69

This image is widely shared on social media.

enter image description here

Did they really do that?

The photo seems real because there is what appears to be Hebrew letters in the background and the uniforms look right.

Christian
  • 33,271
  • 15
  • 112
  • 266

1 Answers1

176

TL;DR: No, the image is photo-shopped.

This is shown by:

  • Finding an earlier published image which is extremely similar, aside from the content of the placard being Israeli flag (star of David) instead of a message; and no other changes aside from minor image processing ones (different compression ratio, minor cropping)

  • Preponderance of circumstantial evidence

    • Image processing evidence (image differences are consistent with photo editing being applied to produce the OP's Twitter image)

    • Lack of evidence that Twitter image originated from an Israeli soldier despite 200+ reposts.

  • Evidence 1:

    I did a Google Image Search on this image.

    Of the 200+ hits, NONE of them were from an Israeli or pro-Israeli website. The image resides exclusively in Arab or anti-Israeli social media feeds and blogs

    Please note that there are TWO data points here:

    • most of the image's copes seen on Twitter and FB are dated from August 3d and on. I haven't found a single earlier image (this isn't proof by itself, but a data point for proof in Evidence #2).

    • NONE of the posts linked to the original source of the image on "Israeli" side to prove its originality. (Circumstantial evidence)

  • Evidence 2:

    However, a VERY similar image was posted on an Israeli web site on July 31, 2014 (StandWithUs Facebook page):

    enter image description here

    Note that the image is nearly identical, save for placards being Israeli flag instead of the offensive message, and being slightly better quality subjectively (I didn't analyze EXIF data, however).

    As of right now, I have no formal proof for "nearly identical", but seeking a good methodology to prove that.

  • Evidence 3:

    I also compared EXIF info from 2 images : 2014/07/31 original vs 2014/08/xx twitter.

    The original has Original Transmission Reference field (aka Job Identifier)... while the Twitter one doesn't; which - while not a proof - is consistent with an image taken with a camera vs. one saved in image editing program. I asked for whether it's a valid conclusion on Photography.SE (Circumstantial evidence)

  • Evidence 4:

    The overall quality of the presumed-original image is higher. For examples, the people in front of white car on the left have more defined skin tone on their hands, and overall the image looks sharper, despite being smaller file size as per EXIF data.

  • Evidence 5:

    The twitter image is SMALLER, it's cropped.

    The presumed-original, for example, shows a human shadow all the way on the right of the image missing from the photoshop copy (and the second word of the text is fully visible as opposed to being cut off at 1 letter); as well as the headlight of the white car on the left of the image.

  • Evidence 6:

    What the women are holding are binders (you can see the binding spiral on top of them). Having a binder with a slogan used as a poster is not exactly normal or ever done (whereas putting a country flag on top of a binder is quite plausible). (Circumstantial evidence)

UN-CITED ASSUMPTIONS:

  1. That you can not easily change the posting date of a Facebook image (Evidence #2).

    • Or that Facebook itself isn't part of a cover-up by changing the date.

  2. That the 2 images are indeed almost identical, aside from slight cropping and the placard content. (Evidence #2).

    One one hand, human brain is known to be very good at assessing such similarity (again, citation needed) and clearly a vast majority of voters agree. On the other hand, that's not formal proof even so, and it's a logical fallacy to rely on "majority of voters agree".

    As such, I posted a question on Photography.SE for a way to more formally compare 2 images. If it doesn't get closed as offtopic, I will apply whatever solution gets proposed here as further proof of this assumption.

  3. That it's very hard to "uncrop" an image, or add quality. (Evidence #4/5).

    (as opposed to cropping it and reducing quality due to lossy compression).

  4. People don't usually use pre-printed spiral binders to print posters as a rule. (Evidence #6).

Community
  • 1
user5341
  • 31,075
  • 8
  • 130
  • 178
  • 30
    Evidence 6: The writing on the placards is in English rather than Hebrew (like the other writing in the photo). – Gabe Aug 17 '14 at 05:08
  • I do not want to say it is photo-shopped or is original but only want to critique your evidences: evidence 1: it does not prove anything. perhaps the Israeli site has removed it. 2: this Image can be made by Photoshop later. 3: EXIF data can be altered by different software. 3: quality and tone can be improved by Photoshop. 4: size can become larger by Photoshop. but finally still I consider the possibility of the photo being photoshoped. – Battle of Karbala Aug 17 '14 at 05:41
  • 15
    @BattleofKarbala - (1). The problem isn't that the original can't be found, but that NONE of the 200+ instances of Arab ones linked to where the original came from (even if that original is no longer a working page, Google Cache can be used to view deleted image). "I copied it from that Arab's twitter" isn't proof of originality. Only "I copied it from this Israeli's FB feed" is. (2) **You can't fake Facebook posting date**. (3/4) Google "Occam's Razor". Nobody would deliberately add details AND the edges that would take days to draw and don't address the actual changes being photoshopped – user5341 Aug 17 '14 at 07:26
  • @DVK why you assume the original has came from an Internet site? it can be came from a non-Internet source like a digital camera or cell phone or email or hacked PC or... FB is itself a supporter of Israel and can fake dates if needed. it manipulates function of pro-Palestine pages to decrease their reach. Zionists spend lots of time and money to silent anything anti-Israel. anyway I consider probability of being Photoshopped for your evidences and also some evidences not mentioned by you. but I can not tell it is 100% Photoshopped. – Battle of Karbala Aug 17 '14 at 11:16
  • 16
    @BattleofKarbala Re your points 3 and 4, there are limits to what can be done with Photoshop, unless you are a very talented artist. For example, if "We kill children" was the original image, the only way to get the Israeli flag version would be to draw, by hand, the missing parts of the image (such as the front of the van in the top-right background). Of course, there are people who can draw photorealistic images by hand but it's a very rare skill. Likewise, Photoshop can reduce blur by only a limited degree; "We kill children" is much blurrier than the Israeli flag version. – David Richerby Aug 17 '14 at 11:18
  • 24
    Evidence 7: These sorts of [comb binders](http://www.aliexpress.com/popular/comb-ring-binders-plastic.html) don't fold over easily. Both these womens' binders appear to be on the first page. So, Israel would have to manufacture 2 comb binders, one with the "We Kill" and one with "Children!" and would need people to stand in the right order when taking photos (Hebrew reads right-to-left, ) – user1873 Aug 17 '14 at 17:44
  • 1
    @user1873 I wouldn't base anything on the message being in English. Non-English speakers hold up placards in English all the time -- just watch news reports of any big protest. – David Richerby Aug 17 '14 at 20:49
  • 2
    This appears to be original research. Please explain why we should trust your analysis. – Oddthinking Aug 19 '14 at 16:32
  • 4
    @Oddthinking - Because it doesn't contain irreproducible experiments, as original research would. Every single piece of evidence is verifiable independently of me. Frankly, I agree with the other answerer - if I merely posted that on my own blog and linked to it wouldn't be considered "original research" at all. – user5341 Aug 19 '14 at 19:48
  • @Oddthinking - Also, you seem to have a standing policy that photo analysis like this is in-scope and isn't deleted as "not original research" (\[[1](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/10167/does-this-photo-show-large-crowds-of-protestors-in-mexico)], \[[2](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9480/is-this-arrangement-of-coins-possible/9482#9482)], \[[3](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/15958/is-boston-bombing-victim-jeff-bauman-double-amputee-soldier-nick-vogt)],... – user5341 Aug 19 '14 at 19:49
  • @Oddthinking - \[[4](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/10833/does-the-20-bill-predict-the-9-11-attacks/10838#10838)], \[[5](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/6193/1044)] – user5341 Aug 19 '14 at 19:52
  • @Oddthinking - \[[6](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/14307/1044)], \[[7](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/22846/1044)] – user5341 Aug 19 '14 at 19:55
  • 1
    @Oddthinking - This is another one by a mod here... again, taking basically 100% same original research on a blog - http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/6499/1044 – user5341 Aug 19 '14 at 20:00
  • 3
    I would suggest to bring this up on meta, comments are not the right place for this. Our policy on this could benefit from some clarifications. – Mad Scientist Aug 19 '14 at 20:35
  • 1
    DVK, at first look I thought @Oddthinking was being ironic. Because AFAICT we don't need to 'trust' your analysis, we can go and check it. – Benjol Aug 20 '14 at 06:22
  • 3
    I don't think this contains original research. It's pointing to direct independently verifiable evidence. Whilst it may not be as strong as uncovering the author, many of the things pointed out are typically what we can look at without requiring expertise. – Sklivvz Aug 20 '14 at 20:57
  • On the other hand the other deleted answer seems to be of little value to us (it's providing specific photo expertise, which we can't judge, but no evidence) – Sklivvz Aug 20 '14 at 21:00
  • @Sklivvz - IMHO it can be easily improved - add reference that ELA is a widely used tool - which I have heard of before; and add reference on how ELA should be read. Both should be easily obtainable for someone familiar with subject matter (sadly I'm not so I couldn't do the necessary research and add the references) – user5341 Aug 20 '14 at 21:57
  • 2
    Minor nitpick, because Hebrew is right-to-left, it's actually the *first* word that's cut off in the smaller image. It says פיקוד העורף, [Homefront Command](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Front_Command). Below it appears to be either an army acronym or some location ID, i can't tell. +1 for great analysis anyways. :) – Scimonster Jan 13 '15 at 16:33
  • I think the idea that this is not "photoshopped" is already pretty ridiculous at this point, even if the proof could be improved to make it even more certain that it was. That's a very unlikely photo for real Israeli soldiers to take, and it would be very easy to "photoshop" in that way, since it is just text on flat surfaces on white backgrounds, with some fingers in front it. You just paint out the Star of David, appropriately distort the text so the angle looks right, then "set white to transparent", add it on another layer and manually remove the parts in front of the fingers, or sim. – H. H. Sep 15 '22 at 00:41