Coffee!: Here’s an interesting design inference re a historic photo
| November 15, 2009 | Posted by O'Leary under Design inference |
The cloud patterns in two photos taken during the Spanish Civil War are identical, according to a column by George Will:
In a slightly less dramatic photo of another falling soldier, taken by Capa at the same time – the cloud configuration is the same as in “Falling Soldier” – the soldier falls on the same spot.
The interesting thing is, don’t blame photoshop; these pix were created in 1936.
Will goes on to note, quite properly, that photographer Capa had an honourable career as a war photographer (a highly dangerous profession), which came to an abrupt end when he stepped on a land mine. But it seems likely now that he manipulated an iconic photo.
For the evidence base I’ll go with the cloud patterns, whose configuration is the same most likely because they had been captured once on film. A design inference.
Added: Commenter Voice Coil at 1 below gives a more expert account of how the photo was probably staged/faked. Note: When I make a design inference, I don’t necessarily know how it was done; it’s the statistical unlikelihood of chance that prompts investigation. Reuters bought doctored stuff for quite a while before the penny dropped, as have other news outlets.
Why did Capa do it? First, people have only recently begun to be fairly certain that he did it, and he has been dead a long time, so I can only hazard a guess. Will says he was a man of the Left, so I surmise he probably wanted to help his own side by producing an unforgettable photo. But, as every photographer knows, unforgettable photos cannot be produced just when needed. Lots of people hated Franco, as he did, so there probably was no great incentive to doubt or fact-checking.
12 Responses to Coffee!: Here’s an interesting design inference re a historic photo
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Denyse:
“For the evidence base I’ll go with the cloud patterns, whose configuration is the same most likely because they had been captured once on film. A design inference.”
Illustrating the risks inherent in such inferences. The correct inference is not that the photo was manipulated in the darkroom, Photoshop-style (use of a single cloud background, photographed once, in two photos), but rather that the event was staged at a location other than the battlefield it was claimed to depict. Several photos of staged events were taken at the same time and location with overlapping backgrounds that can be correlated with contemporary photos of the same area, 30 miles from the claimed battlefield.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....taged.html
Quote from Will’s column:
“But noble purposes do not validate misrepresentations. Richard Whelan, Capa’s biographer, calls it “trivializing” to insist on knowing whether this photo actually shows a soldier mortally wounded. Whelan says “the picture’s greatness actually lies in its symbolic implications, not in its literal accuracy.”
Rubbish. The picture’s greatness evaporates if its veracity is fictitious. To argue otherwise is to endorse high-minded duplicity…”
I would agree with George Will here, as would most of the human race. If a historical account of anything is shown to be factually inaccurate, the “greatness” of that account “evaporates”. People don’t care about symbolism. People care about the truth.
Would this also therefore apply to the newsreel footage of Gen. Douglas MacArthur stepping out of a landing boat and wading ashore in the Phillipines? This footage was shown repeatedly worldwide and was used to support MacArthur’s famous quote “I have…returned”, which ultimately marked the turn of the tide in the southern Pacific.
I ask because the footage was entirely staged; indeed, one can find the “blooper” reel in which the landing was repeated multiple times, until MacArthur was satisfied that they “got it right”.
And, does it apply to the most famous photo from WWII, the Marines raising the flag on Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima?
In other words, what “design inference” would one draw from the newsreel footage of Gen. MacArthur’s “return” to the Phillipines and the Marine’s flag-raising on Iwo Jima?
Thanks for the update on pre-computer ways of faking a photo, Voice Coil. The fact that it sure looked like the same clouds attracted attention, as when – in some photos of war scenes in the Middle East, some stuff just didn’t make sense. Reuters bought doctored stuff for quite a while before the penny dropped, as have other news outlets.
When I make a design inference, I don’t necessarily know how they did it, just like I don’t necessarily know how lotto scams work, I just know that chance doesn’t make sense in this case.
Of course, all photographs are human artifacts, and therefore no inference is required to determine that this photo too is an artifact. Indeed, “fallen soldier” itself differs in no important way from any other photo – the shutter was opened and this was the image captured. The inferences that count in this instance concern the truthfulness of the statements made about the photograph and the circumstances in which the image was collected. We infer not design (or the lack thereof), but rather we infer deception.
Voice Coil, deception is as form of design, and the universe looks like an artifact to me, as to most peoople, hence a design inference there too.
“Would this also therefore apply to the newsreel footage of Gen. Douglas MacArthur…I ask because the footage was entirely staged; indeed, one can find the “blooper” reel in which the landing was repeated multiple times, until MacArthur was satisfied that they “got it right”.”
Absolutely! It’s great that you are now actively applying the design inference! You detected an independent pattern (the blooper real), and then inferred that the chance that these could were multiple, separate events was negligible, and therefore that this was staged.
So, the question is, if this is a standard and obvious way of evaluating patterns, why is it not applicable to biology?
Granted, design detection is a valid science, but not when applied to biology!
After all, photographs are not self-replicating (neither are photographers, for that matter).
Mung at 9: I have no reason whatever to believe that design detection cannot be applied to biology, now that I am reading Signature in the Cell.
I suspect that the whole system you seem to speak for is in ruins, except for what you can do through the courts and alarmist pundits.
Denyse, have you had your coffee yet?
If there is one thing I despise about people, it is the inability to acknowledge they were wrong.
This isn’t to say that I despise Denyse, but I do not hesitate to “despise” her “conclusions.”
ID is in RUINS! You heard it first from Denyse O’Leary.
Time to celebrate your victory, Denyse.