4 ms·

I wasn't there. But I'm unconvinced and a little offended by some of this "reasoning." As far as I can tell, there is no consistent angle that matches all of t

I wasn't there. But I'm unconvinced and a little offended by some of this "reasoning." As far as I can tell, there is no consistent angle that matches all of the blood drips. Why must she have stood (or lain) still while the blood finished dripping? Her eyes show no sign of pain. Have you ever been bombed, or shot, or in a car accident, or fallen down stairs? The pain often doesn't kick in immediately. The pop explanation for that is "adrenalin" - I don't know the scientific reasoning. But it's a very real effect. While I realize you intend your tone to be scientific and dispassionate, it is a little too reminiscent of those you use "rational analysis" to deny, well, just about anything.

abalone 13y ago
I agree that the sheer volume of not completely airtight reasons detracted from its cogency and echoes the style of "conspiracy theories". But for me there was a very solid point that seals the deal: zooming in on the high-resolution source, there were no visible sign of wounds. The blood trickles appear out of nowhere. His "second opinions" agreed on this point as well. It's clearly a fake. The photographer may or may not have been in on it, but the woman sure was.
- wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
  There's no implicit claim the blood was her own.
  - abalone 13y ago
    It's not spatter. It's painted on her like streams bleeding from her own wounds. Only there's no wounds.
    - wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
      It doesn't have to be spatter, there are lots of possible scenarios where the liquid is being spilled on her from some other source (a small incidental pool), it doesn't make it staged. But maybe we just have different types of imagination :)
kevinpet 13y ago
Cut the "offended" bit. It's either a fake or it isn't. This is a factual question. To claim to be offended is to say that you consider certain areas of thought morally off limits.
- adamnemecek 13y ago
  It's mostly about the fact that the author makes somewhat serious accusations while his proof is rather underwhelming.
  - photoJ 13y ago
    Also he has a history of making strong claims that are disproved by other experts. See: http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims-world-press-photo-winner-a-fake-photographer-responds/ http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims-worl...
    - adamnemecek 13y ago
      Wow. He seems like an all-around shithead especially considering the fact that he's been proven wrong before yet that does not prevent him prevent him from doing the same thing again.
- auctiontheory 13y ago
  To claim to be offended is to say that you consider certain areas of thought morally off limits. Thought isn't the issue. It's the public expression of that thought. When people claim to have been victims of a serious crime, for a third party to jump in with a pompous "analysis," in a faux dispassionate tone ... is offensive. Similarly, it's offensive when the male judge asks a rape victim "why didn't we hear more screams?" It's offensive to Holocaust victims (and, frankly, most people) when Holocaust deniers launch into a lengthy analysis of the chemical properties of Zyklon B. If you don't see this, then I can't help you. (And yes, claims of crime and attack should be open to examination. Who does the examination, and in what manner, determines whether it is offensive.)
adamnemecek 13y ago
Yeah, I hate everything about the article, especially the self-assured 'expertise'. At no point does he address e.g. the possibility that the blood was not hers but someone else's.
- joshstrange 13y ago
  Actually he does ---- Both of these second opinions gave the option of blood splatter from another person. Assuming that this is spray from another victim, then there should be droplets all over her face. I count seven possible drops on her forehead, one on her nose, and no others. Searches on Google Images for "arterial spray" and "blood spray" turn up a lot of disturbing photos. But all the photos have something in common: lots of droplets. If her face got splattered, then she should have droplets all over her face. I would have also expected her clothing to have visible droplets. ----
  - wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
    There's a conveniently placed disclaimer to how he got the "arterial" part (projected image, hardly color correct). From that follows "spray" - so it doesn't really hold water. Edit: missed the part where you were agreeing with the article, apologies for assuming. He does indeed address that, poorly!

abalone 13y ago

I agree that the sheer volume of not completely airtight reasons detracted from its cogency and echoes the style of "conspiracy theories". But for me there was a very solid point that seals the deal: zooming in on the high-resolution source, there were no visible sign of wounds. The blood trickles appear out of nowhere. His "second opinions" agreed on this point as well. It's clearly a fake. The photographer may or may not have been in on it, but the woman sure was.

wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
There's no implicit claim the blood was her own.
- abalone 13y ago
  It's not spatter. It's painted on her like streams bleeding from her own wounds. Only there's no wounds.
  - wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
    It doesn't have to be spatter, there are lots of possible scenarios where the liquid is being spilled on her from some other source (a small incidental pool), it doesn't make it staged. But maybe we just have different types of imagination :)

kevinpet 13y ago

Cut the "offended" bit. It's either a fake or it isn't. This is a factual question. To claim to be offended is to say that you consider certain areas of thought morally off limits.

adamnemecek 13y ago
It's mostly about the fact that the author makes somewhat serious accusations while his proof is rather underwhelming.
- photoJ 13y ago
  Also he has a history of making strong claims that are disproved by other experts. See: http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims-world-press-photo-winner-a-fake-photographer-responds/ http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims-worl...
  - adamnemecek 13y ago
    Wow. He seems like an all-around shithead especially considering the fact that he's been proven wrong before yet that does not prevent him prevent him from doing the same thing again.
auctiontheory 13y ago
To claim to be offended is to say that you consider certain areas of thought morally off limits. Thought isn't the issue. It's the public expression of that thought. When people claim to have been victims of a serious crime, for a third party to jump in with a pompous "analysis," in a faux dispassionate tone ... is offensive. Similarly, it's offensive when the male judge asks a rape victim "why didn't we hear more screams?" It's offensive to Holocaust victims (and, frankly, most people) when Holocaust deniers launch into a lengthy analysis of the chemical properties of Zyklon B. If you don't see this, then I can't help you. (And yes, claims of crime and attack should be open to examination. Who does the examination, and in what manner, determines whether it is offensive.)

adamnemecek 13y ago

Yeah, I hate everything about the article, especially the self-assured 'expertise'. At no point does he address e.g. the possibility that the blood was not hers but someone else's.

joshstrange 13y ago
Actually he does ---- Both of these second opinions gave the option of blood splatter from another person. Assuming that this is spray from another victim, then there should be droplets all over her face. I count seven possible drops on her forehead, one on her nose, and no others. Searches on Google Images for "arterial spray" and "blood spray" turn up a lot of disturbing photos. But all the photos have something in common: lots of droplets. If her face got splattered, then she should have droplets all over her face. I would have also expected her clothing to have visible droplets. ----
- wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
  There's a conveniently placed disclaimer to how he got the "arterial" part (projected image, hardly color correct). From that follows "spray" - so it doesn't really hold water. Edit: missed the part where you were agreeing with the article, apologies for assuming. He does indeed address that, poorly!