CGI:



Tell me, where is the cab and the nose of the recurring white Technical?

Okay, you look for small clues in pictures, like a missing numberplate or other. Take a step back. Look at the pictures, the angles and sizes of objects and people compared to each other and to the background and to the depth of the picture. See all pictures of your first link from this step back. You can not produce such pictures with no available camera, even if you tilt it. These, in my opinion, are generated by the same computer program. All pictures with such characteristics are CGI in my opinion.

Second, staged event:

A rebel militiaman runs for cover during a government helicopter attack on the frontline March 5, 2011 in Ben Jawat, Libya.

Captions are 50% of the story for human psichology, we can not discard the, if caption lies, the message is fake.
So, there was a visual contact with a military helicopter which is zooming in to kill. The photographer does not give a fuck 5 metres from the rebel, he probably has an evil mother-in-law so he does not mind dying. Zooming heli looks for movement and shape, so the rebel should lie down asap, he is far away from the Technicals which will receive the good news first. However, his clothes will not blend in, the hovering heli will find him. So, his only chance is staying on the back of the Technical, behind the anti-aircraft machinegun. Why did he left it? And why is he alone? Where are his mates, who drove the car? So, this is a staged event, and a quite stupid one at that.
These are the harder to spot, and that is why it has to be backed with a theory, a better staged picture is not so telling.
Which brings us to:

Anyway, I find it peculiar that while you Warriorhun try to support the idea that Geddafi is keeping the media out, and thus that the media is inventing everything, every little detail or picture, you quote the same media for the news of the SAS soldiers captured.
You gotta pick your line: either nothing is believable or, if something is believable, then there is a margin for truth to be mixed in with fakery.

EXACTLY. This, sir, a very sharp observetion. I was juggling with it logically myself, before I decided even to mention the SAS soldiers. Why I did it then?
Because the news was: SAS soldiers captured, during helping evacuating civilians and diplomats. The news was a lie. I did not believe it, and started thinking what is behind. I do not know if Libyan media mentioned them or not, but if yes that would mean the Western media had to deal with it too, so they lied.
And I said, no way were they evacuating civils. They were advisors to the rebels. They covered it up with a lie. The media lie was my key of understanding.

I am sorry w., but once again I am not stricken by the fakery of these pictures. Sure, they could be fake. But it is not that obvious. A wide-angle, a reporter a bit exposed to the supposed action, these are not good clues to me...

Can we discuss the scenario first, please? Can we speculate a bit for example on the role of gaddafi right now?

Gaddafi who apparently (so I read on Dagospia) has interests not only in many italian key companies, but also british and even from the U.S., including Chevron, Exxon, Halliburton and etc? Can we speculate on the possibility that it is already agreed that he will go, that his work is done, and that everything that is happening right now is happening to sell to the Libyans the illusion of a real transition, and to the west the same? While the Gaddafi family will live abroad and enjoy the money, maybe faking the death of the leader, like with Saddam? I am not saying that I think or am sure this is the scenario (Gaddafi might be here to stay), but it might be. So, along these or other lines, can we try to see the big picture while we decide which details of the fakery are important and speak by themselves, of a story we are not sure about?

Dear nonhocapito,

I will turn to Gaddhafi in a minute, but hold on for a shake my friend.

You explain away this as a wide angle???:



That the body of the insurgent covers 2/3rd of the 6 meters long Technical but not the leg of the guy half a meter behind him because of wide angle??? And of course, the background guy nearly falling on his nose on the flat desert is drunk? And the size of the two people compared to each other concerning their distance, and the distance and size of the car and other people in the background all comes from wide angle???

Remember the Giffords shooting, the Hudson airplane? Both contained pictures with strange angles, depth/distance/size discrepancies just like the new ones on Libya. We said, as you say now, it can be explained away. See, we do not say all is well in the picture: we say not sure, it can be explained away.

Now, a bold logical leap my friends. These are the characteristics of the new generation CGI fakery program. You said since 9/11 it must have evolved into something better. Watch the images well: THIS IS IT.


Some musings: 2011, the 10th anniversary of all-fake 9/11 created with the old programs, with success. Let's celebrate it with an all-fake Libya with the new program...

Gaddhafi? Gaddhafi created in 1997 a law called code of tribal honour. If one member of a tribe guilty, all in the tribe are guilty. So the rebels will not pose for photos: if rebels are identified by the Libyan intelligence from the photos, their whole tribe will receive the good news. As in going to Paradise sooner than expected.
No pictures are taken in-country. All are faked.
Does not matter if Gaddhaffi plays along, or the game is going against him: you need fakery in both scenarios. And yes, one of my scenarios is all is fake, and Gadhafi is in cahoots with the West and will stay or leave to exile. Maybe they need an international precedent on invasion of a country based on faked massacres of protesters or insurgents. This international precedent will come handy in Iran. Possible scenario, requires all faked images, too.

warriorhun wrote:That the body of the insurgent covers 2/3rd of the 6 meters long Technical but not the leg of the guy half a meter behind him because of wide angle???

hmm yes wide angle...

woman hand's twice her head, which is way larger than truck. Must be cgi, this flickr user is onto fakery...! But wait, what if this wide-angle close-up thing is just a style that media now have, to turn pictures that aren't that interesting into more dramatic and entertaining pieces? Because of the basic dishonest approach that wants that distorting is better than leaving things out?
But OK, I don't want to discuss this forever and hijack this thread. I am glad at least that I managed to laid out my worries, and thanks to all those who had the patience to read them