You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] mamwad 3 points 41 points (+44|-3) ago 

OP's. It's obvious to anyone who has fucked around in GIMP or Photoshop. You can see the smudging effects.

Mateen was an evil cunt. There's no reason to falsify evidence against him.


[–] 5488324? 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

You can tell by the pixels.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago  (edited ago)



[–] draaaak 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I've used photoshop casually and professionally for 15 years. Both imgs contain artifacts that could indicate editing or compression.


[–] FishBoneFredd 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I've got the same professional years of PS under my belt, but I don't consider myself a master of PS.

To me it looks like the OP's pic was heavily edited by the burn tool. Bruising would take a on a more purple and blue tint versus the darkening of the skin tone. If the bruising was healed at all, it wouldn't be as wide spread. She obviously wears a fair amount of makeup, and so she knows how to cover it up. On top of that, no woman would ever take a selfie with her bruised eye being in the forefront.

The "strangle prints" look more like birth mark: Amateur work.

The kid's facial blur is the catch. The ellipses used are different sizes. The OP's is smaller. There's a lot of heavy compression on the ABC pic, which leads me to believe neither are the original. Maybe the source was pulled it from FB or another social site?

Thoughts? Again, I'm just taking an educated guess.

Edit: Actually it does look like someone edited the marks from the ABC photo from her neck. And you can see some red and blue coloration around the eyes in the OP's pic. The compression makes this one a hard one to figure...


[–] 9-11 [S] 5 points -4 points (+1|-5) ago 

the abc one is clearly cropped, surely we can agree on that. aka edited... and to me has blur tool marks on her neck. use your eyes manwad