wolf_from_wv
Member
jcims said:Learning a little anatomy helps...so that purple flappy thing with the big hole in it has a name.
Always a good idea...
jcims said:Learning a little anatomy helps...so that purple flappy thing with the big hole in it has a name.
Well, real wounds don't look like "real wounds". They look an awful lot like what is shown in these pictures.The primary evidence is the appearance of the wounds themselves- they don't look like real wounds. They look "real enough" to convince most people, but they aren't real.
carpettbaggerr said:Well, real wounds don't look like "real wounds". They look an awful lot like what is shown in these pictures.
c_yeager said: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.
carpettbaggerr said: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.
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...
Yeah... That's not exactly how it works.I'm willing to be proved wrong, if TGZ is willing to make such proof available.
The obvious personal slight in your comments aside...
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.anyone who makes a statement of fact ... is obligated, at least intellectually, to rebut criticism about the authenticity of the facts presented.
JohnKSa said: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.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.
torpid said:Makeup effects do not equal photoshop.
Call invalidated- ball is still in play.
.
Roundeyesamurai 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
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.challenged me to put up fakes, and I did. And he didn't correctly identify them as such.
NineseveN 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.
JohnKSa said: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.
JohnKSa said: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.
Roundeyesamurai 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.