April 12, 2010

Wiki Leak Miscaptions Photos, Misleads Public (UPDATED: Even more deceptions; UPDATE II: Magic Bullet Lady on Dead Photags Camera?)

Bohica22 sends this in. I've done some minor edits to it, but this is mostly just from his email. What comments I've added I've bracketed.

----

First, I would like to direct your attention to the Collateral Murder Resources page. If you scroll down a little more than half way, you will see what Wikileaks claims are the last two photos taken by Namir Noor-Eldeen. The first of two photos is a standard shot you see from many ‘real’ photo journalists. It’s the Poor Civilians Seen Through Bullet Hole Riddled Glass shot.

Here's the source: http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/1.jpg

collatoeral_murder_photo_1.jpg
[Actual caption: "Second last photo taken by Namir Noor-Eldeen before he was killed."]

[Rusty: Now, look closely at the image. Look in the background. There are people on the streets and what looks like at least one kid. I've blown it up here.]

collatoeral_murder_photo_1_big.JPG

[Rusty: This could not possible be one of the last photos taken by the Reuters stringer as the only ones on the street during the video are the insurgents and the Reuters stringers embedded with them.

The streets are completely empty, which is what piqued the helicopter pilots' interest in the first place: what were a group of men doing on the streets during a security sweep in which firefights are taking place?

Update by Stable Hand: The photo captioned above says "Second last photo taken by Namir Noor-Eldeen before he was killed." Reuters released the photo 28 months ago

RNPS PICTURES OF THE YEAR - One of the last pictures taken by Reuters Iraqi photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen before he was killed on July 12, 2007
Not second of last but one of the last. Like, two or three days before.

So, Wiki Leak would have you believe women and children are around while the bullets are firing. They're not. Just, more deception on Wiki Leak's part.

Later we clearly see an AK-47 and an RPG, which means that these are definitely Mahdi Army insurgents, who the US has been battling all morning. The Reuters stringers are embedded with them. The helicopter pilots, understandably, mistake the camera slings for gun slings.]

The second photo it not very dramatic, but the caption is chilling.

Here's the source: http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/5.jpg

collatoeral_murder_photo_5.jpg
[Actual caption: "Last photo taken by Namir Noor-Eldeen before he was killed."]

The photo appears to have been taken during the first seconds of the attack.

You may have noted that the name of the first photo is 1.jpg and the name of the second photo is 5.jpg, which made me question where did photos 2 through 4 go?

Then I remembered from the CENTCOM released a 15-6 investigation in which they too had released some of Namir’s final photos. These photos do not show distressed civilians through broken window:

d. Photos later recovered from the camera show a US Army HMMWV sitting at an intersection, less than 100 meters away from the camera. The digital time/date stamp on the photo indicates that these photos were the ones taken as the cameraman peered from behind the wall (Exhibit R).
EXHIBIT R

exhibit R.jpg

Now, according to the Army, those THREE photos were taken just moments before the Apache was cleared to fire. This seems to go along with how a Reuters map described the scene of the attack, which was then published by Wikileaks.

afstoumyndin.jpg

So, what do we have here? A bit of a discrepancy. Where did the two women and broken glass come from? Were they in the same area as the attack? Did Namir take that photo in the barely one minute after he took the Humvee photo, but before the Apache opened fire? Is someone lying here? There are many ways this might play out, but I am going to lay out what I see as the most likely scenarios.

1. The Army is lying. The photos of the Humvee and the time stamp claim are pure whitewash. Those photos weren’t taken at the time and place described in the video

2. Wikileaks is lying. Wikileaks is in possession of all of the photos. The three photos named 2,3 and 4 are of the humvee, but Wikileaks withheld it because it goes against the narrative they supplied that the journalists were nowhere near US forces at the time they were attacked.

3. No one is lying. We do not know where Wikileaks received their information. It could be possible that they have never seen the humvee photos. It could be possible that the Army deleted them from the camera’s memory card. Many things are possible, but at this point I trust the Army 15-6 investigation more than I trust the agenda driven, fame seeking Euroweenies or Wikileaks.

Just to add some final confusion to the scene, Wikileaks does publish one last photo.

Source:http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/4.jpeg

collatoeral_murder_photo_4.JPG
Wikileaks Caption:"A photo taken by soldiers on Namir Noor-Eldeen camera after he had been killed by the US military."

The name of this photo, 4.jpeg.

-----

Rusty's comments: What could explain the numbering discrepancy is that it's common practice to rename photos once you download them from a camera or flash card. The original photo probably would have been named "DSC" followed by a long string of numbers. If Wiki Leaks follows the practice I use, then #1 - #5 would just have been the order they uploaded the selected photos from the flash card to a designated folder.

But, that doesn't explain the misleading captioning of the photos. The one photo of the two Shia women could not possibly have been taken when Wiki Leak claims.

This fits in with the general sloppiness of the Wiki Leak "investigation" and the way they carefully omit important pieces of information in order to give misleading context to the casual reader.

And context is everything, because depending on the context pictures do lie.

For instance, imagine if you will a picture of a crowd of people at a protest, one of which is holding a placard with a Nazi swastika on it. A caption reading, "Nazi swastika seen at anti-government rally" would lead the reader to believe that there were Nazi sympathizers at the rally.

However, the same picture with a different caption makes all the difference in the world: "Anti-government protesters called the President a fascist and compared his policies to those of Nazi Germany today".

Yes, pictures do lie. The context is everything.

Update by Stable Hand Could this be the same woman as the one above? The "Magic Bullets" lady? The photog, Wissam al-Okaili, was famous for images of people behind broken glass, etc. Most of his work Bullet Lady images magically deleted after this faux bullet incident.

Thanks to Bubbe for bringing this up.

UPDATE: Must see video debunking the Wiki Leak narrative.

And they've got a website: Collateral Murder -- The Wiki Leak Deception

One thing they point out: the van of "good Samaritans" had been spotted earlier .... dropping off insurgents.

Also, the tinfoil hat must be failing: Wiki Leak founder thinks CIA out to get him.

And Fred points out in an email from a couple of days ago (sorry, was meeting Howie and Zionist overlords for business meeting) that one of the dumbest parts of the meme about the reporter killed was that since he and his family were threatened by insurgents they could not possibly have been sympathetic to them.

Dumb because it totally misses the nature of the insurgency as it was in 2007. The insurgency was made up of three distinct separate insurgency movements. One Shia (the Mahdi Army), one religious Sunni (al Qaeda in Iraq, the Islamic Army in Iraq, etc), and one secular but distinctly Sunni (1920s Revolution Brigades, Naqushabandi Sufi Army).

To be a member of one insurgency group was not to be insulated from terrorist threat, but would make you more likely to be threatened by members of the other insurgency groups. Again, in 2007 much of the violence was between Shias targeting Sunnnis and vice versa.

Our position is that the dead photographer was embedded with Shia insurgents of the Mahdi Army. This would only be possible if they knew him and trusted him. And, if true, would also make it more likely -- not less -- that his family would be targeted.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 10:58 AM | Comments |