From: Andrew Clough (aclough@mit.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 00:10:20 MST
At 09:07 PM 3/17/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Ramez Naam <mez@apexnano.com> wrote:
>
> > Here's the site with the pictures. Warning: there are a couple shots
> > of her after being run over. Also, this is clearly a biased site, but
> > the pictures speak for themselves.
>
>If it's a biased site, how do you ascertain that the pictures are
>authentic?
>
>Quite generally, people's trust in pictures and contemporary image
>manipulation technology are headed for a really nasty clash.
>
>--
>Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
I don't think that there is any reason not to trust those pictures, since
they never state that they were taken the moment before the tragedy
occurred. I've even found pro-Israeli sites that agree that they were
real. IE probably intends people to draw misleading conclusions form them,
since the ones on the IE site are cropped a bit to make comparisons of the
background harder, but I respect the fact that they seem to be truthful
about that issue.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Don't assign
to stupidity what might be due to ignorance. And try not to assume you
opponent is the ignorant one-until you can show it isn't you.
-M.N. Plano
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 00:27:29 MST