wolf_from_wv
Member
jcims said:
Always a good idea...
Why you should stay well away from a knife...
- Thread starter Preacherman
- Start date
- Status
Always a good idea...
carpettbaggerr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
Hard to prove anything isn't photoshopped these days.
Without provenance it's hard to say if these pictures were altered, but they look genuine to me.
Well, real wounds don't look like "real wounds". They look an awful lot like what is shown in these pictures.
Without provenance it's hard to say if these pictures were altered, but they look genuine to me.
mbs357
Member
Ouch.
Roundeyesamurai
Member
carpettbaggerr said:
Real wounds don't look that even. The edges of those wounds are too smooth. On the tattooed guy, where the ends of the two wounds intersect, the intersection is way too neat. Real wounds wouldn't look as though one were transposed over the other.
Now, I'm happy to be proved wrong, if TGZ would like to reveal where they got the photos.
The reason the cuts are so uniform with even edges is most likely due to the weapon that was used. The wounds look to me as if they were inflicted by a very large curved blade of some type (like a machete) and were inflicted in a hacking motion rather than a slicing motion. You can see that one end of each wound is quite a bit deeper than the other end, and that all three on the back are the same approximate shape.
As far as the contention that deep lacerations have to be smooth, that is not the case, you can do a google image search for "laceration" and find plenty of smooth edges injuries. These pictures are "fresher" than most, the edges will get the appearance of roughness during healing/necrosis.
As far as the contention that deep lacerations have to be smooth, that is not the case, you can do a google image search for "laceration" and find plenty of smooth edges injuries. These pictures are "fresher" than most, the edges will get the appearance of roughness during healing/necrosis.
Roundeyesamurai
Member
c_yeager said:
I'm not buying it.
It may look "reasonably real enough" to fool some people, but I am not buying it. I've seen too many internet hoaxes, and too much misinformation specifically from TGZ to believe this one.
Pony up your sources, TGZ.
carpettbaggerr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
Speir used to post here, but looks like he hasn't been around for almost a year. TGZ has a forum: http://www.ambackforum.com/viewforum.php?f=75
Or email him [email protected]
Looking more closely, the wounds look real, but could be overlaid, especially the ones on his back where they cross in an x. Enlarged, that portion doesn't look quite right, I would expect the two wound channels to run together, but looks more like one is on top of the other.
But it's hard to say, could be a poor quality picture, or a decent photoshop.
Or email him [email protected]
Looking more closely, the wounds look real, but could be overlaid, especially the ones on his back where they cross in an x. Enlarged, that portion doesn't look quite right, I would expect the two wound channels to run together, but looks more like one is on top of the other.
But it's hard to say, could be a poor quality picture, or a decent photoshop.
Roundeyesamurai
Member
carpettbaggerr said:
That's exactly what it looks like to me- a small wound, blown up and superimposed over an existing hospital pic.
It used to be that even poorly done fakes were accepted by unsophisticated folks without question, and now it's funny how many real things are dismissed automatically as "obvious" photoshops or CGI fakes by cynical experts!
Not sayin' that these aren't altered, but just sayin' nonetheless...
Not sayin' that these aren't altered, but just sayin' nonetheless...
Roundeyesamurai
Member
torpid said:It used to be that even poorly done fakes were accepted by unsophisticated folks without question, and now it's funny how many real things are dismissed automatically as "obvious" photoshops or CGI fakes by cynical experts!
Not sayin' that these aren't altered, but just sayin' nonetheless...
The obvious personal slight in your comments aside, one does have to accept the fact that the technology exists nowadays to make very convincing fakes, and for that reason, that people using photos such as these should understand the need to be able to verify, publicly, the source of such photos.
Like I said, I'm willing to be proved wrong, if TGZ is willing to make such proof available.
Yeah... That's not exactly how it works.
A person's high opinion of himself doesn't obligate the rest of the world to jump around finding the evidence to disprove his allegations. You claim it's false, you provide evidence to support your claim. That's the way it works.
There are accepted techniques for determining if a photo has been tampered with. I'd be interested to see you apply one of those techniques and post your results.
Or, if that's too difficult, pick 3 new pictures (from anywhere) and take all those cuts in the pictures on the links and add them to the pictures that you choose. Then post the results to show how easy it is to photoshop pictures.
Roundeyesamurai:
"It used to be that even poorly done fakes were accepted by unsophisticated folks (NOT Roundeyesamurai) without question, and now it's funny how many real things are dismissed automatically as "obvious" photoshops or CGI fakes by cynical experts(Possibly Roundeyesamurai) !"
"It used to be that even poorly done fakes were accepted by unsophisticated folks (NOT Roundeyesamurai) without question, and now it's funny how many real things are dismissed automatically as "obvious" photoshops or CGI fakes by cynical experts(Possibly Roundeyesamurai) !"
Let's try to keep the tone more civil.....
Jeff
Jeff
Roundeyesamurai
Member
Folks, here are some real laceration photos.
You will immediately notice several differences between them and the GZ photos:
1) REAL lacerations do not look as "clean" as the lacerations in the photos (even in a clinical setting);
2) REAL lacerations are not nearly as uniform as the lacerations in the GZ photos;
3) The coloration of the GZ photos is quite different from the coloration of those in the following photos- the coloration of the wounds in the GZ photos most closely resembles the superficial lacerations in the first and fourth photographs, rather than the coloration of the deeper lacerations in the second and third photographs. The reason for this, is that what you're seeing is a blown-up image of a superficial cut- you're seeing exposed dermis. A deeper laceration, such as in the photo of the tattooed individual, would be showing fat, bone, etc., not dermis.
To put it another way: Lacerations as deep as seen on the tattooed guy, you'd be seeing "red cottage cheese", not a smooth surface.
BTW- I am more than willing to tell where I got these, if anyone would like to know.
JohnKSa- anyone who makes a statement of fact (including, in this case, the authenticity of these photos) is obligated, at least intellectually, to rebut criticism about the authenticity of the facts presented.
Here are the photos:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b352/Roundeyesamurai/ca4b7f3f.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b352/Roundeyesamurai/98787df9.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b352/Roundeyesamurai/0c1eb0c0.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b352/Roundeyesamurai/6184c89c.jpg
These last two are interesting, because they show multiple criss-crossing (but not nearly as deep) lacerations inflicted by an improvised weapon. Note the points of contact between the wounds, and compare them to the points of contact between the "wounds" in the GZ photos. Real wounds do not retain their shape when cut in one direction and then another, as happens when wounds criss-cross- though the "wounds" in the GZ photos have retained their shape at the intersections.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b352/Roundeyesamurai/9bdb32e0.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b352/Roundeyesamurai/2a87994f.jpg
You will note in the second photo of this pair, that the lacerations on the right chest are interrupted- this is because of the varying curvature of the chest. Likewise, the varying curvature of one's back would cause the same change in depth (including "jumping" of the blade) in the photos of the tattooed individual in the GZ photos.
You will immediately notice several differences between them and the GZ photos:
1) REAL lacerations do not look as "clean" as the lacerations in the photos (even in a clinical setting);
2) REAL lacerations are not nearly as uniform as the lacerations in the GZ photos;
3) The coloration of the GZ photos is quite different from the coloration of those in the following photos- the coloration of the wounds in the GZ photos most closely resembles the superficial lacerations in the first and fourth photographs, rather than the coloration of the deeper lacerations in the second and third photographs. The reason for this, is that what you're seeing is a blown-up image of a superficial cut- you're seeing exposed dermis. A deeper laceration, such as in the photo of the tattooed individual, would be showing fat, bone, etc., not dermis.
To put it another way: Lacerations as deep as seen on the tattooed guy, you'd be seeing "red cottage cheese", not a smooth surface.
BTW- I am more than willing to tell where I got these, if anyone would like to know.
JohnKSa- anyone who makes a statement of fact (including, in this case, the authenticity of these photos) is obligated, at least intellectually, to rebut criticism about the authenticity of the facts presented.
Here are the photos:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b352/Roundeyesamurai/ca4b7f3f.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b352/Roundeyesamurai/98787df9.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b352/Roundeyesamurai/0c1eb0c0.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b352/Roundeyesamurai/6184c89c.jpg
These last two are interesting, because they show multiple criss-crossing (but not nearly as deep) lacerations inflicted by an improvised weapon. Note the points of contact between the wounds, and compare them to the points of contact between the "wounds" in the GZ photos. Real wounds do not retain their shape when cut in one direction and then another, as happens when wounds criss-cross- though the "wounds" in the GZ photos have retained their shape at the intersections.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b352/Roundeyesamurai/9bdb32e0.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b352/Roundeyesamurai/2a87994f.jpg
You will note in the second photo of this pair, that the lacerations on the right chest are interrupted- this is because of the varying curvature of the chest. Likewise, the varying curvature of one's back would cause the same change in depth (including "jumping" of the blade) in the photos of the tattooed individual in the GZ photos.
None of those are cuts into an area with significant subcutaneous fat or muscle tissue, so there is no basis for comparison.
The last two are not even of cuts at all, but are the result of some sort of blunt trauma like whipping or lashing. The differences you point out are the differences one would expect to see when comparing a whip or lash mark to a knife wound.
Simply making a wild claim does not obligate anyone to do anything.
The wounds don't look right to people who haven't seen wounds like that before. That's not surprising. We had someone with experience with such wounds comment earlier, but his reasonable comments were drowned out by unsubstantiated speculation.
The last two are not even of cuts at all, but are the result of some sort of blunt trauma like whipping or lashing. The differences you point out are the differences one would expect to see when comparing a whip or lash mark to a knife wound.
If there were a reasonable criticism posited (one backed by either an expert opinion as established by a credible resume, or supported by technically sound arguments) then your statement would be true.
Simply making a wild claim does not obligate anyone to do anything.
The wounds don't look right to people who haven't seen wounds like that before. That's not surprising. We had someone with experience with such wounds comment earlier, but his reasonable comments were drowned out by unsubstantiated speculation.
JMusic
member
I attended a Homicide investigation seminar at Case Western Reserve in the early 80's. Non of the pictures here I have seen represent fatal wounds that I saw at that class. Many of the knife wounds were more like large oblong holes. The stab was deep and if you pulled the hole together it would represent the knife width that made it. Many of the pictures shown here represent defensive cuts that are commonly seen on the hands, face, and arms as people try to fend off a violent attack.
Jim
Jim
Roundeyesamurai
Member
JMusic, have you been to Williams Homicide Seminar?
Roundeyesamurai
Member
JohnKSa said:
The attempt at wholesale character assassination of this post aside, the criticisms I present are based on very sound, logical points. It's not rocket science, it's basic human anatomy.
For the record, the last two are not whipmarks at all.
They're makeup, made to look like whipmarks. But makeup nonetheless.
So much for your ability to determine the origin of wounds.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/plez/bas8scareFr.htm
Roundeyesamurai
Member
torpid said:Makeup effects do not equal photoshop.
Call invalidated- ball is still in play.
.
Yeah, whatever.
JohnKSa challenged me to put up fakes, and I did. And he didn't correctly identify them as such. And he had all of the same information about origins of those pictures, as any of us have about the origin of the GZ pictures.
I didn't have to resort to something as super high-tech as photoshop, he got beat by something as simple as makeup.
Next criticism?
NineseveN
member
Roundeyesamurai said:
Are you for real? Your amateur opinion comes up lacking on this one. Regardless of whether or not they're real, your evidence is suspect, your attitude is poor. This is not an attack, but I find it hard to digest your point when you resort to using make-up photos and superficial wounds that are in areas of the body that physiologically do not compare to the areas we see in the original photos (little to no fatty tissue on the head or fingers). It seems that other credible folks feel the same way, that's a shame, because your delivery and tactics sully the point you are attemtping to make.
For the record, I have witnessed similar knife wounds, not quite identical, and there are a few things that seem odd, but nothing that I would be confident that anyone other than an expert could make the call with only those photos.
I'd like to hear more about these photos.
I may not have identified them as fakes, but I certainly identified them as irrelevant and said they weren't knife wounds. How would you propose that someone tell the difference between whip marks and makeup via a picture? Both are basically discolorations with perhaps some raised marks. Besides, how long do you want me to spend studying photos that obviously have no relevance to the topic at hand.
Furthermore, they were not photoshopped, which makes the photos GENUINE. The subject matter may be faked, but that is an ENTIRELY different type of technology. I challenged you to photoshop some fakes of your own and post them, not to find some faked, irrelevant pictures on the web and post them.
My whole point was that you have made some claims about the photos posted on the beginning of this thread and yet have not:
1. Demonstrated credible expertise of basic human anatomy.
2. Demonstrated credible expertise with photoshop.
3. Demonstrated credible expertise with knife wounds.
4. Provided a technically sound argument to support your claims.
And, your character has not been assassinated. I'm not saying you're a bad person, I'm just saying that you haven't backed up your claims and therefore your demand that TGZ prove you wrong is presumptuous at best.
Roundeyesamurai
Member
NineseveN said:
First of all, my opinion is not "amateur".
Secondly, if you don't like the way I've presented information, that's fine. However, if the only significant criticism you have of my arguments is "poor attitude", then that's not much criticism at all.
Thirdly, JohnKSa challenged me to produce fakes. I did. He failed to identify them.
Fourthly, the photos I presented demonstrate the difference between the appearance of the dermis, and the appearance of what lies beneath the dermis. The "red stuff" seen in the photos is clearly dermis, which does not extend deep enough to be what one would see in lacerations as deep as seen in the GZ photos.
"Other credible folks" may indeed disagree, and that's fine.
Roundeyesamurai
Member
JohnKSa said:
Yes I have, you've just chosen to ignore it.
JohnKSa said:
Yeah, makeup is a much easier-to-identify type of fakery.
How is a fake "genuine"???
Face it man, you were beaten at your own challenge. You can't backslide and say "that wasn't fair!" now.
NineseveN
member
Roundeyesamurai said:
What is your profession and your credentials?
Read again, your evidence, which amounts to your unsubstantiated opinion, fake photos and non-related wounds is poor and mostly invalid...which I belive I said, which I also see you ignored and went straight to discounting my thoughts because I called your attitude, "poor".
Actually, the conversation between the two of you certainly did not come off that way to me, I saw a different story. But what do I know? I'm an unbiased observer and you seemingly have all of the answers.
Again, your profession and credentials please. If you're going to submit your opinion as anything other than amateur, then you're going to have to provide some professional credentials. Thanks.
- Status
Similar threads
