What is Digg?156 Comments
- Insightful, on 09/19/2008, -5/+90Some wants to defend the army by noting that perhaps official portraits were not available. If that is the case, why not just use regular snap shots, family portraits, or group pictures? Or better yet, just tell the truth and say "official photographs current unavailable"?
Why is telling the truth so hard? - kg37, on 09/19/2008, -6/+61Why would they need to do this again? Why can't we trust our government for anything anymore?
- KrazyA1pha, on 09/20/2008, -1/+36Actually, it looks like the photo of SGT Durbin (19) is his actual photo. The shadow behind is head matches and his name tag looks authentic. In the other photo, the head looks pasted on, the shadow doesn't match, the stars right above his head look like they're cloned from the row above, and the nametag lettering is too strait. I'm also going to assume that the coloring of the rest of the picture was altered to match the coloring of the photo they had of his face.
I imagine they didn't have a photo for SSG Dawson on file and did some quick photoshop work for the media release. - dinostabOMG, on 09/20/2008, -2/+32They're so unused to it maybe? After a while, lying begins to become routine, I suppose.
- misterparry, on 09/20/2008, -4/+24I'm glad my hard paying tax dollars can't even give me some decent photoshop. Thanks for nothing.
- jthei, on 09/20/2008, -2/+22I know it's fun to romanticize everything and constantly look for the conspiracy but the truth is hardly ever as fantastic. I am an enlisted graphic designer in the Army (we're not all infantrymen) and sadly I've had to produce several prints for Soldier funerals - and the leadership always wants to find an official photo to try and honor the memory of the Soldier but unfortunately that's not always possible. Sometimes the only photo you can find in the days after someone dies are them sitting with their shirt off with a bottle of whiskey in one hand and the other throwing the middle finger - not exactly funeral display material. And while I don't condone chopping someone's head off and slapping it on someone else's body, I can assure you there is no conspiracy behind it, just a poor judgment call by a Soldier who has probably never even shaken hands with someone who would be considered "in the Bush administration".
We're not all fascists or neocons or war mongers, some of us just couldn't afford to sit on our asses after high school and, like it or not, the military offers a lot of opportunity for schooling and the ability to pay your rent. Disagree with me all you want but we're not that different. - SnapDragon86, on 09/20/2008, -1/+21the us government sucks at photoshop
- gtoben, on 09/20/2008, -4/+20Our government should have taken a hint from Iran and impeccable photoshopping abilities. Makes you wonder what else they're doctoring...
- Mootabolife, on 09/20/2008, -1/+16How many soldiers died in Iraq again? Can we trust that number anymore?
- snockhockster, on 09/20/2008, -5/+20Honor by forgery? That's quite a radical concept when you think about it.
What else are they, or you, willing to counterfeit in order to maintain or display honor? - Kiloboba, on 09/20/2008, -4/+18Fake news give us fake photos of soldiers who died in a fake war. The matrix has you.
- overridemymind, on 09/20/2008, -4/+17Your explanation is logical.
The Army has what're called "D.A. Photos" -- which are "Department of the Army Photos" -- basically, they're file photos. Not all soldiers have them, for various reasons.
For example -- I myself am a soldier enlisted in the United States Army ("yes, I know, que the booing") and I don't have a DA photo on file. In my specific instance, during in-processing for Basic Combat Training, they take the new recruits in to take said photos. I was diverted, however, and instead went to a security interview. There were no "make up" photos. *lol* That was three years and three months ago. I still have no DA Photo, due in part to a very busy schedule.
That's probably what happened in this instance. The soldier had no DA Photo, so in order to post a photo, they probably took another soldier who had the same general build, and pasted a few things here and there. They don't use personal photos, because Army policy requires a "professional" photo for certain things -- this is one of those instances.
But instead, let's just spin this into some sort of whacked out, conspiracy theory, "The Army and EVERYTHING they do is evil RAWR" story. I don't get it in the case of this story. Other (read: reasonably questionable) stories... protest and complain about the Army all you like. This story, however, is not a case of "OMG The Army can't tell the truth to save its life"
Therefore, article buried. - richirwin, on 09/20/2008, -1/+14My question exactly - why would they do this?
The only reason I can imagine is that they have some compulsive need to release pictures of soldiers sitting like this in front of the American flag and decided to use a "template" on which to put the face of the soldier.
At best, it's silly.
At worst, it further erodes any remaining credibility the military has at this point. - pillcounterd, on 09/20/2008, -1/+12I want to thank you for doing what most on here don't have the guts to do: serve.
- BradHAWK, on 09/20/2008, -0/+10What reasons? You didn't give any! Did you WRITE them in braille?
- an0nymous, on 09/20/2008, -4/+13But the work is so ...amateurish.
This was intended to fool people?
I don't know how I'd feel about a decent shop job, but this is disrespectful. At least hire a decent graphic arts guy. - salmonfish, on 09/20/2008, -3/+12It probably seemed harmless enough at the time. Still not a good idea though.
- auer1816, on 09/20/2008, -8/+17Why is it that I'm not surprised. This whole ***** war is a huge pile of ***** policies and tactics.
- Renster84, on 09/20/2008, -1/+9I like your pure honesty.
People forget that people have to do these things to get by. Maybe the army thought best of not showing them in less than brilliant circumstances. They were likley trying to be respectful and united but have fallen down in the attempt. - dinostabOMG, on 09/20/2008, -3/+11They can't even pretend that we can trust them any more than the Iranian government now. But they sure did do a lot of hollering when Iran got caught doing the same thing recently.
- AriaStar, on 09/20/2008, -6/+14What won't the ***** government lie to us about?! I have faith in the gov. for one thing, and that's that they will lie to us.
- odigity, on 09/20/2008, -0/+8You're never supposed to trust your government. You're the government's supervisor. You're supposed to always be keeping it in check, like an annoying parent, sniffing at their bedroom door.
- Rudegar, on 09/20/2008, -4/+12if they don't photo-shop only the Iranians get practice!
- johnnr2, on 09/20/2008, -5/+12That is creepy.
- Azerael, on 09/20/2008, -1/+8You mean they don't look like photoshops to you? Are you reading Digg as brail?
- inactive, on 09/20/2008, -0/+7The Army sucks at Photoshop:
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3793/doctoredph ... - yojiffyskippy, on 09/20/2008, -0/+5FTA “I’d like to think that the media holds itself pretty accountable and we try really hard to keep high standards,” Owen said.
Now THAT'S hilarious! - Emeron, on 09/20/2008, -1/+6Are you saying that the pictures aren't photoshopped or are you saying that the story is fake? I'm assuming you're saying the latter, but I'm asking for clarification.
- Azerael, on 09/20/2008, -1/+6Have faith in nothing. Question everything.
- pstone40, on 09/20/2008, -1/+6There's a Army Reg for everything including official photographs.
- EbenieRosa, on 09/20/2008, -6/+111984?
- ShuttleXpC, on 09/20/2008, -14/+19They take your picture when you are in Basic, they don't have individual pictures for each soldier (full body). I don't understand why people are angered by this, they are trying to honor these people by putting them in the uniform they served in, with the country's flag they served under. If anything, this actually shows they care enough to take the time to create some mock photo's when they were under no obligation to do so.
Go die for another country and see what they do for your ass. Stop with the BS and realize this was done to honor these soldiers. - Solkre, on 09/20/2008, -3/+8I see some Iran military Photoshopists have defected to the US. We finnaly have this technology!
- myklee, on 09/20/2008, -0/+4then he should of said that.
- snockhockster, on 09/20/2008, -0/+4Creating a forgery or counterfeit image, which is in effect a lie, is no way to honor servicemen and women.
- snockhockster, on 09/20/2008, -3/+7You see no difference in selecting a flattering picture and counterfeiting one?
- CommanderEFG, on 09/20/2008, -0/+4This looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.
- northwatuppa, on 09/20/2008, -4/+8Weird. Ghoulish.
- 0tis, on 09/20/2008, -0/+4Or, they could have saved everyone some time, fuss and probably a little bit of government money and just printed "No photo available".
- dsmx, on 09/20/2008, -2/+6If the government is allowed to keep secrets then you can never trust it.
- PleaseJustDie, on 09/20/2008, -1/+5I only had one taken before training, and it kind of sucked, besides these people were staff sergeants and sergeants, it would be disrespectful to their achievements to display a picture of them as a private.
- joe8pack, on 09/20/2008, -0/+4This is very sad and indicative of the military/political mentality that says all soldiers are interchangeable, they are after only cannon fodder not real people. Just swap the heads and send out the photos. Cookie cutter wars need cookie cutter soldiers.
At one time this country stood for something, now we will sit through anything. We have lost our way and our greatness, soon we will lose our treasure and even our soul if we cannot find a way off this path towards oblivion. - rmxz, on 09/20/2008, -0/+4Does anyone think we see any photos out of Iraq that aren't photoshopped?
- ousthouse, on 09/20/2008, -1/+5How many people originally thought they turned the black guy into a white guy?
- jasonbalmforth, on 09/20/2008, -1/+4Which one of them is comrade Ogilvy?
- inactive, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3You don't need to be a graphic artist to tell when a picture is this obviously fake. Especially if you're this guy's mother and you know what he actually looks like.
But year, I'm not offended that they did this, just that they did such a poor job. I mean, the guy died, you could at least adjust the color balance, maybe feather the edges, something. - Half-Fast, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3Well said, jthei. I was just going to comment on the fact that this was probably what happened and prepare to be dugg down. I have many pics of my Army days at parties, but I can't find one "official" pic.
I figured they were probably the pics off of their military id cards.
It's not a pretty situation, but I'm sure their families would rather have this than the alternative. Or maybe not....hell, I don't know, but I do know that the military and the network of families of those who are serving try to do the best that they can for the families who have lost a soldier. I'm so friggin tired of everything that happens in the world being blamed on Republicans as just one small part of their evil world domination plan. - insanebrain, on 09/20/2008, -2/+5still 5 more months to go. . .and then the REAL ***** is going to hit the fan.
- djcreamy, on 09/20/2008, -3/+6I fancy myself a troll, but at least I'm not a retard. I agree with zippy757. There were probably no flattering shots of Dawson. His only photo may have included sensitive equipment or locations in the background in which case the photo would never have been released. Perhaps there was only measuring tape and the blank wall of the Provost Marshall. Either way, the common person would never recognize this photo as doctored, and the family can look on in pride as their child was pictured in the newspaper as a war hero and not a suspect in a gang or drug-related homicide.
- Emeron, on 09/20/2008, -1/+4I'll admit, the title does make it sound a bit more evil than it actually is, but the easier thing would have been just to mention that the photo for that soldier (Dawson, I think?) was unavailable. Then again, there -might- have been a bit of a worry that having a white soldier's portrait while not having a black soldier's portrait would make them look bad. I'm hoping that's not the case, though, because the military has more important concerns right now.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 157 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 