Pro-Zionist Media Faking Iran Photos?

[WildCat]

From another thread:

Too bad only one translator, an Iranian apologist, translated it that way. Iranians themselves seem quite happy with that translation, and Ahmadinejad never denied it AFAIK.

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/20080310IranIsraelWiped01.jpg

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/20080310IranIsraelWiped02.jpg

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/zluhig.jpg

Apparently Iran is full of "right wing Zionist" translators. :rolleyes:


I'm no fan of Iran, but I do question the validity of these posters. Some of them look waaay too clear to be photos of outdoor posters.

:dl:

What a load of photoshopped nonsense. Please don't patronize us with such rubbish. The last one is an especially amateurish attempt.

And later...

notice how the text of "Israel must be wiped off the map" in the 1st and 2nd poster are literally identical fonts.

fakes. total fakes.


The first 2 photos are from an anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian rally in Tehran on March 9, 2008. The Tehran billboard photo originally appeared in the New York Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

Why don't you inform the NYT of your suspicions?

And note that Ahmadinejad has never disputed the translation.
:dl:

And now you're using the NYT, a pro-zionist murdoch piece of toilet paper, as a reliable source. That deserves another ...


:dl:

Hilarious. They are total fakes. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of graphic editing can see they are fakes.

And the mainstream media is known for using fake pictures. The BBC even got caught using a picture of a pro-Ahmadinejad rally in which they'd cropped off Ahmadinejad himself and published it on their website as an anti-Ahmadinejad proestors. Hilarious. They got caught and had to change the caption and make some whining excuse.

Oh before I compose myself ...

:dl:

So I gave more info on the sources:

BTW, more pictures of the March 9, 2008 rally the first 2 pics were from can be found a bit more than halfway down this page: http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html (http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html)

They are credited to Reuters photographer Morteza Nikoubazl and AFP photographer Atta Kenare, I'm sure parky and his buddy Tin Foil Timothy will be contacting them to verify... :rolleyes:


eta: direct link: http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/2008/03/from-iran-with-love-students-agreed-to.html (http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/2008/03/from-iran-with-love-students-agreed-to.html)


parky76 and Tin Foil Timothy (and whoever else wants to jump in), the floor is all yours to reveal the pro-Zionist media conspiracy which includes faking Reuters, New York Times, and AFP pictures.

[portlandatheist]

notice how the text of "Israel must be wiped off the map" in the 1st and 2nd poster are literally identical fonts.

fakes. total fakes.
Denial. total denial.

[IDB87]

Hilarious. They are total fakes. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of graphic editing can see they are fakes.


Does this mean TFT will be applying his understanding of graphics editing to prove the captions were faked? If not, will he bother contacting anyone with the appropriate experience?

Can anyone with a 'rudimentary knowledge' of grapich editing please chime in.

[Earthborn]

I have a "rudimentary knowledge" of graphics editing. I don't think these look particularly like fakes. If they are fakes (which I sincerely doubt) they're not hackjobs that anyone with "rudimentary knowledge" of graphics editing can identify as fake. Since it is just text, faking them well would not be terribly difficult.

None of that changes that the fact that "wiping Israel off the map" is not the best translation of what Ahmadinejad said. It also doesn't change the fact that what he did say isn't all that nice either.

[WildCat]

None of that changes that the fact that "wiping Israel off the map" is not the best translation of what Ahmadinejad said.
Well it is a translation made by actual Iranians, in Iran.

[Thunder]

i find it highly peculiar that the fonts for the first two posters are identical...though different colors.

but one must ask, do Iranians only have ONE font type for their political posters?

and how is that these posters, in the middle of the outdoors are soooo very clear? a little too clear to me.

where is the shadow from the black pole on the right of the third poster? based on the angle of the sun, that pole should have cast a shadow on the poster.

i am no fan of Ahmedinajad, his politics, or the Islamic Republic. I hope democracy and freedom take over that land.

But I do think that these specific posters, are indeed fake.

I have seen similar posters created using Photoshop in 5 damn minutes.

and by the way, the "eye-on-the world" blog websites are HARDLY unbiased and impartial. frankly, they are some of the most Islamaphobic sites I have ever seen.

[IDB87]

i find it highly peculiar that the fonts for the first two posters are identical...though different colors.

Why is this peculiar? What would you expect the fonts to be?

and how is that these posters, in the middle of the outdoors are soooo very clear? a little too clear to me.

They are the focus of the high-powered cameras that were used, so are more clear than their surroundings?

Maybe a photographer would be able to explain that better.

[Earthborn]

Well it is a translation made by actual Iranians, in Iran.Or it is a translation picked up from Western media by actual Iranians in Iran and printed on posters, in Iran. Since the "wiped off the map" idiom does not obviously mean "getting rid of the land mass from the face of the Earth", but might also mean "getting rid of a particular state as a political entity drawn on world maps", what Ahmedinajad said is a very similar sentiment. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel), MEMRI translates it as "be eliminated from the pages of history."

[WildCat]

i find it highly peculiar that the fonts for the first two posters are identical...though different colors.
Maybe because they wewre made by the same people?

but one must ask, do Iranians only have ONE font type for their political posters?
See above.

and how is that these posters, in the middle of the outdoors are soooo very clear? a little too clear to me.
So a professional photographer takes a clear photo, and this is suspicious?

where is the shadow from the black pole on the right of the third poster? based on the angle of the sun, that pole should have cast a shadow on the poster.
It does, I can certainly see it.

and by the way, the "eye-on-the world" blog websites are HARDLY unbiased and impartial. frankly, they are some of the most Islamaphobic sites I have ever seen.
The photos are from Reuters and AFP, I even gave the name of the photographers. Will you be contacting them? And what about the NYT photo? Are they Islamophobic also?

[WildCat]

Or it is a translation picked up from Western media by actual Iranians in Iran and printed on posters, in Iran. Since the "wiped off the map" idiom does not obviously mean "getting rid of the land mass from the face of the Earth", but might also mean "getting rid of a particular state as a political entity drawn on world maps", what Ahmedinajad said is a very similar sentiment. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel), MEMRI translates it as "be eliminated from the pages of history."
The last one is "must be wiped out the world", which can hardly be said to come from a western, English-speaking source.

And has Ahmadinejad ever disputed the translation? I have been unable to find any instance of this.

[Earthborn]

i find it highly peculiar that the fonts for the first two posters are identical...though different colors.It looks like a bold Times New Roman to me. If you think it is peculiar that two posters have this font on them, I assume you consider 90% of everything fake.

and how is that these posters, in the middle of the outdoors are soooo very clear? a little too clear to me.The photographer probably picked the clearest photos to publish.

where is the shadow from the black pole on the right of the third poster? based on the angle of the sun, that pole should have cast a shadow on the poster.Ah, the old "the shadows are all wrong" ! There is no reason to assume the pole should have cast a shadow on the poster.

I have seen similar posters created using Photoshop in 5 damn minutes.Sure, but after that 5 minutes, you couldn't differentiate it from a real poster.

[gtc]

Somewhat off topic, but Tin Foil Timothy is wrong about the New York Times. Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal not the NYT.

I can't see any reason to doubt the veracity of those posters.

[Thunder]

I see many theories to answer my questions. but in the end not one of you can PROVE that the posters are real...and I cannot PROVE that the posters are fake....just yet.

[Earthborn]

The last one is "must be wiped out the world", which can hardly be said to come from a western, English-speaking source.It may have been written by an Iranian for whom English is a second language, having heard the "wiped off the map" quote and writing it down from memory.

And has Ahmadinejad ever disputed the translation?Since the sentiment is pretty similar, I doubt he would bother.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Somewhat off topic, but Tin Foil Timothy is wrong about the New York Times. Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal not the NYT.



My bad. The point still stands though.

[Pardalis]

The only thing I have a problem with is what's in the parenthesis in the first picture. Why would they write about Khomeini that he is the "Founder of Iran's Islamic revolution", I mean, if these posters are from Iran, wouldn't they already know about that?

[WildCat]

Shadow of pole highlighted:

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/shadow.jpg

[Thunder]

yeah, and why does it not cross the poster.....hmmmm?

[Thunder]

The only thing I have a problem with is what's in the parenthesis in the first picture. Why would they write about Khomeini that he is the "Founder of Iran's Islamic revolution", I mean, if these posters are from Iran, wouldn't they already know about that?

absolutely wonderful point. who the hell in Iran does not know who Ayatollah Khomeini is????

and more importantly, you guys should understand just because I believe these posters are frauds...does NOT mean I believe they were created by Israelis. they could have been created by rebellious Iranian students or other haters of the regime.

I mean, when you have thousands of young people rallying around Tehran shouting "Death to the Dictator!!" (I still am shocked that they have the courage to yell such things), one could only imagine how far they would go to get Western support for their efforts to bring down Iran's Islamic regime.

[oldhat]

yeah, and why does it not cross the poster.....hmmmm?

It's behind the billboard.

facepalm.jpg

[WildCat]

The only thing I have a problem with is what's in the parenthesis in the first picture. Why would they write about Khomeini that he is the "Founder of Iran's Islamic revolution", I mean, if these posters are from Iran, wouldn't they already know about that?
Since it's in English I'd guess because it's directed at foreigners. They do know the media is watching.

[Earthborn]

Why would they write about Khomeini that he is the "Founder of Iran's Islamic revolution", I mean, if these posters are from Iran, wouldn't they already know about that?My guess is that the English texts are intended for an International Audience.

Shadow of pole highlighted:I'm not sure that is the same pole. The shadow of the pole may also be the shadow next to the stick holding the billboard up. Without knowing the exact 3 dimensional lay out billdboard, the fence and everything that casts a shadow on it, determining which shadows belong to what is pure guesswork.

[WildCat]

yeah, and why does it not cross the poster.....hmmmm?
It goes behind the billboard because the pole is next to it, not in front of it. Sheesh.

[WildCat]

I'm not sure that is the same pole. The shadow of the pole may also be the shadow next to the stick holding the billboard up. Without knowing the exact 3 dimensional lay out billdboard, the fence and everything that casts a shadow on it, determining which shadows belong to what is pure guesswork.
Note the shadow on the pole, which corresponds to the large rectangular shadow on the wall.

[Thunder]

i still say its a fake. a big phat fake.

[WildCat]

parky, have you contacted the New York Times yet, or the Reuters and AFP photographer?

Morteza Nikoubazl: morteza.nikoubazl@morpix.net (morteza.nikoubazl@morpix.net) or nikoubazl@aim.com (nikoubazl@aim.com)
Mobile Number: +98 - 0 - 912 - 378 - 5162
(publicly available contacts from a google search)

I cannot find any contact info for Atta Kenare, though this might be his Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/people/Atta-Kenare/600745828

[Thunder]

parky, have you contacted the New York Times yet, or the Reuters and AFP photographer?

Morteza Nikoubazl: morteza.nikoubazl@morpix.net (morteza.nikoubazl@morpix.net) or nikoubazl@aim.com (nikoubazl@aim.com)
Mobile Number: +98 - 0 - 912 - 378 - 5162
(publicly available contacts from a google search)

I cannot find any contact info for Atta Kenare, though this might be his Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/people/Atta-Kenare/600745828

"Hi, my name is ####. I was wondering, did you fake those photos from Iran that say "wipe Israel off the map?". Why yes, I did indeed fake them. How did you know? Oh, I don't know, just a lucky guess. Have a great day."

:)

[Arcade22]

i still say its a fake. a big phat fake.

Why do you persist? What evidence do you have that these are faked?

[Thunder]

Why do you persist? What evidence do you have that these are faked?

what evidence do you have that they are NOT fakes?

hmmmmm?

didn't think so.

:p

[Earthborn]

Note the shadow on the pole, which corresponds to the large rectangular shadow on the wall.You mean that pointy shadow on the bluegreenish part directly under the black part of the pole? Yes, could very well be.

[Arcade22]

what evidence do you have that they are NOT fakes?

hmmmmm?

didn't think so.

:p

Now i just know you are trolling...http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094acdcf6e53f4a.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17783)

[Doctor Evil]

Why do you persist? What evidence do you have that these are faked?

http://www.uphaa.com/uploads/8/ig21_above_nile_river_02.jpg

[Thunder]

no, i do believe they are fake, due to the incredible clarity and due to the line explaining who the Ayatollah is.

honestly, who in the damn WORLD doesn't know who the Ayatollah is?

i believe this was most likely put in by the Iranian creators of the posters, because they don't know how familiar Westerners are with their history. if these were made by the govt., they would know that Brits, Americans, etc, know who Ayatollah Khomeini was.

[Earthborn]

they could have been created by rebellious Iranian students or other haters of the regime.I see absolutely no reason to assume that these must have been made by haters of the regime. (And let's also not forget that haters of the Iranian government are not necessarily lovers of Israel) If I see this (http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1294ad90126dbbf2.jpg), then I'll assume it was made by haters of the Iranian regime...

[Lensman]

To me, it looks like the reason the shadow of the post not appearing to fall onto the poster is that the pos is ALONGSIDE the poster - not in front of it.
Below is my interpretation of that corner of the photo - I hope it's understandable. The "Z" area is not (IMHO) the shadow of the post, but the overlapping part of his shirt - it's part of the poster. I believe the shadow "c" is the shadow of the post "C".

[Thunder]

To me, it looks like the reason the shadow of the post not appearing to fall onto the poster is that the pos is ALONGSIDE the poster - not in front of it.
Below is my interpretation of that corner of the photo - I hope it's understandable.

very good observation. i now only believe they are 95% fake.

:D

[Tin Foil Timothy]

absolutely wonderful point. who the hell in Iran does not know who Ayatollah Khomeini is????

and more importantly, you guys should understand just because I believe these posters are frauds...does NOT mean I believe they were created by Israelis. they could have been created by rebellious Iranian students or other haters of the regime.

I mean, when you have thousands of young people rallying around Tehran shouting "Death to the Dictator!!" (I still am shocked that they have the courage to yell such things), one could only imagine how far they would go to get Western support for their efforts to bring down Iran's Islamic regime.


Indeed. Good point.

Would you get a poster in America that says:

Barack Obama (President of the United States Of America )


Hell no.

And why is "Founder of Iran's Islamic revolution" and "Israel must be wiped off the map" the only two lines in English?


If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....


IMO these are definitely fakes. The wiped off the map mistranslation is the most over used and pathetic Zionist piece of propaganda ever. It does actually work on some people though. How embarrasing.

[Thunder]

Indeed. Good point.

Would you get a poster in America that says:

Barack Obama (President of the United States Of America ) .

yes......in Texas.

[gtc]

It was a translation made by the official Iranian news agency.

I wasn't aware that they were run by the Jews.

[WildCat]

You mean that pointy shadow on the bluegreenish part directly under the black part of the pole? Yes, could very well be.
Yes.

[Earthborn]

Would you get a poster in America that says:

Barack Obama (President of the United States Of America )Probably. Wouldn't surprise me. It would surprise me even less if a poster quotes someone who founded the country, or lived some time ago.

And why is "Founder of Iran's Islamic revolution" and "Israel must be wiped off the map" the only two lines in English?Probably because there is not that much other text on the poster.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....In this case, it doesn't walk, and it doesn't quack.

[WildCat]

It was a translation made by the official Iranian news agency.

I wasn't aware that they were run by the Jews.
Those Jews Zionists are a clever bunch...

[Thunder]

lets all just agree to disagree.

i believe these are fake..others believe they are genuine.

the end.

[WildCat]

lets all just agree to disagree.

i believe these are fake..others believe they are genuine.

the end.
So basically you have no reason except "it doesn't look right to me", and you're shocked a professional photographer can take a clear picture?

[tyr_13]

what evidence do you have that they are NOT fakes?

hmmmmm?

didn't think so.

:p

You honestly shifting the burden of proof will fly on a skeptic's site? You prove they aren't real, or have been altered.

Indeed. Good point.

Would you get a poster in America that says:

Barack Obama (President of the United States Of America )


Hell no.

And why is "Founder of Iran's Islamic revolution" and "Israel must be wiped off the map" the only two lines in English?


If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....


IMO these are definitely fakes. The wiped off the map mistranslation is the most over used and pathetic Zionist piece of propaganda ever. It does actually work on some people though. How embarrasing.

You don't understand the language or the culture fully so your assumption is worthless. Comparing what we'd do in English means very little for what they'd translate it as.

That said, their translations into English might be less than ideal. For example, http://engrishfunny.com/

However, why do people persist in saying that isn't essentially what Iran holds? How many times can they say it? Now I understand that for the language and culture, the words they are using may be less than literal, but it still is remarkably aggressive. From what I've learned, it would be the equivalent of saying in English, "we'll beat the hell out of them," rather than, "we will literally kill each and every one of them."

As far as the pictures being faked, I have some experience here. I spent years debunking ghost photos. True, it is much easier when you can request the file with the EXIF data still intact. However, I don't see any manipulation on first glance. Seeing as these are no where near the original size makes it difficult to say for sure though, and makes thorough examination of the pictures less enticing.

Still, if you maintain they are fake, YOU must prove it. Speculation on what you think the Iranians would have done isn't proof unless you happen to have lived in Iran for several years and are fluent in the language.

[Thunder]

they look like fakes to me. for several reasons. that's all that matters.

[defaultdotxbe]

are you really arguing that they are too clear to have been taken outdoors?

because whenever i want to take a clear picture i take whatever i want to photograph outside and take the picture in bright, natural light and it comes out much clearer

[WildCat]

they look like fakes to me. for several reasons. that's all that matters.
Actually all that matters would be evidence.

Got any?

[tyr_13]

they look like fakes to me. for several reasons. that's all that matters.

No it isn't. You have an awfully inflated view of yourself.

[Thunder]

its all that matters...to me.

[WildCat]

"Hi, my name is ####. I was wondering, did you fake those photos from Iran that say "wipe Israel off the map?". Why yes, I did indeed fake them. How did you know? Oh, I don't know, just a lucky guess. Have a great day."

:)
You could confirm if the photographer stands by them and thus that the blog you said was biased didn't fake them, yes?

[WildCat]

its all that matters...to me.
Sounds like a religion.

[Caustic Logic]

no, i do believe they are fake, due to the incredible clarity and due to the line explaining who the Ayatollah is.

honestly, who in the damn WORLD doesn't know who the Ayatollah is?

Lol. It doesn't even say Ayatollah. It says Imam Khomeini. The English, like in so many protesters' signs, are for foreign eyes, clearly. The third photo does look suspiciously clear, but they didn't screw up any shadows and no twoofer-grade analysis will do here.

I'm prone to see and suspect propaganda, like the alternate translations of that wiped off the map speech being deliberate. But I have to say, these photos are a decent counterpoint that somebody with the ability to print and display things somewhere vaguely Persian-seeming has me wondering if Maybe the Iranian government really does talk and think like so many insist - collectively bloodthirsty anti-Semitic reavers bent on evil destruction.

[Oliver]

Here we go again, Jerry. :rolleyes:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110748deefa7eb37a.jpg

[Whiplash]

they look like fakes to me. for several reasons. that's all that matters.


That says it all.

[Arcade22]

That is a pathetic post. You should be ashamed. I would expect that from TFT but not you.

He once said they were "allies"...:eek:

[tyr_13]

Now that looks photoshopped cause your text is all pixely.

Actually, that's not true. The photo is clearly edited for another little detail that many hoaxers forget. The areas around where the edit were done, and specifically where the shoulder was deleted for the longer text, is almost completely uniform light gray where as in the real picture there are pixelation artifacts and distortion (and some compression artifacts). The Palin one only has compression artifacts around the words and a little at the edging, and a noticeable spot a little low between the p and w. It's kind of big to be compression, and looks like a 'cover'.

Also someone 'cut' her hair a little towards the tank, but if the poster was a real one, it could have been done like that anyway.

[Thunder]

Here we go again, Jerry. :rolleyes:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110748deefa7eb37a.jpg

funny.

but this also shows how very easily the original photo could have been created.

thank you Oliver.

could you do us a favor and change the text font and size to the same as in the original? i want it to be painfully obvious to these guys that this poster could have been made using Windows XP.

[tyr_13]

Actually, that's not true. The photo is clearly edited for another little detail that many hoaxers forget. The areas around where the edit were done, and specifically where the shoulder was deleted for the longer text, is almost completely uniform light gray where as in the real picture there are pixelation artifacts and distortion (and some compression artifacts). The Palin one only has compression artifacts around the words and a little at the edging, and a noticeable spot a little low between the p and w. It's kind of big to be compression, and looks like a 'cover'.

Also someone 'cut' her hair a little towards the tank, but if the poster was a real one, it could have been done like that anyway.

funny.

but this also shows how very easily the original photo could have been created.

thank you Oliver.

could you do us a favor and change the text font and size to the same as in the original? i want it to be painfully obvious to these guys that this poster could have been made using Windows XP.

Because you missed it.

Any photo could have been faked (which is what I assume you meant by created), but that doesn't mean we assume every photo was faked. You must supply evidence that it was.

You not believe they don't speak like that isn't evidence.

[WildCat]

funny.

but this also shows how very easily the original photo could have been created.

thank you Oliver.

could you do us a favor and change the text font and size to the same as in the original? i want it to be painfully obvious to these guys that this poster could have been made using Windows XP.
Shades of Ace Baker proving the video of the WTC towers getting hit by airplanes was faked.

[Thunder]

Shades of Ace Baker proving the video of the WTC towers getting hit by airplanes was faked.

one cannot deny, that thanks to Oliver's work, it has been shown that this poster could have indeed been created on a home computer.

Now, I am not saying that this poster is 100% a guarunteed fake. I am only suggesting the possibility that it is a fake, and Oliver has shown how easily it could have been faked.

Is it a fake? I think it is...but I'm not 100% convinced either way. But the fact that it COULD have been faked is a big deal.

deal with it.

[Undesired Walrus]

no, i do believe they are fake, due to the incredible clarity and due to the line explaining who the Ayatollah is.

honestly, who in the damn WORLD doesn't know who the Ayatollah is?



Using the above logic, I content this poster is fake.

http://rlv.zcache.com/president_obama_change_is_now_poster_print-p228282731973821796vsu7_325.jpg

[Stout]

Sure..they *could* have been faked

I'm unable to find any other sources for these images when i search around the 'net. I found a couple of examples of anti-American billboards posted in Tehran and I even found a story about these guys who hacked into a LCD billboard and put some porn on it, just for giggles.

I was expecting to find more examples of the types of billboards under discussion though, just so I could come back here with examples. But alas....

[Eyeron]

This is a great example of how prejudism can affect reasoning.

Just because something looks fake doesn't mean that it is.

After all, the Platypus looks like a Photoshop so it must be a a fake. Only ducks can have a bill.

If you suspect an image is fake you should take the photo to as well as the engatives to an expert image analysis.

Go ahead, but I'm pretty sure that if it was taken to a hundred experts and they all said it was not a fake, some people will still say that it is because of their prejudism against Jews.

That's the sad reality of it.

[Thunder]

Using the above logic, I content this poster is fake.

http://rlv.zcache.com/president_obama_change_is_now_poster_print-p228282731973821796vsu7_325.jpg

what would be the political objective of faking such a poster? who would profit from such an endeavor?

there is nothing controversial about this Obama poster, and therefore no even slightly rational reason to assume it was created fraudulently.

as for the Iran posters, they were created during a time of great conflict between Israel, the West, and Iran. thousands if not millions of lives are at stake. plus we have thousands of Iranians who hate their governmenrt and would wish for nothing less then to have someone take it down.

see the difference?

[Undesired Walrus]

what would be the political objective of faking such a poster? who would profit from such an endeavor?

But parky, you too, have no idea who would profit from faking these pictures. You have a vague idea it might be some college kids, or something, but don't go into any more detail. Nor have you explained how fabricated images got into a national newspaper. Is the photographer(s) a member of anything shady that may correspond to your theories of who had a political motive? Have you looked into it?

there is nothing controversial about this Obama poster, and therefore no even slightly rational reason to assume it was created fraudulently.

as for the Iran posters, they were created during a time of great conflict between Israel, the West, and Iran. thousands if not millions of lives are at stake. plus we have thousands of Iranians who hate their governmenrt and would wish for nothing less then to have someone take it down.

see the difference?

Contact the photographer. It's easy, even if you don't know him. Ask him where it was taken, and then work on the task of tracking down who lived on that street. Ask whoever you get in contact with if they remember that poster. They may provide you with a photo taken at the same time that shows no poster there. Do it. These millions of lives may be at stake.

If not, why not?

[Thunder]

But parky, you too, have no idea who would profit from faking these pictures. You have a vague idea it might be some college kids, or something, but don't go into any more detail. Nor have you explained how fabricated images got into a national newspaper. Is the photographer(s) a member of anything shady that may correspond to your theories of who had a political motive? Have you looked into it?

call me a racist, but I would not put it past an Iranian photographer, working for the NY Times or the AP, from doing a little late night fudge work in order to get some more $$ or more media excitement...or to get the West riled up.

[Undesired Walrus]

i said that its most likely that some Iranians put the posters together.


Evidence? Do the photographers have a history of doing this kind of thing? Are they associated with anyone who does?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Undesired Walrus]

call me a racist, but I would not put it past an Iranian photographer, working for the NY Times or the AP, from doing a little late night fudge work in order to get some more $$ or more media excitement...or to get the West riled up.

Speculation, not evidence.

Contacted him yet? If not, why not? All you have to ask is where he took the photo.

[Undesired Walrus]

Another vote for "pro-zionist media fakery"!

Since parky won't do it, will you be contacting the New York Times with your damning evidence of photo manipulation?

eta: the NYT photographer was Shawn Baldwin. Here is his web site: http://www.shawnbaldwin.com/

His email: shawnbaldwin@hotmail.com

Phone #: +20 (12) 792-2889

(Which one is the NYT photo?)

'For the past 10 years he has covered major news events in the US, Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East'

From looking at that site, Shawn Baldwin is clearly a man who would risk his entire profession by faking a photograph.

[WildCat]

that is a dirty lie and you *********** know it.

i said that its most likely that some Iranians put the posters together.
Nope. You actually said:
notice how the text of "Israel must be wiped off the map" in the 1st and 2nd poster are literally identical fonts.

fakes. total fakes.
Now you want to claim that Iranians put that on the posters, and nobody there noticed? You do realize that English is widely spoken in Iran, don't you?

you can quit with the Zionist stuff already.
So what's the motivation parky? Why does the NYT publish fake photos?

you are starting to sound like Goebels and Streicher for Christ's sake.
Says the Ace Baker sound-alike.

and more importantly, I am really kinda curious as to why you guys give such a flying **** as to whether or not I think these posters are legit. who cares. people are allowed to have different views in the USA. we are still a free country. I'm not walking around street corners yelling "the Iran posters are an inside job!!!"

get a grip guys. Its Saturday morning.
This is a skeptic site, where irrational views such as yours are challenged. Deal with it.

[WildCat]

(Which one is the NYT photo?)
The billboard of Nasrallah, which appears on this page: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

'For the past 10 years he has covered major news events in the US, Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East'

From looking at that site, Shawn Baldwin is clearly a man who would risk his entire profession by faking a photograph.
Anything to please his Zionist masters.

[Earthborn]

what would be the political objective of faking such a poster?If only you had thought about that question when the Iranian photos came up.

plus we have thousands of Iranians who hate their governmenrt and would wish for nothing less then to have someone take it down.There are plenty of Iranians who hate their government, but I sincerely doubt there are "thousands" who want some other country marching in and taking it down. They have seen what happened in a neighbouring country when some other country marched in and took down its government -- and that was a government that was quite a bit more dictatorial. I would be very surprised if you could find even one Iranian who says "Yay, USA! Come and bomb us, please!"

There is also no reason whatsoever to assume these crummy translations were included by Iranians who hate their government. Far more likely they were included by Iranians who hate the Israeli government.

see the difference?No, not really.

[Undesired Walrus]

The billboard of Nasrallah, which appears on this page: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


Can't access that. The third one in your OP?

If so, it turns out that Mr Baldwin must have had his photo sabotaged without his knowledge by the anti-Ahmadinejad students, Zionists, whoever the hell people are contending were behind this hoax. They then wiped his memory so he didn't protest.

[Pardalis]

IMO these are definitely fakes.

You can't know that. But you're 100% sure because it suits your ideology to believe that.

[Pardalis]

no, i do believe they are fake, due to the incredible clarity and due to the line explaining who the Ayatollah is.

The former you already believed, but you are not an expert in photography or printing, so you can't be sure 100%. You're talking out of personal incredulity.

The latter was an observation I made earlier, so it wasn't something you originally thought of, you took that and ran with it because it confirmed your original belief.

Wildcat and Earthborn gave a reasonable explanation for it (although they may be wrong).

The only way to be sure would be to contact the original photographers.

[Earthborn]

one cannot deny, that thanks to Oliver's work, it has been shown that this poster could have indeed been created on a home computer.Of course no one has denied that. In fact some of us have been saying from the beginning that it would be fairly easy to do, even showing a tricked version before he did.

The point however is that because it is easy to fake, it is wrong to claim that the photos are obviously fakes. If they were fake, there would be nothing obviously fake about them. The only thing we can to guess how likely it is that they are fake, is to judge how likely it is that what the photos depict could be something that is real. Is there any reason to assume that the Iranian government wouldn't have chosen these quotes? I don't think there is.

But the fact that it COULD have been faked is a big deal.No, it isn't. In a world where there are films showing silver blokes riding surfboards through the air, cars transform into robots, and nature documentaries show living dinosaurs -- all without obvious signs of fakery -- the fact that something could have been faked is not a big deal at all; simply because all imagery could have been faked.

It would have been a big deal if you had any reason to assume it had to be faked, but so far you haven't given any.

[Childlike Empress]

Another vote for "pro-zionist media fakery"!


Count me in too. It absolutely makes no sense to me that they would use english on the poster or the podium at all. To send a message to the world with a mistranslated quote, so that you can post it here? Please. And what do the participants or passers-by think about them using the language of the great satan? Doesn't add street credibility, me thinks.

Seems to be faked by someone who is aware of the self-centeredness of the target audience.

[Klimax]

could you do us a favor and change the text font and size to the same as in the original? i want it to be painfully obvious to these guys that this poster could have been made using Windows XP.

Windows XP are OS.

Anyway no proof and oliver just showed that it is possible,not that it was done. So far your side is losing and victory is very far indeed as AFAIK czech arabist confirmed translation.

[Pardalis]

Another vote for "pro-zionist media fakery"!

Since parky won't do it, will you be contacting the New York Times with your damning evidence of photo manipulation?

eta: the NYT photographer was Shawn Baldwin. Here is his web site: http://www.shawnbaldwin.com/

His email: shawnbaldwin@hotmail.com

Phone #: +20 (12) 792-2889

From his website, I found this one particularly interesting:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/Image32-1.png

Weither the pics in the OP are faked or not is beyond the point, Iran's generalized animosity towards Israel is well known, there's really no need to fake it, it's plainly obvious.

[Earthborn]

Can't access that.Just remove the login stuff from the url. I think you should be able to directly access the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html) without signing up, though I am not sure because I signed up (it's free).

The third one in your OP?Yes.

[Arcade22]

Count me in too. It absolutely makes no sense to me that they would use english on the poster or the podium at all. To send a message to the world with a mistranslated quote, so that you can post it here? Please. And what do the participants or passers-by think about them using the language of the great satan? Doesn't add street credibility, me thinks.

Seems to be faked by someone who is aware of the self-centeredness of the target audience.

So you have no evidence that it is faked?

[Undesired Walrus]

Count me in too. It absolutely makes no sense to me that they would use english on the poster or the podium at all. To send a message to the world with a mistranslated quote, so that you can post it here? Please. And what do the participants or passers-by think about them using the language of the great satan? Doesn't add street credibility, me thinks.

Seems to be faked by someone who is aware of the self-centeredness of the target audience.

When are you getting in contact with Shawn Baldwin?

[Undesired Walrus]

Care to explain why Childlike?

Childlike: Mr Baldwin, where was that photograph taken?

Mr Baldwin: It was taken on XXXXX street.

(Childlike gets out of the armchair and does some real research. Gets in contact with Iranians on that street. Asks them if they remember that poster. Person says no. Victory!)

Of course, Baldwin might say 'I don't remember', but that is often the result one gets when they do real, proper research rather than post on the net.

[Pardalis]

We could also ask to see the original files.

[tyr_13]

We could also ask to see the original files.

I've just emailed Mr. Baldwin. The picture was for the NYT, however, he does sell prints of his work. Don't hold out hope that he will send me the original files. Also, don't take it as a cover up. Why pay him for prints if you can just ask him for the file in email and go to Wal-Mart?

[Caustic Logic]

But... just cause someone's prejudismed and even acting ridiculous doesn't mean they're wrong on every point they might make. I'm not saying these AREN'T fakes...

Tyr, great job. Sorry I have no time today for a mystery tday but I''ll check backsometie later.

[tyr_13]

I already have a reply. He identified the picture as his, and verified that it is an accurate depiction. Mr. Baldwin doesn't recall the name of the neighborhood in which it was taken, however, he does confirm that it is fairly common to see English text on posters and billboards throughout the Middle East.

The assumption is that it is done for foreigners or the foreign media who don't speak the local language.

[WildCat]

I already have a reply. He identified the picture as his, and verified that it is an accurate depiction. Mr. Baldwin doesn't recall the name of the neighborhood in which it was taken, however, he does confirm that it is fairly common to see English text on posters and billboards throughout the Middle East.

The assumption is that it is done for foreigners or the foreign media who don't speak the local language.
Well that just proves he is a Zionist shill! Either that or tyr is a Zionist shill and is lying about emailing Baldwin!

But someone is a Zionist shill!

[Undesired Walrus]

I already have a reply. He identified the picture as his, and verified that it is an accurate depiction. Mr. Baldwin doesn't recall the name of the neighborhood in which it was taken, however, he does confirm that it is fairly common to see English text on posters and billboards throughout the Middle East.

The assumption is that it is done for foreigners or the foreign media who don't speak the local language.

Well done tyr. The way a proper researcher should act. Could you print Mr Baldwin's reply?

[Pardalis]

I already have a reply. He identified the picture as his, and verified that it is an accurate depiction. Mr. Baldwin doesn't recall the name of the neighborhood in which it, however, he does confirm that it is fairly common to see English text on posters and billboards throughout the Middle East.

The assumption is that it is done for foreigners or the foreign media who don't speak the local language.

:solved2http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/detective.gif

[tyr_13]

Well done tyr. The way a proper researcher should act. Could you print Mr Baldwin's reply?

Yup. Printed it out and am holding in my hands right now. What? That wasn't what you meant? :p

I can only speak for the picture I took. It was obviously not 'faked' and afraid I don't remember the name of the neighborhood that I took it in.
I've seen posters/billboards in one form or another all around the middle east and its fairly common to have some text in English. I assume its done for foreigners/foreign media who don't speak the local language.


I've removed the contact information, my name, and other non-pertinent parts of the email. Posting an entire correspondence without permission isn't very nice, but I can assure you that all I removed were pleasantries and Mr. Baldwin inquiring into what agency I work for. I told him Sam's Club.

[Drudgewire]

Maybe tomorrow I'll write to the photographers and ask them if the pictures are fakes. Oh, but there is an oyster festival in Oyster Bay, LI tomorrow..and I gotta do laundry. The fake photos may have to wait till Monday.


Or you could just read the response by the photographer tyr already got. vhttp://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/shobon.gifv

[Undesired Walrus]

Yup. Printed it out and am holding in my hands right now. What? That wasn't what you meant? :p



I've removed the contact information, my name, and other non-pertinent parts of the email. Posting an entire correspondence without permission isn't very nice, but I can assure you that all I removed were pleasantries and Mr. Baldwin inquiring into what agency I work for. I told him Sam's Club.

Thanks. How'd you email him, out of interest?

[Stout]

sillyness ???

I beg to differ, in fact just to prove I'm as hip as a New Yorker, I'm going to raise my styrofoam cup of whatever that wine that comes in that great big box is and salute the JREFers who put the effort into debunking what turned out to be a comment from the hip from someone who should have known better.

Then I'ma gonna have a big' ole can of pork and beans fèves au lard and settle down in front of the TV and watch all of last weeks Jerry Springer episodes in glorious black and white. :D

Cheers.

[WildCat]

sillyness ???

I beg to differ, in fact just to prove I'm as hip as a New Yorker, I'm going to raise my styrofoam cup of whatever that wine that comes in that great big box is and salute the JREFers who put the effort into debunking what turned out to be a comment from the hip from someone who should have known better.

Then I'ma gonna have a big' ole can of pork and beans fèves au lard and settle down in front of the TV and watch all of last weeks Jerry Springer episodes in glorious black and white. :D

Cheers.
You ARE living the high life!

[tyr_13]

Thanks. How'd you email him, out of interest?

Someone linked to his website and he has contact information on it. This includes his Egypt cell phone number.

I believe Wildcat posted the contact information of at least one of the other photographers in the thread too.

[defaultdotxbe]

Count me in too. It absolutely makes no sense to me that they would use english on the poster or the podium at all. To send a message to the world with a mistranslated quote, so that you can post it here? Please. And what do the participants or passers-by think about them using the language of the great satan? Doesn't add street credibility, me thinks.

Seems to be faked by someone who is aware of the self-centeredness of the target audience.
so are you saying the government of iran is not aware of american self centeredness?

BTW methinks "methinks" is one word, not two

[WildCat]

Actually, only a non-skeptic fool would claim that one of the pictures in this thread is authentic without any doubt whatsoever.

But what I'm really wondering about is the fact that Jerry is so obsessed with those particular photos as if it's his "Holy Bible of Islamic Terror". For 2 years he's posting those pictures now, I really don't know why he's bringing it up again for this thread.

It's almost as if he's trying to spam the board with those pictures for propaganda purposes furthering his agenda. :p
I only show those pics after you and others claim Ahmadinejad was mistranslated. Yet the original translations were by official Iranian news agencies, Ahmadinejad never said he was mistranslated, and these pics show other Iranians translate the phrase similarly.

It seems the only people claiming Ahmadinejad was mistranslated (and he was actually quoting Ayatollah Khomeini) are people outside Iran.

[Childlike Empress]

I only show those pics after you and others claim Ahmadinejad was mistranslated. Yet the original translations were by official Iranian news agencies


This is not true. The "wiped off the map" translation was made by Nazila Fathi for the New York Times, based on the original persian transcript published by the Iranian Student News Agency. She translated it to "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement."

MEMRI translated the passage to "Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise."

Other sources translate it to "vanish from this world - literally translated: from the arena of times".

Notice that all these translations, even the "wipe off the map" one, speak of the "regime". Not "Israel".

[Thunder]

Notice that all these translations, even the "wipe off the map" one, speak of the "regime". Not "Israel".

Ahh, so Iran plans on funding and giving more support to anti-Zionist political groups in Israel, in the hopes that a new government will take over and there will be a peaceful transition of power, where Jews and Muslims will live in equality?

Wouldn't it just be easier for Iran to simply nuke Tel Aviv?

:)

[Childlike Empress]

I can find Tel Aviv on a map, but not the occupying regime. :)

[Pardalis]

This is not true. The "wiped off the map" translation was made by Nazila Fathi for the New York Times, based on the original persian transcript published by the Iranian Student News Agency. She translated it to "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement."

MEMRI translated the passage to "Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise."

Other sources translate it to "vanish from this world - literally translated: from the arena of times".

Notice that all these translations, even the "wipe off the map" one, speak of the "regime". Not "Israel".

It doesn't matter, the pictures are genuine.

[Thunder]

You know folks, it doesn't really matter if these posters are fakes or not. We all know that the Iranian regime is very anti-Israel and would nuke them if they had the ability to do so.

[Eyeron]

Not to mention that the US Government says that Iran is sponsoring terrorism against Israel.

[Earthborn]

You know folks, it doesn't really matter if these posters are fakes or not.It wouldn't have mattered if you didn't start denying that they were fakes, but now it does.

We all know that the Iranian regime is very anti-Israel and would nuke them if they had the ability to do so.Rubbish. There is no reason to assume they hate the Palestinians so much that they would nuke them together with the Israelis.

[GreNME]

It seems we have a lot of confirmation bias on both "sides" of this issue. A lot of posters around here seem willing to stick to their conclusions regardless of information that either has been discovered (through communication, like tyr_13's e-mail) or that already exists.

On one side of the spectrum, we have the constant assertions by WildCat that there exists no dispute from the Ahmadi camp as to what was being said regarding the "wiped from the map" comment:

And has Ahmadinejad ever disputed the translation? I have been unable to find any instance of this.

I only show those pics after you and others claim Ahmadinejad was mistranslated. Yet the original translations were by official Iranian news agencies, Ahmadinejad never said he was mistranslated, and these pics show other Iranians translate the phrase similarly.

It seems the only people claiming Ahmadinejad was mistranslated (and he was actually quoting Ayatollah Khomeini) are people outside Iran.

Those are just two ends of a series of assertions to that affect. The reality is that Ahmadi has clarified his statements, and done so more than once. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Clarifying_comments _by_Ahmadinejad):

President Ahmadinejad has been asked to explain his comments at subsequent press conferences. At a later news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[28] (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/international/middleeast/15tehran.html?ex=1294981200&en=aa775eeb6ae97fbd&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want."

Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being "no need for any measures by the Iranian people". Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. "I assure you... there won't be any war in the future," both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.[29] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7495869.stm)[30] (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j8TD_Bvt9a45XzsLprHlYcjnK17wD91PLMDO0)

And asked if he objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that "creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish". He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country's parliament.[29] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7495869.stm)

In a September 2008 interview with Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman on the radio and television program Democracy Now!, Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?" and replied

If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[31] (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/09/25/2008-09-25_mahmoud_ahmadinejad_ok_we_may_have_a_few-2.html?page=1)

Interviewer Juan Gonzalez called the reply "a tiny opening".[31] (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/09/25/2008-09-25_mahmoud_ahmadinejad_ok_we_may_have_a_few-2.html?page=1) Another observer however dubbed it an "astonishing" admission "that Iran might agree to the existence of the state of Israel," and a "softening" of Ahmadinejad's "long-standing, point-blank anti-Israeli stance". Australian-born British human rights activist Peter Tatchell also asked whether the statement reflected opportunism on Ahmadinejad's part, or an openness by Iran "to options more moderate than his reported remarks about wiping the Israeli state off the map."[32] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/29/iran.israel.ahmadinejad)

It's fairly evident that Ahmadi has, indeed, played at least a bit of backpedaling with regard to the nature of the statement. It's also fairly evident that he's not above using the reaction by the West to the statement to its full effect-- by this I mean that it's perfectly understandable that Ahmadi would both play his backpedaling game when pressed for clarification (as has been done), as well as posting snippets including that statement in propaganda (as shown in at least one authenticated photo, credit to try_13 for authenticating). This shouldn't even be particularly surprising coming from Ahmadinejad's regime, considering his multiple stunts trying to garner attention toward Iran throughout his administration. A mistake one would too easily make, however, is to assume too much one way or the other regarding the issues at play here: is Ahmadi anti-semitic? Was the original quote a call for destruction of Israel? Do posters with the "wiped off the map" exist in Iran? Does this equate to Iran in general (or their leaders specifically) being anti-semitic?

To answer those questions, I suggest looking first back at the germane part of the speech in question that kicked off the whole argument to begin with. The Wiki page I mentioned earlier has a quote that seems to be undisputed in terms of general, overall accuracy (specifics on the "wiped off the map" part will come in a bit), and the part of Ahmadi's speech in question is as follows (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?_r=1&ex=1161230400&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ei=5070):

Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.

In the quote, "Our dear Imam" is Khomeini and "this regime" he mentions is Israel. About this there is no doubt nor any real dispute. The dispute tends to lie in what Ahmadinejad is stating were Khomeini's words. Those arguing the "vanish from the pages of time" translation point to Khomeini's actual words and not specifically Ahmadi's speech, while the "wiped off the map" crowd focuses entirely on Ahmadi's own words and add to it words that follow like "eliminate this disgraceful stain" with regard to Israel, or noting that the speech in general had a fairly anti-Israel bent.

The point of interest to note is that neither argument is incorrect on its face. Khomeini did indeed use the "vanish from the pages of time" language and Ahmadinejad's speech was strongly anti-Israel in nature. The two are not mutually exclusive, and the fact that this was a political speech informs us as to the nature of the statement in question and the dispute in general. There should be little doubt that Ahmadinejad was speaking out against Israel and using Khomeini's words as a form of legitimization of his stance-- politicians do this all the time, whether it's the use of historical or religious figures, or even the use of recent revered figures like the regular invocation of Reagan by the Republican Party in the US. It's not particularly novel or surprising that Ahmadi would engage in the same type of political rhetoric, and in the framework of both political science and effective public speaking using rhetorical anchors while promoting an agenda or idea is among the more elementary concepts that are regularly employed. This is clearly what Ahmadinejad did, using Khomeini's words to bolster his own speech, so the dispute as it's been carried forward seems to be more focused on the intentions of Iran regarding Israel than it does the academic translation of the Parsi text into English and the literal meaning therein.

So what are the intentions of Iran regarding Israel? It should be noted that Ahmadinejad's political position carries with it no direct foreign relations role, and despite his trips to the UN headquarters or his statements on foreign policy he sets no direct agenda as to the path of Iran and any foreign power or diplomatic status. This is worth keeping under consideration because it helps to display for the observer who his intended audiences were: first the Iranian people in setting the tone and attitude, and secondary to that the perception of foreign media or political entities as to the general political climate inside of Iran. That Ahmadi's words were aggressive and bordering on belligerent were obviously no accident, and it's safe to assume that his ability to utilize calculated words and phrases to achieve a desired result fall well within the "quite capable" range and not the "totally incompetent/irresponsible" range. Ahmadinejad's education is significant enough (he was an engineering doctorate) to assume that he has experience in thinking through and planning his direction, and his political career (going back to the 1980's) is enough to assume he's picked up at least the foresight to understand that his words are being watched and examined. Considering all of Ahmadi's "clarifications" that followed afterward indicated no implied direct outward threat and considering his actions like hosting the Holocaust denial conference, the most likely conclusions that one could take from Ahmadinejad's position are that 1) he prefers to be intentionally controversial and 2) he likely harbors at least some anti-semitic sentiment. What one takes from this regarding the political position of Iran on the world stage-- primarily with regard to open threat against Israel-- depends highly on one's own disposition toward tinges of anti-semitism (as opposed to outright hate speech) with relation to Iran's long-standing anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian diplomatic stance (not to mention their known support of Hezbollah). What cannot be denied is that Ahmadi's speech was clearly within the line of rhetoric that Iran has consistently held with regard to being provocateurs in support of groups fighting the Israeli government and its occupation of Palestinian lands or its territories gained over the years from battles with neighbors.

All of the above considerations typically get distilled into the political debate as to to the general overall threat Iran poses to its neighbors, and to that end Ahmadi's posturing has lent a great deal to those who would argue that Iran is a constant existential threat while simultaneously garnering fundamentalist support for Ahmadinejad within Iranian borders. Regarding the issue of whether the pictures in question are accurately depicting the "wiped off the map" statements present in Iranian posters or billboards becomes less questionable when viewed in that light, since Ahmadi wouldn't be doing anything new in terms of garnering foreign criticism and using that as fuel for populist support among the Iranian population. It's been noted by myself and by others here on the JREF forums, as well as by commentaries and observations by those with more extensive credentials outside of the forums, that the Iranian population are generally nationalistic in that they don't welcome outside threatening behavior, regardless of whether they stand in solidarity with the ruling regime or not. In a rather elementary sense, it serves to maintain the perceived legitimacy of Ahmadi's more hard-line administration to have outspoken opposition from noteworthy foreign powers, and certainly Ahmadinejad's initial speech played well to those ends when this subject broke into the world news circles. The discussion of Iran's actual level of threat to Israel or anyone else aside-- that would warrant a whole different thread, I think-- the existence of a regular perceived threat serves to maintain a critical stance toward Iran from the outside, which serves to bolster the hard-line rhetoric that tends to rely on implications that Iran is constantly threatened from all sides, requiring a strong, hard, aggressive hand of leadership, and thus supporting the hard-liner case for why they should be at the reigns of the Iranian government. This even played out in the recent elections in Iran, where Ahmadinejad regularly commented that the main support for his opponents came from outside Western (or Israeli) sources. Far from being concerned with correcting or disputing outside conceptions of Iranian threat or aggression, the current regime seems blatantly intent on fostering the foreign impression of implied or existential threat by Iran to its neighbors without saying outright the nature or method of any such threat. To that end, the existence of posters or billboards as have been shown clearly would fall into the realm of being a political tool, particularly due to their use of English-- the lingua Franca of Western authority-- containing the provocative phrase in question. That Ahmadi has been careful to only backpedal in terms of asserting any kind of political dispensation on his part toward foreign relations makes the continued use of the phrase clear: he has no authority to claim an official stance by the Iranian government toward Israel or anyone else, as his position is purely a domestic political office, but that doesn't stop him from using foreign reactions to bolster his administration's influence of political support.

All of this taken into consideration, there's criticism to go around in terms of the two "sides" of the debate in this thread. On parky's side, the criticism is that assuming the Iranian leadership wouldn't engage in this type of political trolling completely separate from any official stance, policy, or intention is nonsensical-- the pictures are likely accurate enough, and they seem to be accomplishing the likely intended political purposes considering the foreign agitation they've garnered. We've confirmed the accuracy of at least one photo directly from the source, so continuing arguments from incredulity really aren't logically sound on your part. On WildCat's side, the criticism is that your enthusiasm to display for parky that his assumptions were mistaken led you to making over-inflated comments that relied on confirmation bias and hyperbole themselves-- precisely the kind of logical and rhetorical faults that tend to build themselves into the mistaken assumptions parky was maintaining that you opposed. Opposing incorrect or flawed beliefs by employing some of the tools incorrect or flawed belief relies on makes for poor argument, and can result in creating just another flawed or incorrect belief. In the strictest of senses (Wildcat), your conclusion that the pics are accurate is more correct that parky's assertions to the contrary, but some of the claims you use-- and whether you agree with my more detailed and nuanced explanation or not, you used hyperbolic, less-factual abbreviated statements-- don't exactly mesh with the reality of supporting data and probabilities concerning the conclusion. And to all of those interested, this subject-- the use of the "wiped off the map" language in political posters or billboards-- neither confirms nor denies the existence of state-run or state-sponsored anti-semitism, and it doesn't establish or discredit arguments as to the actual existential threat Iran poses (to Israel or elsewhere). This is a case of Ahmadinejad using Western and Israeli knee-jerk reactions for domestic political purposes, and to a relative degree it's proven to be effective (or effective enough). I'm pointing this out because this subject often comes up in tu quoque form (among others) in threads here, and is used regularly enough in precisely the manner that favors Ahmadinejad-- continued criticism from the West that serves domestic political purposes, and an emotional distraction that hampers diplomatic political communication.

In a lot of ways, Ahmadinejad is like the Glenn Beck of international diplomacy.

[scissorhands]

Hard to say what to laugh at most there.
A wall of utter waffle.
The posters are real, unless you have any evidence to the contrary, and back up the statements made by Ahmadinejad.
The point of this whole thread.
His very kind offer that the existence of Israel, should be a decision to be made by the very people who have been attempting to destroy it for the last 60 years, is just beyond parody.

[WildCat]

On one side of the spectrum, we have the constant assertions by WildCat that there exists no dispute from the Ahmadi camp as to what was being said regarding the "wiped from the map" comment:





Those are just two ends of a series of assertions to that affect. The reality is that Ahmadi has clarified his statements, and done so more than once. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Clarifying_comments _by_Ahmadinejad):


All classic "non-denial denials". Iran will never instigate a war? Of course not, they'll have plenty of blame for Israel. Real or imaginary. Hell even Japan and Germany claimed not to have instigated WWII, it was always another country's fault.

And real cute with the "no one can remove a country from a map" bit, as if anyone claimed future maps would just have a blank space or ocean where Israel once was.

Etc etc, back to football.

[Pardalis]

In a lot of ways, Ahmadinejad is like the Glenn Beck of international diplomacy.

At least Glenn Beck isn't the president of a large army and isn't trying to acquire the Bomb.

[scissorhands]

What you meant to say, was that he is playing for the popular vote in Iran.
The destruction of Israel.
There, it didnt take more than a few lines of text, did it?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

So you have no evidence that it is faked?

Are you claiming they aren't fakes? Do you have any evidence they are real?

[scissorhands]

These 'Wiped off the map' posters are so obviously faked. The last billboard pic, you can see the 'poster' has a different color cast to the rest of the pic. It's obvious it came from a different source

Well, the photographer in question begs to differ.

I expect he is an NWO agent though.

[Undesired Walrus]

Yet I haven't accused him of anti-semitism, I just know that he is obsessed with the Stein's of the world.

[Slayhamlet]

Count me in too. It absolutely makes no sense to me that they would use english on the poster or the podium at all. To send a message to the world with a mistranslated quote, so that you can post it here? Please. And what do the participants or passers-by think about them using the language of the great satan? Doesn't add street credibility, me thinks.

Seems to be faked by someone who is aware of the self-centeredness of the target audience.
I see that dumb people are still pretending Iranians don't use English on their billboards and murals. It's also hardly surprising that they would use the most common English translation of the quote, whether it's entirely accurate or not.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_166034adbee100e7c9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17932)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_166034adbee36a47e3.jpg

(http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17933)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_166034adbee9d18ebf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17934)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_166034adbeded294b8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17931)

[Earthborn]

http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17932

http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17934These two pictures, (1 and 3) use the same font as pictures 1 and 2 of the OP. Times New Roman.

http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17933

http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17931These likely use the same font Arial, one bold and one narrow.

Hey, SlayHamlet, don't you think it is the least bit suspicious that they used the same overused fonts over and over? :)

[Slayhamlet]

These two pictures, (1 and 3) use the same font as pictures 1 and 2 of the OP. Times New Roman.

These likely use the same font Arial, one bold and one narrow.

Hey, SlayHamlet, don't you think it is the least bit suspicious that they used the same overused fonts over and over? :)

Yeah, but I figure it was a tough choice between those and wingdings. I'm sure they had originally planned for wingdings, but in the end didn't want to appear too crazy, after all. Stencil would have been a good compromise.

[tuc0]

Well, I'm kinda late to the party so I won't rehash arguments already made. I just think this thread is a fine example of conspiracy thinking in action.

Argumentum ad Photoshopum is meaningless when a) all you have is a tiny low res image and b) you don't have the expertise to perform an objective analysis. But since that never stops ideologues we get post after post of the usual cui bono nonsense, appeals to common sense and the last stand: "I just won't believe it". And of course it soon degenerates into a shouting match of who is the bigger shill and worse skeptic. And all of this with exactly zero objective evidence that the images are faked.

ps: When you start looking for Iranian political billboards you quickly see that most of them don't feature English slogans, but those that do are about Israel or the USA. I wonder why that is. It's almost as if those are aimed not just inwards and want to make sure that the message is understood by everybody. And since the Anti-Semitism in Iran and most of the Arab world is very much mainstream that isn't an argument that they are faked for propaganda purposes. Quite the opposite actually.

Two more examples:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7633454
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7578873 ("Do it with Israel" <- this one isn't so bad:D)

[tuc0]

These two pictures, (1 and 3) use the same font as pictures 1 and 2 of the OP. Times New Roman.

These likely use the same font Arial, one bold and one narrow.

Hey, SlayHamlet, don't you think it is the least bit suspicious that they used the same overused fonts over and over? :)
That's very suspicious! How can anyone believe an Iranian would use the fonts he has?

Just one thing: the sans serif typefaces on two of the posters are not Arial.
The "America can't do a damn thing" one is probably Myriad (another default font, at least when you have any Adobe product installed - as a graphic designer would).
And the "Pearl in its shell" one is good old Impact.

[Trojan_Jockey]

I don't believe the photographer.

I've no need to hide behind parky btw. I stand personally by anything I say.

I 'believe' they are fakes. The billboard picture is particularly suspect becuase the color tint on the 'poster' is different from the rest of the pic and that goes against what the ambient light of the scene would dictate.

People make many baseless assumptions on forums. I actually have some extensive experience with photography and digital photo editing and from many years of experience I would lay money that those pics are fakes.

I admit I maybe wrong but instinct tells me otherwise.

Why on Earth should the photographer lie about the photograph TFT?

[Thunder]

It certainly makes sense for signs that are aggressively anti-western to have English translations attached.

anti-Western?

Israel is not part of the West. do you consider Lebanon to be Western country? Turkey?

[WildCat]

anti-Western?

Israel is not part of the West. do you consider Lebanon to be Western country? Turkey?
And therefore the photos are fake? :confused:

[Pardalis]

I 'believe' they are fakes.

Your personal belief is not evidence.

The billboard picture is particularly suspect becuase the color tint on the 'poster' is different from the rest of the pic and that goes against what the ambient light of the scene would dictate.


That is not evidence.

People make many baseless assumptions on forums.

Like the photographer is lying, for example?

I actually have some extensive experience with photography and digital photo editing and from many years of experience I would lay money that those pics are fakes.


I don't care.

[Thunder]

And therefore the photos are fake? :confused:

it is indeed possible that the photos, especially the outdoor ones, are indeed fake. Oliver showed us how easy it would be to fake them.

[Grizzly Bear]

it is indeed possible that the photos, especially the outdoor ones, are indeed fake. Oliver showed us how easy it would be to fake them.

Knowing the light balance, color balance, alpha channels, sun angles, and a myriad of other factors would be required to make a fake look hyper-realistic. None of the reasons I've seen either you or TFT give to justify your opinions on them is really compelling. CE's issue with them using English is just as baffling... middle eastern countries user English on traffic signs for **** sakes...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AdmJFDMvMUc/RxZuQR2e7vI/AAAAAAAAAiA/qOYEmqikZ-4/s1600-h/Apartman+Kompleksine+Giris.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AdmJFDMvMUc/RxcuAR2e8AI/AAAAAAAAAkI/OGQ4fI1C9t0/s1600-h/Stop+Sign.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/51/GntUppalapaduSign.jpg/800px-GntUppalapaduSign.jpg

And other countries use multi-lingual signs as well... CE's being a bit off kilter...


EDIT: BTW

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/30/gall.iran.down.with.gi.jpg

and

this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Z4wP5A80j-k/Rxh--GolzeI/AAAAAAAAAso/ic1hLHYFPs0/s1600-h/Iran-Israel_LG.jpg

I guess they ALL must be fake if they are bilingual... :rolleyes

[tuc0]

The billboard picture is particularly suspect becuase the color tint on the 'poster' is different from the rest of the pic and that goes against what the ambient light of the scene would dictate.

That is not evidence.

Well, it would be a first step... if it wasn't factually wrong. When you sample the parts of the billboard that are most probably white (the markings on the tank) and compare that to the writing on the sign in the background you get the following RGB values: 251, 243, 232 vs. 255, 240, 233.

So no, the ambient light argument doesn't work.

[Stout]

Why don't we go one step further here and suggest that the billboard is real, but created and paid for by the photographer ?

[N.Texas]

Well, it would be a first step... if it wasn't factually wrong. When you sample the parts of the billboard that are most probably white (the markings on the tank) and compare that to the writing on the sign in the background you get the following RGB values: 251, 243, 232 vs. 255, 240, 233.

So no, the ambient light argument doesn't work.

This is what I got:

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=85&pictureid=1685

#1 is the red lettering on the reddish brown building. #2 is the water tower and #3 is the billboard itself. 2 and 3 are really close while you could expect a little red bleeding on the red building's lettering.

[GreNME]

Why would an Iranian give a damn about what I have to say?

You as an individual and an Iranian individual? None at all would be my guess. However, that's not what I'm talking about in the slightest. Instead, I'm talking about the sustained aggressive stance between the national governments and media rhetoric between the United States and the Islamic Republic. Iran seems to be stuck in the 1950's as far as a lot of its incendiary public media goes, but considering the government can't afford to wage its media battles directly (and can only focus mostly internally) they don't really have to do much other than keep anger toward their country at a relative low boil. For the last thirty years it's managed to work out pretty well for their leadership (the Supreme Leader).

[Tricky]

A substatial portion of this thread has been moved to AAH, mostly for bickering and off-topic. The bickering is the main reason, but even civil discussion of the bickering is off-topic. Please endeavor to make all of your posts relate to the topic and not about each other.

Thank you.

[Oliver]

And therefore the photos are fake? :confused:


Well, the point is: It does not matter. I could design a "We will invade Poland again"-Poster, place it outside the Reichstag and make a photo of it.

The point is, even if that particular photo would be authentic, it does not portray a general intention of invading Poland, nor that the poster itself is sponsored by the German Government.

In other words, your pictures explain nothing about Iran and it's people besides your personally chosen view of it/them. ;)

[Doctor Evil]

Well, the point is: It does not matter. I could design a "We will invade Poland again"-Poster, place it outside the Reichstag and make a photo of it.

The point is, even if that particular photo would be authentic, it does not portray a general intention of invading Poland, nor that the poster itself is sponsored by the German Government.

In other words, your pictures explain nothing about Iran and it's people besides your personally chosen view of it/them. ;)

Why is this relevant? Are you suggesting that you could do this as part of a official government campaign? Somehow I doubt that.

[tuc0]

Well, the point is: It does not matter. I could design a "We will invade Poland again"-Poster, place it outside the Reichstag and make a photo of it.

The point is, even if that particular photo would be authentic, it does not portray a general intention of invading Poland, nor that the poster itself is sponsored by the German Government.
Of course, noone would believe your poster because it would contradict everything the German government says and does, while the billboards from Iran express the official state policy. Don't you see the difference?

In other words, your pictures explain nothing about Iran and it's people besides your personally chosen view of it/them. ;)
That is a very naive opinion.

[Grizzly Bear]

You have to remember that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very "misunderstood" man :rolleyes:


[/sarc]

[GreNME]

What you meant to say, was that he is playing for the popular vote in Iran.
The destruction of Israel.
There, it didnt take more than a few lines of text, did it?

Are you seriously so wantonly ignorant that you don't realize there are multiple political factions in Iran that regularly vie for popular support? That just isn't the case. Being so black-or-white about it has been precisely the wrong method for examining Iran over the last thirty years, both with regard to foreign relations and human rights concerns.

I cant find the laughing dog smiley.
Why do you think the "supreme leader" lets him continue this "not warmongering"?
Surely he would have something to say on the matter?

More arguments from ignorance.

You seem more intent to brand any criticism that explains context as apologist and supporting parky's incorrect assertions. Your black-or-white method of argument isn't based on critical thinking, it's based in political rhetoric.

ETA: I'll say it again in short form, for the "apologist" accusers to get it without having to read a whole paragraph-- parky's claims about the photos are wrong. That doesn't excuse poor arguments about motive on the Iranian side.

[scissorhands]

Are you seriously so wantonly ignorant that you don't realize there are multiple political factions in Iran that regularly vie for popular support?


Are you claiming that calling for the destruction of Israel isnt a popular vote winner in Iran?
Otherwise what is your point?
You spent a great deal of waffle saying that it is.
I simply shortened it for you.
You should be thanking me.

[GreNME]

Are you claiming that calling for the destruction of Israel isnt a popular vote winner in Iran?

No, I explained already that it's meant to intentionally provoke negative foreign reaction-- hence it being in English and not Parsi.

Otherwise what is your point?

The point was explained in detail already. Your continuing to ask after it's already been explained is about as useful to actual debate or discussion as YEC arguments are to the origins of any species (let alone mankind).

You spent a great deal of waffle saying that it is.
I simply shortened it for you.

You simply asserted that what I was saying was quite different than what I actually wrote. Simply put: you're making false assertions.

You should be thanking me.

I can thank you for making precisely the types of flawed argument and assertion that I initially criticized in my earlier post. Your assertions from ignorance certainly are displaying how it isn't just parky's claims that are flawed with relation to this subject.

As with practically all types of foreign relations talking points, the context and nuance of reality do not distill very well into black-or-white statements, and they certainly don't fit very well into conspiracy theory ideas either. Unfortunately for the attention-span-disabled and the paranoid-prone, the complexities of realities even with obviously belligerent and provocative regimes like evidenced in Iran don't interpret very well to arguments of dichotomy-- where the conclusion must be either one thing or the other. While typically this understanding is quite clear in the realm of foreign diplomacy in most countries, particularly those in the industrialized world, there still exist factions a-plenty in many nations who use this sort of absolutist brinkmanship, often to ineffectual or negative ends: Bush (Dubya), Chavez, Hussein, Kim (DPRK), and Ahmadinejad are just a few from both sides of the political spectrum, some quite extreme, that played those binary games and ultimately have little to show for it so far. This dichotomous thinking is employed regularly in conspiracy rhetoric as well as political partisan rhetoric, and it does little to no good at actually informing anyone about what's actually the case with any issue.

[scissorhands]

I see, so Ahmadinejad isnt making these statements due to them being popular sentiments in the Iranian populus, likely to gain him extra votes, and is instead using them to provoke a reaction from the outside world.

False flag anti semitism?

Are the Iranian population "in on" this subterfuge?

Because his statements seem to have a lot of public support right across the muslim world.

You are making this up as you go along, arent you?

No, I explained already that it's meant to intentionally provoke negative foreign reaction-- hence it being in English and not Parsi.

The billboards are in both, in Farsi for the local population and in English for the international audience.

His actual statements are in Farsi, and are purely for his domestic audience, how does this square with your theory exactly?

[tyr_13]

I see, so Ahmadinejad isnt making these statements due to them being popular sentiments in the Iranian populus, likely to gain him extra votes, and is instead using them to provoke a reaction from the outside world.

False flag anti semitism?

Are the Iranian population "in on" this subterfuge?

Because his statements seem to have a lot of public support right across the muslim world.

You are making this up as you go along, arent you?



The billboards are in both, in Farsi for the local population and in English for the international audience.

His actual statements are in Farsi, and are purely for his domestic audience, how does this square with your theory exactly?

The speak and write in Persian in Iran. If the billboards and posters are in Farsi, then they are obviously for a foreign audience (or for Southern Iran if I remember correctly).

[scissorhands]

Farsi is Persian.

There are three modern varieties of standard Persian:[28]

* Modern Iranian Persian (Western Farsi) is the variety of Persian spoken in Iran, also known as Farsi (in Persian) or Persian (in English)

Im not sure whether we need to get anymore pedantic about this.
Point being, his speechs without any English translation, in Farsi, were intended for and well understood by, his domestic audience.

[defaultdotxbe]

These two pictures, (1 and 3) use the same font as pictures 1 and 2 of the OP. Times New Roman.

These likely use the same font Arial, one bold and one narrow.

Hey, SlayHamlet, don't you think it is the least bit suspicious that they used the same overused fonts over and over? :)
i think this is a pretty weak argument

if you had to make a sign in persian (or any script other than the latin alphabet) would you get fancy with the fonts, or just go with whatever default the computer gives you?

and if the fonts are overused, and therefore fake, does that mean everything else using them is fake too? would that then mean they arent overused and therefore not fake? lol

[Slayhamlet]

it is indeed possible that the photos, especially the outdoor ones, are indeed fake. Oliver showed us how easy it would be to fake them.

No, he didn't. As you would know had you actually read other people's posts in this thread in lieu of sticking your fingers in your ears and blathering about nothing, Oliver's photoshopping efforts were easily detected (see tyr_13's post). So far, no one has shown any such signs of manipulation in the original photo. Which means that if it is indeed faked, it was done pretty damn competently.

Edit: so presumably this photo (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Z4wP5A80j-k/Rxh--GolzeI/AAAAAAAAAso/ic1hLHYFPs0/s1600-h/Iran-Israel_LG.jpg) which Grizzly Bear posted above is also faked?

[Slayhamlet]

You know folks, it doesn't really matter if these posters are fakes or not. We all know that the Iranian regime is very anti-Israel and would nuke them if they had the ability to do so.

What do you mean by "the ability to do so"? Do you suspect Persians are too dumb to appreciate the subtleties of MAD?

Edit: Ah, you've been suspended. Never mind then.

[Slayhamlet]

Does anyone here read Farsi, btw? Because I wonder whether the writing on the sign is actually a quotation of Ahmadinejad's UN speech, word for word, or just a general slogan. It's obviously propaganda made for the purpose of championing Hezbollah, so I don't see why it would quote Ahmadinejad as opposed to the portly gentleman depicted (assuming it's a quotation at all). Cuz', you know, Nasrallah has said far more inflammatory things about Israel (and Jews) than the translation in question, and the Iran apologists' defense is really rather silly considering. As the leader of a militia-cum-terrorist organization-cum-political party of a piddling little state that barely functions and is perpetually on the brink of civil war, he doesn't need to be quite as circumspect in his phraseology as Mr. Ahmadinejad.

[Newtons Bit]

It was a translation made by the official Iranian news agency.

I wasn't aware that they were run by the Jews.

You are apparently unaware of the depths that the Zionist conspiracy has infected the world.

[Eyeron]

Yeah it's all in the Protocols.

[GreNME]

Does anyone here read Farsi, btw? Because I wonder whether the writing on the sign is actually a quotation of Ahmadinejad's UN speech, word for word, or just a general slogan. It's obviously propaganda made for the purpose of championing Hezbollah, so I don't see why it would quote Ahmadinejad as opposed to the portly gentleman depicted (assuming it's a quotation at all). Cuz', you know, Nasrallah has said far more inflammatory things about Israel (and Jews) than the translation in question, and the Iran apologists' defense is really rather silly considering. As the leader of a militia-cum-terrorist organization-cum-political party of a piddling little state that barely functions and is perpetually on the brink of civil war, he doesn't need to be quite as circumspect in his phraseology as Mr. Ahmadinejad.

The phrase in question-- بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود -- translates to "the era of the page will disappear" in Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate_t?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&text=%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%AF+%D8%A7%D8%B2+%D8%B5% D9%81%D8%AD%D9%87+%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B2%DA%AF%D8%A7%D 8%B1+%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%88+%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%AF&file=&sl=fa&tl=en&history_state0=#). Obviously (or, at least, obvious to someone familiar with how the language works), the term translates differently depending on the associated words or phrases, but the meaning is similar enough to take away from it that both speakers are (or were, in Khomeini's case) obviously not in the mood to send a fruit basket to Tel Aviv. I'm not really disputing that. To answer your question, though, I'm laying down enough context so you realize that I'm not BS-ing you when I tell you that the text you're seeing on the posters and billboard are neither the words from Ahmadi's speech or the words from Khomeini's original quote, but actually a rephrasing of the original mistranslation that actually started from Western media that Ahmadi was apparently amused enough about to run with.

To start with, I'll provide this link (http://www.scribd.com/doc/7632012/What-Iranian-Leaders-Really-Say-About-Doing-Away-With-Israel) to an essay by Joshua Teitelbaum from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs-- hardly biased in favor of Iran-- who writes a rather scathing text of those who try to excuse the institutional Israel-hate that the Iranian government regularly promotes. The pertinent part, on page 7, takes the Parsi text, transliterates it to anglicized Parsi, and then translates it (accurately, as far as I can tell without doing so myself) in as literal a form as possible that still makes sense in English. It is as follows:

http://image.grenme.com/thread/AhmadiSpeech.png

The phrase in question (sans the "Zionist regime" comment), is as follows in Parsi:

http://image.grenme.com/thread/Parsi-WipeMap.png

Now, of the three images posted in the OP, only two had Parsi text correlating with the phrase about Israel (which is not named in Khomeini's nor Ahmadinejad's original statements as "Israel" anyway, but referred to by other names). Of those two, here are the Parsi texts that correlate with the English, from the images zoomed to see more clearly.

http://image.grenme.com/thread/AhmadiPoster1.png

http://image.grenme.com/thread/AhmadiPoster2.png

If I recall correctly, the text from the first of the two above also appeared on a Shahab-3 rocket that Ahmadinejad paraded through Tehran, to much clucking and tsking from the UN and Israel.

So, to your question of whether it "is actually a quotation of Ahmadinejad's UN speech, word for word, or just a general slogan," the answer is it doesn't have to be one or the other, but all the examples are closer to the latter than the former. It certainly is a propaganda campaign, but the key piece that seems to be ignored by so many is that Ahmadinejad began making use of this phrase in direct reaction to the mistranslation by the NY Times that Joshua Teitelbaum points out in the link (and image) I provided above. While I stress the mistranslation I'm not arguing that Ahmadinejad wasn't being belligerent toward Israel, because that isn't the subject being debated here-- the purpose for the "wiped off the map" language showing up in Iranian propaganda is. That purpose is very much tied to the Iranian leadership's tendancy to play the martyr card in that "everyone" in the West is against them, as well as being intentionally provocative toward Israel in order to foment more harsh language (from Israel, from the US, and so on). That's the whole purpose of the propaganda, and they make it easy for Western sources to get the message to be annoyed at by printing it in English along with the Parsi (because, really, how many non-Persian-Americans read Parsi). The government is already rife with "death to America" (marg bar Amrika) and "death to Israel" (marg bar Esraiil) slogans in its rhetoric, it's playing this phrase back to annoy the West because of the obvious media exposure it garnered (in the West) to provoke more populist sentiment. In the closest example to the actual text of Ahmadinejad's statement, where he talks about removing from the "pages" (صفحه) of time, the first poster shown looks like it has "map" (نقشه) in its place to match the original mistranslation. So if we're going to be academic about it, then yes, the Iranian government has obviously changed the wording to reflect the Western phrase "wiped from the map," which is saying more about their regime's response to the outrage than it does about the rhetoric that's already been present for three decades that makes their hostility abundantly clear. That it seems so many are unwilling to see this for the intentional antagonizing that it so obviously is reeks of confirmation bias on the matter based on political opposition, which the current regime in Iran feeds on for populist support.

And to tyr_13: Parsi, Farsi, and Persian are all the same word to describe the same language. Parsi or Farsi are variations of the name of the language, which translated to English is "Persian" in the literal sense. There's really no difference between the names as they're literally interchangeable. Also, Iran isn't the only nation where Parsi/Persian is spoken. It's the official language of Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan. It's not the dominant language in Bahrain, but it's spoken there in large numbers. It's spoken widely in Afghanistan along with Urdu and a few other regional dialects, as well as being spoken in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

[tyr_13]

For some reason I confounded Persian and Arabic. In fact, back in high school quiz team we once got a question 'wrong' for answering 'Farsi' when the 'answer' was Persian. The host got very angry when we challenged it.

[fourtoe]

and how is that these posters, in the middle of the outdoors are soooo very clear? a little too clear to me.

where is the shadow from the black pole on the right of the third poster? based on the angle of the sun, that pole should have cast a shadow on the poster.


photoj's ALWAYS use a flash. Anywhere, any time of day, any lighting. The poster does look pretty bright but it is justified by the fact that the woman up front is blurred with the back fencing. The photoj probably had his flash facing just the poster and had a slow shutter speed to make up for having such a high f-stop (everything is in focus and I think the angle and the motion blur are what make the woman look like she is out of focus).

As for the OP, I think that laughing dog was used WAY too much.

[N.Texas]

photoj's ALWAYS use a flash. Anywhere, any time of day, any lighting. The poster does look pretty bright but it is justified by the fact that the woman up front is blurred with the back fencing. The photoj probably had his flash facing just the poster and had a slow shutter speed to make up for having such a high f-stop (everything is in focus and I think the angle and the motion blur are what make the woman look like she is out of focus).

As for the OP, I think that laughing dog was used WAY too much.


I don't think the photographer used a flash. I would expect to see a moment where the flash went off freezing the action of the person if that was the case. You might see motion blur before or after the flash depending on whether they used 2nd curtain flash or not. You would also see catchlights in her eyes.

[fourtoe]

I don't think the photographer used a flash. I would expect to see a moment where the flash went off freezing the action of the person if that was the case. You might see motion blur before or after the flash depending on whether they used 2nd curtain flash or not. You would also see catchlights in her eyes.


The billboard is what I think the photographer was aiming at, not the woman. The effect I'm talking about is that the shutter was really slow because of the high f-stop.

And I think the flash was facing the billboard at an angle that would be consistent with the shadows. This means that the lady is not really in front of the flash and I think that that would explain why you do not see the effects you suggested, imo.

[Oliver]

You have to remember that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very "misunderstood" man :rolleyes:

[/sarc]


In case of his "I will personally wipe Isreal off the map using my nukes"-"quote", indeed. ;)

[GreNME]

In case of his "I will personally wipe Isreal off the map using my nukes"-"quote", indeed. ;)

However, considering his other behavior and rhetoric, it's a misquote that still carries the weight of the message he continually purveys. It's worth keeping that in mind, at the least.

[Oliver]

However, considering his other behavior and rhetoric, it's a misquote that still carries the weight of the message he continually purveys. It's worth keeping that in mind, at the least.


Of course it's worth to keep that in mind - and to keep in mind all the people who use to misquote him all the time about the "wipe off affair" to propagate a scope of threat that isn't factual. It wouldn't surprise me if that was the Thread-starters intention as well.

Also concerning the Iran-stereotype presented by some posters here:

PRFKpoIVCBU

and:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-23-2009/jason-jones--behind-the-veil---ayatollah-you-so

Now just imagine a real TV-news crew would make a factual report about Iran rather than pulling a "Iran threat/condemnation story" out of their lazy asses while staying at home, so to speak.

[Oliver]

I should add that the Daily Show staff that actually was in Tehran represented the reality much more factual than some posters in here, who, according to their line of argumentation, at least tend to support Zionism to some degree.

So the title of this very thread might be true after all! :D :p

[tyr_13]

I should add that the Daily Show staff that actually was in Tehran represented the reality much more factual than some posters in here, who, according to their line of argumentation, at least tend to support Zionism to some degree.

So the title of this very thread might be true after all! :D :p

I don't understand your reasoning here at all. The Daily Show wasn't talking to government officials, who are the people being discussed in this thread. We are also talking about faking photos and misquoting their president. Again, nothing to do with common people.

Besides, I'm sure I could go around New York, LA, and the rural parts of New York and California and ask people about gay marriage. I'd be able to put together a convincing montage about how there isn't really any support for the anti-gay marriage laws in the US. Then again, I didn't go to Texas or the mid-west.

Personally, I don't believe that the anti-Israel movement has as much common support as most people in the west seem to believe it does. But that's not the point. The hard line elements who have the power in Iran most certainly hold an aggressive anti-Israel, anti-America, policy. They support this with word and action. They also support it with propaganda and billboards. There are lots of stupid billboards all over the planet.

And again, none of that is evidence that the pictures have been faked. I'm sure one could find some kind of faked pictures from Iran, but there hasn't been any compelling evidence of the three main ones here being altered (besides for size).

[GreNME]

I don't understand your reasoning here at all. The Daily Show wasn't talking to government officials, who are the people being discussed in this thread. We are also talking about faking photos and misquoting their president. Again, nothing to do with common people.

It should also be pointed out, to be fair, that Ahmadi's predecessor had a brief positive exchange with the Israeli president that earned him jeers from his fellow politicians in Iran, and he also stated (though not in so many words) that Iran might be willing to recognize Israel if a Palestinian state existed that recognized Israel. The Iranian government isn't just a succession of anti-semites.

The current one, though, definitely seems to be (an anti-semite).

[tyr_13]

It should also be pointed out, to be fair, that Ahmadi's predecessor had a brief positive exchange with the Israeli president that earned him jeers from his fellow politicians in Iran, and he also stated (though not in so many words) that Iran might be willing to recognize Israel if a Palestinian state existed that recognized Israel. The Iranian government isn't just a succession of anti-semites.

The current one, though, definitely seems to be (an anti-semite).

He seems to be one, but it could be political rhetoric. It's hard to know.

[N.Texas]

And I think the flash was facing the billboard at an angle that would be consistent with the shadows. This means that the lady is not really in front of the flash and I think that that would explain why you do not see the effects you suggested, imo.

I see what you mean. That could explain the small white highlights on the right side edge of the billboard but that could be sunlight. The flash wouldn't be doing much of anything to the fence or the person.

[Oliver]

I don't understand your reasoning here at all. The Daily Show wasn't talking to government officials, who are the people being discussed in this thread. We are also talking about faking photos and misquoting their president. Again, nothing to do with common people.

Besides, I'm sure I could go around New York, LA, and the rural parts of New York and California and ask people about gay marriage. I'd be able to put together a convincing montage about how there isn't really any support for the anti-gay marriage laws in the US. Then again, I didn't go to Texas or the mid-west.

Personally, I don't believe that the anti-Israel movement has as much common support as most people in the west seem to believe it does. But that's not the point. The hard line elements who have the power in Iran most certainly hold an aggressive anti-Israel, anti-America, policy. They support this with word and action. They also support it with propaganda and billboards. There are lots of stupid billboards all over the planet.

And again, none of that is evidence that the pictures have been faked. I'm sure one could find some kind of faked pictures from Iran, but there hasn't been any compelling evidence of the three main ones here being altered (besides for size).


Actually, there has been an "aggressive anti-Iran policy" for decades coming mainly from the US and Israel, so it's somewhat weird and dishonest to point at Ahmadinejad and the current supreme leader and declare Iran to be the ones having anti-fillintheblank policies, no? ;)

Also, the Daily Show talked to at least one Iranian official:

June 17, 2009 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-17-2009/jason-jones--behind-the-veil---minarets-of-menace)
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Minarets of Menace (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-17-2009/jason-jones--behind-the-veil---minarets-of-menace) (06:06)
Views: 118,497


(http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-25-2009/jason-jones--behind-the-veil---the-kids-are-allah-right)

June 25, 2009 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-25-2009/jason-jones--behind-the-veil---the-kids-are-allah-right)
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - The Kids Are Allah Right (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-25-2009/jason-jones--behind-the-veil---the-kids-are-allah-right) (05:47)
Views: 140,579



June 22, 2009 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-22-2009/jason-jones--behind-the-veil---persians-of-interest)
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Persians of Interest (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-22-2009/jason-jones--behind-the-veil---persians-of-interest) (04:56)
Views: 119,761




Furthermore, the second clip actually shows the "Down with the USA"-building, I'm pretty sure at least that one isn't faked. And funny enough, other posters being portrayed in the 3-part-report don't show Latin letters and English texts. Why not?

However, just like you may find anti-Iranian posters on Jewish or American walls, they don't say anything about the country, it's policies or it's general opinions - no matter if they are real or "fake'o'shopped". Starting a thread about some photos to make a political point however, just sheds light onto the OP's agenda.

[WildCat]

However, just like you may find anti-Iranian posters on Jewish or American walls, they don't say anything about the country, it's policies or it's general opinions
It does in a country like Iran, where the media is government-controlled and there is no freedom of speech.

- no matter if they are real
They are.

or "fake'o'shopped".
They weren't.

Starting a thread about some photos to make a political point however, just sheds light onto the OP's agenda.
The point of this thread was in response to claims they were faked by the Zionist-controlled media.

Making such claims certainly does say something about the people making them.

[tyr_13]

Actually, there has been an "aggressive anti-Iran policy" for decades coming mainly from the US and Israel, so it's somewhat weird and dishonest to point at Ahmadinejad and the current supreme leader and declare Iran to be the ones having anti-fillintheblank policies, no? ;)


No, it isn't at all weird or dishonest to point at anti-US, and anti-Israel policies in Iran just because other countries have anti-Iranian policies.

There is a specific logical fallacy that this is, and I just can't seem to put my finger on it. :rolleyes:

As for the OP, it is the direct result of people using lies and misinformation to support defense of Iran. It doesn't have anything to do with whether Iran is worth defending. Doing it with lies like 'they don't really say that' is wrong and ultimately hurts the argument.

EDIT: I see WildCat beat me to it.

[GreNME]

He seems to be one, but it could be political rhetoric. It's hard to know.

I think it's enough to know that he harbors the typical false dichotomous views of the hard-liner, where the zero-sum equation of benefit for one coming at the expense of another tends to be the default assumption. Whether that goes as far as actual racist hatred, though, is unknown for sure but seems irrelevant to desired end result (as they'd be the same).

But yeah, I'm of the opinion that most of his nonsense is political rhetoric. He's the useful idiot, the toady to the cause, but 'smart' (as in politically savvy) enough to wear a suit and play rhetorical games instead of putting on a uniform or strapping on a bomb vest as his form of fighting. He's been doing that since he joined the OSU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Strengthening_Unity) in 1979.

Little known (and somewhat unrelated) fact: the 2005 election where Ahmadi took office was disputed almost as strongly as the 2009 elections, with accusations of fraud, protests over the outcome, and political figures detained for speaking out. The rest of the world barely blinked.

[fourtoe]

I see what you mean. That could explain the small white highlights on the right side edge of the billboard but that could be sunlight. The flash wouldn't be doing much of anything to the fence or the person.

Well I think it is safe to say that you and I have demonstrated that at the very least, the last photo is not a fake :D

[N.Texas]

Well I think it is safe to say that you and I have demonstrated that at the very least, the last photo is not a fake :D

I had to try something similar myself and found it was quite easy to keep the flash off a person and place it in the area where the natural light was coming in. :)

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=85&pictureid=1698

I serously doubt that someone with Shawn Baldwin's (http://www.shawnbaldwin.com/) reputation would fake a shot like that.

[Slayhamlet]

The phrase in question-- بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود -- translates to "the era of the page will disappear" in Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate_t?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&text=%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%AF+%D8%A7%D8%B2+%D8%B5% D9%81%D8%AD%D9%87+%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B2%DA%AF%D8%A7%D 8%B1+%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%88+%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%AF&file=&sl=fa&tl=en&history_state0=#). Obviously (or, at least, obvious to someone familiar with how the language works), the term translates differently depending on the associated words or phrases, but the meaning is similar enough to take away from it that both speakers are (or were, in Khomeini's case) obviously not in the mood to send a fruit basket to Tel Aviv. I'm not really disputing that. To answer your question, though, I'm laying down enough context so you realize that I'm not BS-ing you when I tell you that the text you're seeing on the posters and billboard are neither the words from Ahmadi's speech or the words from Khomeini's original quote, but actually a rephrasing of the original mistranslation that actually started from Western media that Ahmadi was apparently amused enough about to run with.

[snip]

I was never under the impression that you were trying to BS me. I don't really see anything you've said in this thread that I disagree with, in fact. I just find it endlessly amusing the lengths certain people (not you; I'm talking about the usual CT suspects) will go to to deny obvious realities, like Iran's well-known virulent antipathy towards Israel. It's like they can't admit one bad thing about the country without interpreting it as some sort of pretext that's going to magically become a green-light for the imminent U.S. invasion they've been predicting since 2004. It's just silly. The Iranian leadership has been saying and promoting this same rhetoric since the Revolution; it's only come to greater attention now because of the nuclear issue.

Thank you for the lengthy in-depth analysis on the Persian, by the way. Just want to let you know your efforts don't go unappreciated.

[fourtoe]

I had to try something similar myself and found it was quite easy to keep the flash off a person and place it in the area where the natural light was coming in. :)

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=85&pictureid=1698

I serously doubt that someone with Shawn Baldwin's (http://www.shawnbaldwin.com/) reputation would fake a shot like that.

Great and adorable job!

[GreNME]

I was never under the impression that you were trying to BS me. I don't really see anything you've said in this thread that I disagree with, in fact. I just find it endlessly amusing the lengths certain people (not you; I'm talking about the usual CT suspects) will go to to deny obvious realities, like Iran's well-known virulent antipathy towards Israel. It's like they can't admit one bad thing about the country without interpreting it as some sort of pretext that's going to magically become a green-light for the imminent U.S. invasion they've been predicting since 2004. It's just silly. The Iranian leadership has been saying and promoting this same rhetoric since the Revolution; it's only come to greater attention now because of the nuclear issue.

Thank you for the lengthy in-depth analysis on the Persian, by the way. Just want to let you know your efforts don't go unappreciated.

And conversely, I definitely appreciate knowing that my efforts aren't wasted... well, they're not wasted anyway because I study this stuff for personal edification, but yeah, yanowwaddimean.

Actually, Iran turned the angry rhetoric up to eleven since 2005, when Ahmadi got fixed elected into office the first time. Prior to that, in 2003, the regime had actually made an overture to the US following the initial blitz into Baghdad offering to take what were described as incredible steps to normalize relations. They apparently (allegedly) offered to help try to broker a deal between Israel and Pakistan, come clean about their nuke program, and start taking pictures of the American and Israeli flags off their dartboards, among other things. If they'd even come through on only half the promising they allegedly made, Iran would have likely been the second-friendliest nation to the US in the Mid-East (after Israel) as a result. Granted, that's not saying a whole lot, but it would've been better than things currently are.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but it's hard to miss the fact that an opportunity presented itself that makes one think "what were they thinking?" but with the flush of the media imagery of Saddam's statue falling, our administration wasn't really feeling like playing what would naturally become a long game of pinning Iranian leadership down to concrete accords instead of indirect messages (through the Swiss embassy) bearing promises. It does, however, give us a glimpse that "there's still good in ... I can [i]feel it" [/starwars] with regard to our options. It's just abundantly clear that few of those options are going to find fruition with the Supreme Leader's toothless pit bull who's currently in office.

I can see what you mean about the conspirational 'premonitions' though, and the attempts to try to paint Ahmadi as if he's somehow more rational than his history of behavior implies are certainly misguided (to use a tame term). I still mostly think that the best we can hope for at this point is that Ahmadinejad over-drafts his political spending and the election cycles over the next four years see some optimistic shift.

[Undesired Walrus]

Of course it's worth to keep that in mind - and to keep in mind all the people who use to misquote him all the time about the "wipe off affair" to propagate a scope of threat that isn't factual. It wouldn't surprise me if that was the Thread-starters intention as well.

Also concerning the Iran-stereotype presented by some posters here:

PRFKpoIVCBU

and:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-23-2009/jason-jones--behind-the-veil---ayatollah-you-so

Now just imagine a real TV-news crew would make a factual report about Iran rather than pulling a "Iran threat/condemnation story" out of their lazy asses while staying at home, so to speak.

I'm sorry Oliver, but as Films have shown, the reporter could have easily faked these positive reactions shown toward the US in a set in New York.

Until the time in which these interviews are shown not to be fake, I shall stubbornly cling to my belief that they are fake.

[WildCat]

PRFKpoIVCBU
Totally fake. They're even speaking English! In Iran! We all know no English is spoken there.

I bet they never even left Hollywood. The whole thing was probably shot in LA.

;)

Now just imagine a real TV-news crew would make a factual report about Iran rather than pulling a "Iran threat/condemnation story" out of their lazy asses while staying at home, so to speak.
Might be a bit difficult to actually report in Iran:

Iran: Journalists detained as news restrictions tighten (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/iran-Journalists-detained-as+news-restrictions-tighten-20090626)
Since the announcement on 13 June that President Ahmadinejad had won the election, the Iranian authorities have imposed severe restrictions on freedom of expression. Access to the internet has been blocked or significantly interrupted. Iranian publications have been banned from publishing information about the unrest. Foreign news journalists have been banned from the streets, and some foreign reporters have been expelled from the country.

[Oliver]

Totally fake. They're even speaking English! In Iran! We all know no English is spoken there.


Oh, they do. On their Billboards that is, of course. :p

[Skeptic Guy]

How difficult would it be, if, indeed, the pictures in question were faked, for some government official in Iran to take a picture of the billboard in question, and send it to the news media to expose this Zionist plot?

And I wonder why that hasn't happened.

[Oliver]

How difficult would it be, if, indeed, the pictures in question were faked, for some government official in Iran to take a picture of the billboard in question, and send it to the news media to expose this Zionist plot?

And I wonder why that hasn't happened.


Because nobody cares besides Jerry? :p

[Oliver]

I'm sorry Oliver, but as Films have shown, the reporter could have easily faked these positive reactions shown toward the US in a set in New York.

Until the time in which these interviews are shown not to be fake, I shall stubbornly cling to my belief that they are fake.


Of course the actual Daily Show footage from Iran is fake. Stewart is Jewish and working for the Media after all [Pro-Zionist Comedy Media Faking Iran Footage?]. :p

[GreNME]

Totally fake. They're even speaking English! In Iran! We all know no English is spoken there.

I bet they never even left Hollywood. The whole thing was probably shot in LA.

;)


:)

I laughed when he said he was surprised that so many Iranians got the sardonic humor so quickly. Anyone who has ever had any experience with Mid-Eastern culture-- whether Jew, Arab, Persian, or otherwise-- knows right away that irony and sarcasm are two of the most common types of humor you're going to find.

[funk de fino]

So now we have "fakers" in addition to truthers and birthers?

[WildCat]

Uh-oh, it seems there has been fakery wrt the Tehran "Nasrallah billboard". Apparently, it was actually a recruitment ad for the Iranian Navy or something. You can tell by the shadows that this is the original, they are much richer with more clearly defined edges than the faked one the pro-Zionist news media tried to sell us. Also, the lack of English on the billboard is further proof that this is the original one.

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/Tehran_fauxboard.jpg

:solved2

[Arus808]

No, he didn't. As you would know had you actually read other people's posts in this thread in lieu of sticking your fingers in your ears and blathering about nothing, Oliver's photoshopping efforts were easily detected (see tyr_13's post). So far, no one has shown any such signs of manipulation in the original photo. Which means that if it is indeed faked, it was done pretty damn competently.

Edit: so presumably this photo (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Z4wP5A80j-k/Rxh--GolzeI/AAAAAAAAAso/ic1hLHYFPs0/s1600-h/Iran-Israel_LG.jpg) which Grizzly Bear posted above is also faked?

the only way those photos are "fake" is that the billboard itself was changed to have that text, for the photo and then switched back to its normal wording/saying.

That means no photography faking, the ACTUAL billboard had to have been changed.