The Secret To Iranian Drone Technology? Just Add Photoshop 183
garymortimer writes "Earlier this month, Iran's news agency provided visual evidence that its government had figured out to make a fancy new drone that could take off and land vertically. What they didn't tell us is that they used Photoshop to make it stop taking off from the roof of Japan's Chiba University, which built the aircraft and never had anything to do with Iran's alleged version of it."
Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Interesting)
Though none of them are gay or drink alcohol, of course.
But seriously, everything Iran does these days is done with one thing in mind: sending the message that they're strong and won't be invaded easily. Their military bragging, their nuclear program, etc. are all aimed at this. That's why I don't worry about them nuking Israel of any of that nonsense. They're not crazy, they just want to make it clear that they're not going to be an easy pushover the way Saddamn Hussein was.
Look at it from their perspective. George W. Bush includes them as part of the "Axis of Evil" (and that speech one of the worst diplomatic blunders in the 21st century IMHO). Then he proceeds to invade one of the three members of said Axis, right next door. And this was just after the U.S. had invaded the country on the OTHER SIDE of them. It's little surprise that they went a little nuts and elected hardliners in the next election and really started ramping up their nuke program immediately following (or that North Korea followed suite). Let's face it, about the only way to ensure that the U.S. can't invade you is to have nukes.
Their nukes, their saber rattling, even their Photoshopping of fictional weapons--those aren't about Israel, they're about the U.S.
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Could have been shopped by the Chinese for them.
Sure, but they farmed the actual work out to Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, a country that wants to completely obliterate another country is oh so respectful of copyright infringement and export laws.
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yes, The shah was sooooo horrible compared to mossadegh who was friendly with the USSR. The islamists took power in 1979, not the decades prior. Your ilk is merely a cabal of useful idiots without a shred of historical perspective. Look at how the idiot liberals in Iran got "betrayed" by Khomeini right after taking power.
Stop blaming America for everything. Try to understand that history is more complicated than your cute little wikipedia articles.
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
What give the United States the right to decide who rules a country?
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
No. You're confusing the willingness to arbitrarily use power in service of one's own goals with the right to do so, which can only come from consent of the governed, which the US most assuredly did not get from Iranians, or pretty much anyone else it has interfered with.
Please stop doing that.
Aside from being wrong, it blinds you to why other countries resent the US, and why they feel they have legitimate reasons to act against US interests.
Our rights-free meddling has almost entirely stripped the legitimacy from our foreign policy.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You're confusing the willingness to arbitrarily use power in service of one's own goals with the right to do so, which can only come from consent of the governed, which the US most assuredly did not get from Iranians, or pretty much anyone else it has interfered with. Please stop doing that.
No. Your confusing national will with the reality of the geopolitical situation, which to a certain extent is dictated by the reality of the situation, not the players, per se.
Please stop doing that.
For example, what would have been the real outcome of Neville Chamberlain's claim that he had obtained "Peace in our time" if he had instead proclaimed "Hitler is a rabid mongrel bent on world destruction?" A world war that had started a year earlier. In other words, the same outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Colonialism isn't "alright" with much of the world - except England, Spain, Portugal, and France, and I guess Germany.
And, I guess it's hard for an outsider, or for a colonial, to see much difference between Old World colonialism and modern American hegemony.
Not to worry, though. We are currently pissing away all of our collateral on the world stage, while China collects power. Soon enough, it will be China that everyone hates, instead of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's not. But it doesn't excuse our actions, either.
Re: (Score:2)
What about France, Portugal, Belgium, UK, and on and on that just decided to carve up land and people and force them to like it??
Would never have happened, none of those countries had the political will or ability to do any of those things. Try to bare in mind I'm not describing what's morally right, just what the actual reality of the situation was. I would put forth that had the US not acted as it did, most of Europe would be under Soviet domination now. The US didn't create Stalin,the Russian Empire did.
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Interesting)
It was only a deadly cold war in the eyes of the paranoid retard leaders in the US and USSR.
You seem to believe that the cold war could have been avoided had the US (and I supose the USSR) "done things differently"? Of course. But you types seem to be perfectly happy to rest the fault of that era soley on a very simplistic view of the world at that time. And it is, but to colour the US as wholly or mostly complicate is to completely misunderstand the cold war and how it started.
The Cold War is completely and wholly the fault of one Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin. His meglo paranoia led him to slaughter whole regions of his own country, swallow up whole countries out of eastern europe, and start fucking with other countries' politics behind the scenes. If you look at the stance and shape of eastern europe right after WWII its most obviously the stance of a defendable fortress whose enemy is directly from the west. This is the construction of an increadibly paranoid mind that controls the entire economy of the east. As proof I offer history as well as the outcome of the cuban missle crisis. Can you imagine the soviet ships turning back had Stalin still been in power? The cold war for the west was a response to a very diseased, paranoid mind armed with nukes, that's all. The US is not blameless, but less blameful than you seem to think.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As proof I offer history as well as the outcome of the cuban missle crisis. Can you imagine the soviet ships turning back had Stalin still been in power? The cold war for the west was a response to a very diseased, paranoid mind armed with nukes, that's all. The US is not blameless, but less blameful than you seem to think.
The Cuban missile crisis can be summarized as:
1 - The US puts missiles in Turkey, aimed at the Soviets
2 - The Soviets retaliate by shipping equivalent missile to Cuba, a simple parity move
3 - Kennedy decides to play hardball by threatening Kruchev with nuclear war
4 - Kruchev realizes that Kennedy is totally nuts, and decides to live with the Turkey missiles in order to avoid nuclear war
At least that's my take on it. The US is not as blameless as you want to think.
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, it was all a load of bollocks. Neither country could ever have invaded or destroyed the other. .
We know this now; hindsight is 20/20.
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
you have no damn clue what you're talking about
Oh? Well, enlighten me, oh scholar?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Then point to something that gives the whole story. Throwing your arms into the air and declaring everyone else an idiot hardly makes you look good. Just makes you look like a loonie.
Honestly I cannot imagine a source that would allow you to justify what the US has done in the middle east in general. But, i'm open to it, if such a thing exists. You wont be supplying one, of course, since none actually do.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I would have left Saddam in power. He was the ONLY buffer in that part of the world that was a threat Iran. Now that he's gone Iran is the single bully in that neighborhood. Something tells me if Saddam was still there then Iran wouldn't be pushing their nuclear program like they are today.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the kind of thinking that allows evil to triumph; good men doing nothing. What right does a good man have in dictating to any other man? No right, except when dictators, tyrants and despots rule. There is a fine line between good and evil, and it is waged on the line of wants to verse has to. I don't want to be in a fight, I don't go looking for a fight, but I will kick the living shit out of bullies who are threatening me or my loved ones. And while I am kicking the shit out of the poor sod, I look exactly like them, if you go by appearances and results.
And if it is a choice between a dictator that is friendly to us, or one that is not friendly to us, I'll support the one who is. Shaw of Iran was NOT a nice guys, but he was a thousand times better than the idiots running the place since, although it is not saying much. Some places need a dictator to rule, because the people and culture expect it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. We're on the Good Guy Team and they're on the Bad Guy Team! It's all black and white, and we're the Holy Crusaders of this world!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, good job reading what I actually said.
Re: (Score:3)
The Shah of Iran was a low life scumbag, who wasn't worthy of licking the boots of the men and women the United States threw under the bus with Operation Ajax.
Don't compare the Shah with what came after. Compare him with what we destroyed for the sake of having our own puppet ruling that country. The destruction of Iran's democratic government is probably the grandest and most heinous of our sins.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you comparing the Shah to mullahs that came after him, rather than to the democratic government that preceded him (and was overthrown with US assistance, as GP pointed out). The people and the culture of Iran mst definitely don't need or expect a dictator to rule them, and they have shown it already.
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't we support someone favorable to our interests over someone favorable to our enemies?
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a significant difference between "support" and "install by force."
As to why, once you really annoy them by imposing your will by force, they tend to respond. Not necessarily in ways you will see as reasonable or balanced. Like flying into buildings, killing thousands of people. At which point tertiary consequences arise, such as your own government going dumb-fuck-insane, stomping all over your constitutional rights, impeding travel, and generally fucking up life for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
The Yalta conference.
in power/war/politics (Score:2)
there's no such thing as the right to do something; its about whether you can or can not do it.
nearly every country that's ever been formed, was do so at the expense of those that came before it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
'Can't we all just get along'
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
It is you who suffers from a lack of historical perspective, especially when you think you're so cute and intelligent for calling other people useful idiots. You imply the Mossadegh was a bad guy because he was friendly with the USSR, but you miss the fucking point that him being friendly with the USSR might be bad for the US, but it might have been good for Iran, you know, the country that he was leading.
The Shah was propped up by the United States, and his regime was brutal and corrupt. The Iranians supported Khomeini because of his anti-Western sentiment, which was there because, you know, we propped up a brutal and corrupt regime that had screwed their country over.
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Informative)
The Iranians supported Khomeini because they thought he would just fade into the background, which is basically what he promised. When he arrived in Iran, he used his influence to squash any notion of a democratic and modern state and used the same kinds of goons the Shah had used to continue, and in fact deepen the oppression.
One can say a helluva lot of bad things against the Shah, but at least the man had a progressive vision. Khomeini, on the other hand, was a power hungry religious fanatic determined to turn back the clock. I doubt there are many Iranians of the Revolution generation who probably feel inviting Khomeini back to Iran was a very good idea.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The coup d'état was "a critical event in post-war world history" that destroyed Iran's secular parliamentary democracy, by re-installing the monarchy of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as an authoritarian ruler.[110] The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which deposed the "pro-Western" Shah and replaced the monarchy with an "anti-Western" Islamic Republic.[23]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not ignoring it. I'm comparing the Shah to Khomeini. I'm not comparing the Shah to Mosaddegh..
Re: (Score:2)
The shah had a progressive vision? You simply don't understand - he went BACKWARDS in time! Progressive? Sure, if you call it progress to abandon the cities to move into caves.
The only visions the shah may have ever had, were induced by bad drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall the Shah's vision being everyone abandoning the cities. His goals were laudable. His methods were evil. He is the perfect example of how a leader's path can be paved with good intentions and still end up leading straight to Hell.
And what exactly did Khomeini and his heirs accomplish? A broken Iran that frittered away its oil wealth on religious and ideological navel-gazing, that allowed its infrastructure to crumble as much of its learned and professional class fled the country so they're chi
Re: (Score:2)
So your argument is Shah is better than Khomeini, so the US was right to bring Shah to power? Strange I thought the US overthrew Mosaddegh to get Shah into power and not Khomeini.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said any such thing. Restoring the Shah was a horrific error that stunted Iran's attempt to become a democratic state. I'm not defending the US's activities; it's mindless support of the Shah, what I'm saying is that the Shah was a tyrant who believed the end justified the means. It's just that the end; a modern secykar Iranian state with a substantial, well-educated and productive middle class was a good goal, but that Khomeini's goal was far worse.
To my mind the Shah and Khomeini were pretty much
Re: (Score:2)
Diplomacy and foreign policy are not about what's good for the other guy.
We don't go to a place and talk and persuade them in order to make their lives easier and give them things.
You go there to get things favorable to you, not the other guy.
If that results in their lives being easier or them getting things in return, so be it. If not, so be it.
Sometimes they make the decision to shortchange a long term benefit in favor of a short term one. Sometimes they make a decision because of an overriding demand ( s
Re: (Score:2)
WFT. Idiots love to assume that the US had the power to somehow create a better regime than the shah's when in reality our choice was bad or worse. We chose bad, what we have now is worse.
The photochop is just a way for them to control the news of the day. Any day that doesn't include stories about their nuclear program is a good one for them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
US and UK did not overthrow anyone in 1953. First of all, the government was not elected. Mossadegh was appointed to become PM by the Shah of Iran according to the Iranian constitution from 1906.
The origin of this whole story is from CIA. Since when does CIA count as a reliable source? Do you believe everything CIA says? Everytime there is article about governments, CIA, NSA or anything similiar on Slashdot the majority of the people who comment are against these and always write bad things about them. But
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop blaming America?
I'm an American, and I've studied Operation Ajax. An awful damned lot of what is wrong in Iran is our fault. And, it was all done for the sake of saving a few cents on oil. Not dollars, but cents. Ajax happened just a little before I was born. Gasoline was selling for about twenty cents per gallon. Quarts of oil were little more than a gallon of gas - maybe a quarter. Crude was cheap, cheap, cheap back then.
And, we destroyed a legitimate democracy for the sake of the company that is now known as British Petroleum, or BP.
Profits before anything.
Capitalists can mock Iran, Iranian culture, camel jockeys, and anything else they care to mock. But, we murdered a legitimate democracy for the sake of oil profits, then we installed that puppet who eventually caused the revolution.
Go ahead, put the blame on the rag heads - no good capitalist is ever to blame for anything.
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
Define "they". The US had a role in the Shah, primarily as an attempt to combat what they saw as a communist friendly regime, but the primary instigators of the Shah were the British who were trying to protect British Petroleum (formerly the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) oil rights and revenues. Most of the worlds present conflicts tie back to historical meddling by European powers in the 19th and 20th centuries. US meddling started with the attempt to control the spread of communism and has persisted in various forms since but the primary conflicts of the present day are due to the former European actions.
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe. Honestly, I think the action we took was entirely legitimate as a course of action against the Soviet Union, and you can be sure that the Soviet Union would never have had a qualm about it. Nevertheless, valid actions for one purpose can have long term consequences that cannot be adequately foreseen at the time.
The Shah's regime was better than some, worse than others. They had a brutal secret police and persecutions of various left wingers and such. On the other hand, Iran had a very decent economy, more or less equal rights for women, and a Western outlook. If the Shah had been a better ruler, Iran could have probably eventually ended up like a South Korea or a Taiwan (other Western-aligned but not-quite free states in the past) and pulled out of their strongman state into something more constitutional and democratic.
Unfortunately, the more liberal elements, which could have been easily been influenced by the overthrow of Mossadegh, had their own Iranian Spring, and it turned out that they were betrayed by Khomeini and the religious leaders. In many ways, there are parallels between Iran and what is happening in Egypt right now, where relatively liberal protesters overthrow one dictator, only to see the Muslim Brotherhood in power. Obviously, it doesn't have to go down the same way, but the same off-ramp to a sharia state has now appeared in front of the Egyptians just like it did for the Iranians in 1979.
There are plenty of people who are mad at the US for supporting dictators, but the reality is that sometimes the only thing keeping a country's own population from turning their country into a pariah state is someone whose hand is on the wheel keeping it in line. Even in the developed world, we're only one or two bad democratic elections away from turning into aggressively expansionist or aggressively isolationist states. Usually the people are against wars like that in a democracy, but you beat them down enough and make them wish for control and the glory of victory over some external enemy, and it wouldn't take much for the armies to start marching.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't ignore that at all. I make it very clear that I know the Shah was not democratic at all, and not the best ruler to boot. Certainly that was undesirable, but again, you're looking at what happened as a result of one action. It's impossible to say what the results would have been with a Soviet Union friendly Iran. Indeed, the Soviet Union may well have managed to save it's economy with a dominated Iranian oil satellite state and we could still be fighting the Cold War.
It also ignores that there ar
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The argument could be made that by supporting the Shah we were saving them from themselves. A look at where they are now supports this argument.
Yeah, that's the White Man's Burden. Gotta protect those folks with brown skin from their own childish inability to see what's best for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, they're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, then.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein did the same shtick, bluffing for years that they had weapons stockpiles that really didn't exist (anymore). The US military went into the Iraq War expecting that chemical and/or biological weapons would be used against their soldiers on the ground. Did that fear really stop George W. Bush and co. from invading? Not really...
The problem with Iran's government is they're being run by two opposing camps; the religious right-wing extremists pitted against the military nationalist right-wing extremists. Buffoonery and penis length comparing naturally comes with *right-wing extremists of any sort, it seems to be a universal truth.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoever rated this insightful should go back and read a bit about the alleged claims of WMDs. All knew the claims were false, Powell later admitted that the p
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever rated this insightful should go back and read a bit about the alleged claims of WMDs. All knew the claims were false...
Which is why the countries that opposed military intervention in Iraq (mostly because their leaders were being bribed by Saddam Hussein) all said, "Yes, they have WMDs, but lets give sanctions more time."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did that fear really stop George W. Bush and co. from invading? Not really...
The above is precisely why Iran feels the need to develop actual nuclear weapons -- because a nuclear deterrent is the only sure way to keep the US from invading Iran.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why must everything be right wing? You realize WWI, and then indirectly, WWII were caused by left wing extremists called anarchists.
You have serious mental problems if you believe that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yah no shit.
Those anarchists killed 1 guy, in the most inept fuckup got lucky assasination of ALL TIME. They had already failed their attempt when the Archduke's car went down a street right by one of the bungling assasains. If not for this random set of circumstances, it would have been little more than a failure.
To blame the entire WW on such an event is ludicris. Throwing a match into a powder keg may START an explosion, but, does a lit match alone cause an explosion? The system of alliances that had bui
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And cue more proof of the sig.
Re: (Score:2)
Why must everything be right wing? You realize WWI, and then indirectly, WWII were caused by left wing extremists called anarchists
That is by far the most ridiculous political statement I've ever seen on slashdot, and that includes people defending the intellect of George W Bush.
Huge armies slaughtering each other in the name of patriotism but for no real purpose in WW1 (in particular) are about as far from anarchism as it's possible to get.
And I know how common here it is to equate anarchy with libertarian, and libertarian is a form of conservatism, but look it up. Anarchy is considered an extreme leftist view, not an extreme rightist view. Conservatives wants to keep things the way they were, and completely eliminating government is hardly a conservative view. Keeping it small is.
The philosophical basis of anarchism is the abolition of ALL forms of power or control by one human being over another, whether it's political, religious, social or economic. The problem with mode
Re: (Score:2)
In the case you are refering to the Sarajevo assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the assassins were right wing serbian nationalists, being about as far from anarchists as the iranian president is. If you are refering to some other event, will you please enlighten me?
Besides, nobody said everything has to be right wing. I hate communists, and for a good reason, as I had plenty of direct (very unplesant) experience with them, but clearly in the cases discussed here, the people involved undoubtedly are or were
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just fall in line with the rest of the world and let the nuclear inspectors inspect their facilities when asked? Nuclear technology affects the world, not just Iran, so it's important to regulate it. Then again it sounds like a bunch of clowns are trying to run Iran a
Re: (Score:2)
they are all gay, and heroin is a giant problem.
Don't let a regimes stated morales let blind you to reality.
Hyper strict religeous morales are seldom followed anywhere, almost as a rule
Re: (Score:2)
"It's little surprise that they went a little nuts and elected hardliners in the next election", you mean after all the reformist candidates were "disqualified" by the mullahs and their sycophantic followers?
Re: (Score:2)
They're not crazy, they just want to make it clear that they're not going to be an easy pushover the way Saddamn Hussein was.
Ya, if only Hussein had exhibited a bit more bluster and defiance or bragged more about (imaginary) weapons...
Re: (Score:3)
THIS is exactly what I believe as well. They do not do this to entertain the rest of the world, but to promote confidence of their people in their government. Iran has little defense from the likes of Israel or the US. But it would be unseemly for the US or Israel to attack Iran at the moment. So Iran's primary concern is its own people and they need to remain calm, productive and confident. Quite a problem considering the economic pressures on them at the moment.
It all reminds me somewhat of N.Korea.
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Informative)
Seeing men walk hand-by-hand is common in Arabian streets.
That's not (always) because they're homosexual, men holding hands in Arabic culture is more an indicator of equality and that both are actually paying attention to what the other has to say than sexuality.
Not entirely unlike the behavioral difficulty when an Arabic person tries to confide in a foreigner, by getting REALLY up close, and the foreigner (who likes personal space or has had friends recently exploded) takes it the wrong way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
you appear to be an uninformed armchair analyst who has never set foot in Tehran nor spoken a word of Farsi
I tell you what, I've never set foot in Mecca nor spoken a word of Arabic, same with Beijing and Chinese or New Delhi and Hindi. So I suppose I have no right to read about these countries in English and form opinions based on varying (translated) sources?
Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran isn't looking to attack. They're looking to make damn sure no one dares attack them.
Iran is definitely looking to attack. They're already attacking Israel with their own rockets by using their proxies in Hamas to do it.
Yes, Iran is not looking to start a war with the US or NATO. That would be moronic, and their leaders are not stupid. However, they are plenty interested in regional dominance, and they can't play that game until the US and the West can be deterred from a war with them.
Right now, Iran has the ability to shut down the Persian Gulf to shipping with anti-shipping missiles at the Straits of Hormuz, and the only thing preventing them from using that leverage against the Arab states and the West is the US guaranteeing the free passage of international waters through there. That is why the US has a very powerful naval presence in the Gulf. If Iran started firing on ships now, the US would probably launch air strikes on the missile sites and bomb Iranian military bases to end the threat. If Iran had nuclear weapons, the US would have to think at least twice about that course of action. The tension would be similar to something like the Cuban Missile Crisis because the US could not allow Iran to hold the world's oil hostage, but at the same time, they don't want to see mushroom clouds over Israel (or even the US, if Iranian ballistic missiles get to that point).
Let's be clear, two big states with nuclear weapons did not end wars in the 20th Century, all they did was move the wars away from the major powers into the smaller countries that were used as pawns. Iran doesn't purely want "safety" from the US, it wants a free hand to act.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any citations or proof that Iran isn't looking to attack?
Hard to prove a negative. Do you have any proof that the US isn't run by alien lizard overlords?
Are you even aware of their financial crisis? Sounds like they need a war ...
What, so they can be bombed back into the Stone Age by the US, then get gloriously lifted up again by some Marshall Plan style charity?
Re: (Score:2)
Iran and China, Best Buds for Life (Score:5, Funny)
I call BS (Score:5, Funny)
So they don't want to show the "real thing" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Iran's press service was probably given instructions to report on a new VTOL drone, without having been given actual images of said drone.
This is exactly what happened. The Chinese did the same thing with their use of Top Gun footage in promoting some propaganda recently.
In fact, your breakfast cereal provider does this, McDonalds does this, anybody who puts out promotion materials includes photos "for demonstration only, may not represent actual product". Do you think that's milk and not glue in the cereal on the box cover?
Re: (Score:2)
How many times did you buy a box of Fruit Loops, only to open the box to find a bag full of Raisin Bran?
I'd say this is more akin to a fast food restaurant taking a picture of the actual food, and then when you order one, they serve you a plastic mock-up cheeseburger covered in A
Re: (Score:2)
So the next time my kids ask for their cereal to be made just like on the box....
Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ? (Score:5, Funny)
The USSR bluffed up its military by having dramatic parades of missile launchers (where the parade was just long enough that it could circle around 4 times to impress the spies in the crowd).
Iran bluffs up it military with photoshop.
North Korea skips the whole idea of bluffing up the military, but the Dear Leader is an excellent dancer.
China bluffs down their military, because some of them actually read "The Art of War." (makes sense, their ancestors wrote it)
The USA bluffs up, down and sideways its military without any effort by telling various press and blog factions "I am unable to confirm or deny that claim."
Japan just builds the giant robots "for peaceful purposes only."
No quite different (Score:2)
When the US has a military toy they want to talk about and advertise, there are all kinds of pictures of it. Take the F-22A for example. You can find pictures n' video n' all sorts of stuff from the government itself and from other sources. They couldn't shut up about the thing and how cool they thought it was.
Then on the other side there is something like this chopper. Not only did they never release any pictures, they never even said they had such a thing. It was completely secret. Even after the fact the
in soviet russia they did stuff like that by hand (Score:3, Funny)
in soviet russia they did stuff like that by hand
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:in soviet russia they did stuff like that by ha (Score:4, Interesting)
http://englishrussia.com/2012/04/30/photoshop-of-the-soviet-time/ [englishrussia.com]
Re: (Score:3)
in soviet russia they did stuff like that by hand
And they were good at it. There were pictures of people standing next to Stalin who were later Sovietshopped out.
TinEye (Score:5, Informative)
So, basically the secret to uncovering this is http://www.tineye.com/ [tineye.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, it does. Tineye was around before Google, though, so I tend to still use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some reason to use google for everything and never consider alternatives?
Hardly the first time (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
These? http://www.freakingnews.com/Iranian-Missiles-Pictures---2029.asp [freakingnews.com]
Anybody have a link to the press release? (Score:2)
You know how sometimes people say here's what I'm building and show you the photo from the model car box?
Just seems like more of the same stupid propaganda that's always going on, ha
Re:This reminds me of... (Score:5, Funny)
But my favourites are the NASA moon landing ones! To all intensive purposes, that's never been bettered.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to elaborate?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"intensive purposes" is capable of inducing intensive pain in my eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Intents and purposes"....
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever, a bite's a bite.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's actually their plot. It's so obvious that sooner or later noone bothers to check anymore ... that'll be the time the things are for really. Brilliant, don't you think? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly.. They are the middle east version of Iran. Not to be confused with the US version of Iran.
They routinely Photoshop things and act as rough and tough as possible. Most of it is just propaganda, but there is enough truth mixed in to keep the average person guessing. Their whole point is to make it clear they are not to be trifled with, or at least make it seem likely would have a bad bite to go with the barking. But they know they are playing chicken on foot with a semi.
There is no doubt that Iran