I really don't know. They kinda look real.

Like all celebrities, there have been "gay" rumors about him. Maybe they were all wrong, he was just a transvestite.

BobGeorge909 said:

rushing07 said:

Take "make-up" as an example.

never ever let them take photos!


waiting for the video clip to surface...

That pic is sooo fake!

Real! Instead of the "golden boy",he's been a "golden girl" all along!

sexxydancer said:

rushing07 said:

Like what? Added a leg to a cave drawing of a horse? Painted a moustache on a 19th century wanted poster? These are not things that would fool anybody. It is only in this day and age that we can stare ourselves blind at seemingly real pictures and not be able to tell if we can trust what we're seeing or not.

retina said:

You have take into consideration the fact that the audience was not always as "sophisticated" as it is today. What is obviosly fake to us, seemed horribly real to out grandparents.

Think about the history of cosmetic surgery.
Think about the early cinema.
Think about the Sistine Chapel.
Think about the introduction of perspective in painting.
The list goes on and on.

All is but illusion.
[Edited 9/25/07 15:20pm]

Where is his neck in these pics?

It's just a head on shoulders.

JustErin said:

You're looking for his neck? Really?

rushing07 said:

People with Natalie Maines syndrome freak me out. I looked at other pics of him and he has a normal neck...I just wonder where it went in these pics. Must have been shy about being in drag so it hid.

rushing07 said:

that said...men can lie all they want....women r still the biggest liars in the world...from the fake waves and eyelashes all the way down tot he high heels and everything inbetween....girdles...push up bras...corsets...make-up....tight jeans...LIES LIES LIES!

some look real and some don't. i think its all photoshopped.

JustErin said:

I like turtle necks.

BobGeorge909 said:

Yes, we are fucking evil beings.
[Edited 9/25/07 15:35pm]

heybaby said:

I just your avi.

jess555ja said:

i also wonder if they are not real, why would someone do all of this? what did he do to them?

You're kind of missing my point here, intentionally or not.

rushing07 said:

Cosmetic surgery is from our day and age but anyways; it is "what you see is what you get". You see a person with a certan type of face, and that is what that person really looks like in the moment you look at it, surgery or no surgery. If you look at a manipulated picture though, you have no idea if there is something like that in reality or not a lot of the time.



What about it? The first film ever was of a train pulling into a station. Well, that was't telling any lies. They really had shot a train pulling into the station.



Everybody knew and knows that paintings are not exact depictions of reality. Manipulated photos of today on the other hand, often pass themselves off as such.

Do you understand my point now? I'm really not talking about "illusions" in general, but rather about the fact that today we can't trust the alleged exact depictions of reality, whereas in the olden days, there was no way they could have pulled such a stunt on us with contemporary imagery.

This is the least interesting scandal I can remember. Who here doesn't have similar pictures... not me, of course!

retina said:

I get your point but to some people King Kong seemed real first time they saw the movie. Seriously. Recall Orson Welles' The War of the Worlds (no images here, but similar tactics)
[Edited 9/25/07 15:44pm]

rushing07 said:

I'm sure it seemed real enough for them to enjoy the movie, but I'm equally sure that nobody in their right mind actually believed that there was such a huge ape out there in the world somewhere.



That was a radio show! People got freaked out because they thought it was a real news broadcast. I'm talking about images (moving and stills).

There was just no way you could make believable counterfeit images before this day and age (with the occasional exception of some 1900s UFO pictures and such, where people believed them just because they wanted to believe them), but today you can squint at your tv screen and ask yourself "was that an actual lion or just CGI?". It's really weird.

BobGeorge909 said:

oookay. let me just throw out all my form-fitting clothing and makeup because they make me a liar.

retina said:

Speaking of trains in the early movies:
http://www.iamhist.org/jo...tomore.pdf

rushing07 said:

I'm not going to read all that.

If you're trying to make some kind of point, then maybe you can explain it to me instead?

so what photo am I meant to be looking at? I'll tell ya if it's real or not

retina said:

You said that no one in their right mind would think that Kong was real.
The early audiences believed the train the saw on the screen could break through the canvas and kill them. Panic attacks were not uncommon.

rushing07 said:

So they were startled because it was something they'd never seen before, so what? People that went to see King Kong knew the film medium very well, as do audiences today. The difference is that back then, Kong was obviously a guy in a monkey suit fighting miniatures, and Ray Harryhausen made clay animations that moved in such a jerky way that they almost gave you epilepsy, whereas today people look at the screen and they really can't tell what is a special effect and what is real a lot of the time.

Surely you must see that image manipulation has entered a whole new era of a level of quality and convincing fakes that the world has never seen before? There's just no way you an compare the fakes of the 1950s or 60s or 70s or even 80s, and most definitely not the fakes of previous years, to what is being done today. Hell, I myself was alive in the early eighties and I didn't believe the special effects back then (and fake images were basically unheard of; if you saw a picture of something, then that was considered "proof" and was even admissable in court). Now though, it's really, really hard, if not impossible, to tell a good photoshop job from a real photograph for example. People have always tried their best to manipulate and fool our eyes, but these days they actualy succeed.

retina said:

Propagandists in the Soviet Union famously deleted politicians from photographs when they fell out of favor. In these photos, Vladimir Lenin celebrates the second anniversary of the Russian Revolution in Red Square. But in the second one, his comrade Leon Trotsky is suddenly persona non grata.

Source: "The Commissar Vanishes," newseum.org

Before


After

rushing07 said:

So your answer is "yes" then? You actually do believe that people were just as fooled back then by manipulated images as they are today?