The alleged photo of Bradley Lowery circulating on Twitter.

[Plastic Evra]

From a guy who photoshops everyday, Id say it’s photoshopped too. The picture of the kid looks too “clear” with no reflections on it. considering the faces are standing in the sun there’s something a bit strange about it.

If fake, how do the two guys even defend themselves? It’s not like they have the original material, they could just be completely outed on the internet.

of course if it’s real they should be banned for life, but it looks photoshopped to me.

We're going to (or already live) in a world where photographic evidence is about to be meaningless very soon. I'm not familiar enough with metadata (and EXIF info) but in this case you'd need corroboration by getting ideally the original photo (with said EXIF data) and some witness corroboration.

That's probably why people should hold off on "doxxing" or directly messaging before getting some verification. Well I thought it was true always, but doubly so now.

 

[RC89]

His name and even link to his FB account has been leaked all over social media this could get ugly

Theres a lot of angry people

Good

 

[RC89]

Good (if it's not shopped)

 

[Semper Fudge]

.

When you post without reading through the thread first.

 

[Robin Your Persie]

Bradley lowerys parents have said on their foundation page that the police have said that the image is authentic.

 

[JediSith]

His name and even link to his FB account has been leaked all over social media this could get ugly

Theres a lot of angry people

Very dangerous. Recently saw a film on Netflix called “The Accused” not the series, which was about “the internet” leaking info about the wrong person. Tbf didn’t need to watch that to realise how wrong those things can go. But sometimes it’s best for people to let the law investigate instead of playing detective. Or there should be a law where people who leak info about the wrong person face charges. It’s ridiculous where someone can destroy a random person’s life and then simply delete their tweet/post when they realise they are wrong.

 

[York]

Look at the angle and length of the arm holding the phone. It looks distorted. For all of the reasons already mentioned here, I’m convinced it’s photoshopped.

 

[Anustart89]

Good

And what if it’s photoshopped and that guy has his car destroyed, or something even worse happen to him due to the internet mob? Are people like you going to assume any responsibility for what happens to him or are you just going to go “oh well”?

 

[Plant0x84]

I don’t understand, if this is a photoshopped image why somebody would fake that image, what the motivation and desired outcome would be and why they would use little Bradley’s image. It’s just all kinda of sick.

 

[York]

I don’t understand, if this is a photoshopped image why somebody would fake that image, what the motivation and desired outcome would be and why they would use little Bradley’s image. It’s just all kinda of sick.

Could be a teenager.

 

[Penna]

The tabloids have identified them as two brothers, their pictures and names are all over the place. If they've been set up, it's despicable.

 

[justsomebloke]

Hardly the most outrageous of suggestions considering the evidence presented. As you quoted my post twice, surely you can see that I was level-headed in the wording.

Bold finish to a post that appears to be upset hat people don't take a random picture on Twitter as fact.

Weird post

You on the other hand see one photo and are willing to have two people’s lives being ruined without needing to know whether the photo is real, and the guys you responded to are the dumb ones?

I'm more amazed you look at that picture and think it's not edited.

If you ask me if I think that photo is edited, my answer is "I have no clue". I lack the experience and knowledge to judge. But here's the thing: So do you. All of you. Unless someone can step up and inform us they have professional credentials for this sort of thing, you have no fecking clue. There's a reason people can make a living analysing stuff like this, and the reason isn't that anyone who used photoshop at some point can just look at the picture and make a meaningful call.

The point here isn't about the picture, it's about basic psychology. Show a person a picture, any picture, and ask "I think this photo might be manipulated, what do you think?" Most people will reply to that by agreeing, or agreeing that it might be, even though it never even would have occurred to them to wonder if you'd just said "What do you think of this photo?". This is what's known as "Priming". In this case, another mechanism is at play too: Can you spot what someone else has already detected? Which the simpler part of our reasoning brains, that we use for most purposes, translates to you as "are you able to see it too, or do you want to seem stupid?"

Just look at this discussion. It starts off with 16 straight posts commenting on the issue itself. Then duffer here writes that he thinks it looks fake. And then suddenly that's what the discussion's about. Of the next 20 posts, 16 are about whether it's fake, or how you can tell it's fake, or states these guys are scumbags unless the photo is fake. 2 further pages on, that's still where we are. All it took was one guy writing "looks fake to me", and suddenly everyone's seeing stuff nobody was even thinking about prior to that, and nearly everyone is convinced that's the real discussion here.

Is this rational? Of course it isn't. Is it possible the image is edited? Yes, of course it's possible. How can you tell if it is? Again, you-have-no-fecking-clue.

So, what to do? You could use common sense, shrug, and make a mental note to follow the case and see what happens, and not post anything. You don't actually have to either question the photo or weigh in with disgusted denouncement of the pair. You can wait and see. Will the two blokes deny the reality of the photo? Will an actual expert come out and say "It is my considered professional opinion that this photo has been edited"? It's hard to see that you'd sacrifice anything worthwhile by taking such a course of action, unless jumping into an exciting discussion on the caf counts as that for you.

If you absolutely have to have a clear opinion right now, you would - obviously - be much, much better off with simple probability than with trusting what I'm reasonably sure is your largely imaginary photo manipulation detection competence. And probability will tell you that while it has been known to happen that manipulated photos are put out with an intent to harm, that is nonetheless a fairly rare occurrence. Hence, it's probable that it's not the case here either, at least until there's actual information pointing in a different direction. Unsatisfying and imperfect, certainly, but it sure as hell beats throwing yourself down the rabbithole at the first opportunity, persuading the most gullible person in the world (which, for everyone, is always yourself) that you've got the hang of this and don't need to wait for someone who actually know what they're talking about.

 

[Semper Fudge]

Bizarre.

 

[DJ Jeff]

If you ask me if I think that photo is edited, my answer is "I have no clue". I lack the experience and knowledge to judge. But here's the thing: So do you. All of you. Unless someone can step up and inform us they have professional credentials for this sort of thing, you have no fecking clue. There's a reason people can make a living analysing stuff like this, and the reason isn't that anyone who used photoshop at some point can just look at the picture and make a meaningful call.

The point here isn't about the picture, it's about basic psychology. Show a person a picture, any picture, and ask "I think this photo might be manipulated, what do you think?" Most people will reply to that by agreeing, or agreeing that it might be, even though it never even would have occurred to them to wonder if you'd just said "What do you think of this photo?". This is what's known as "Priming". In this case, another mechanism is at play too: Can you spot what someone else has already detected? Which the simpler part of our reasoning brains, that we use for most purposes, translates to you as "are you able to see it too, or do you want to seem stupid?"

Just look at this discussion. It starts off with 16 straight posts commenting on the issue itself. Then duffer here writes that he thinks it looks fake. And then suddenly that's what the discussion's about. Of the next 20 posts, 16 are about whether it's fake, or how you can tell it's fake, or states these guys are scumbags unless the photo is fake. 2 further pages on, that's still where we are. All it took was one guy writing "looks fake to me", and suddenly everyone's seeing stuff nobody was even thinking about prior to that, and nearly everyone is convinced that's the real discussion here.

Is this rational? Of course it isn't. Is it possible the image is edited? Yes, of course it's possible. How can you tell if it is? Again, you-have-no-fecking-clue.

So, what to do? You could use common sense, shrug, and make a mental note to follow the case and see what happens, and not post anything. You don't actually have to either question the photo or weigh in with disgusted denouncement of the pair. You can wait and see. Will the two blokes deny the reality of the photo? Will an actual expert come out and say "It is my considered professional opinion that this photo has been edited"? It's hard to see that you'd sacrifice anything worthwhile by taking such a course of action, unless jumping into an exciting discussion on the caf counts as that for you.

If you absolutely have to have a clear opinion right now, you would - obviously - be much, much better off with simple probability than with trusting what I'm reasonably sure is your largely imaginary photo manipulation detection competence. And probability will tell you that while it has been known to happen that manipulated photos are put out with an intent to harm, that is nonetheless a fairly rare occurrence. Hence, it's probable that it's not the case here either, at least until there's actual information pointing in a different direction. Unsatisfying and imperfect, certainly, but it sure as hell beats throwing yourself down the rabbithole at the first opportunity, persuading the most gullible person in the world (which, for everyone, is always yourself) that you've got the hang of this and don't need to wait for someone who actually know what they're talking about.

This post took an awful long time to say nothing and plant its arse on the fence. It's an edited photo and I'd bet my house on it, it looks utterly ridiculous.

 

[Cascarino]

If you ask me if I think that photo is edited, my answer is "I have no clue". I lack the experience and knowledge to judge. But here's the thing: So do you. All of you. Unless someone can step up and inform us they have professional credentials for this sort of thing, you have no fecking clue. There's a reason people can make a living analysing stuff like this, and the reason isn't that anyone who used photoshop at some point can just look at the picture and make a meaningful call.

The point here isn't about the picture, it's about basic psychology. Show a person a picture, any picture, and ask "I think this photo might be manipulated, what do you think?" Most people will reply to that by agreeing, or agreeing that it might be, even though it never even would have occurred to them to wonder if you'd just said "What do you think of this photo?". This is what's known as "Priming". In this case, another mechanism is at play too: Can you spot what someone else has already detected? Which the simpler part of our reasoning brains, that we use for most purposes, translates to you as "are you able to see it too, or do you want to seem stupid?"

Just look at this discussion. It starts off with 16 straight posts commenting on the issue itself. Then duffer here writes that he thinks it looks fake. And then suddenly that's what the discussion's about. Of the next 20 posts, 16 are about whether it's fake, or how you can tell it's fake, or states these guys are scumbags unless the photo is fake. 2 further pages on, that's still where we are. All it took was one guy writing "looks fake to me", and suddenly everyone's seeing stuff nobody was even thinking about prior to that, and nearly everyone is convinced that's the real discussion here.

Is this rational? Of course it isn't. Is it possible the image is edited? Yes, of course it's possible. How can you tell if it is? Again, you-have-no-fecking-clue.

So, what to do? You could use common sense, shrug, and make a mental note to follow the case and see what happens, and not post anything. You don't actually have to either question the photo or weigh in with disgusted denouncement of the pair. You can wait and see. Will the two blokes deny the reality of the photo? Will an actual expert come out and say "It is my considered professional opinion that this photo has been edited"? It's hard to see that you'd sacrifice anything worthwhile by taking such a course of action, unless jumping into an exciting discussion on the caf counts as that for you.

If you absolutely have to have a clear opinion right now, you would - obviously - be much, much better off with simple probability than with trusting what I'm reasonably sure is your largely imaginary photo manipulation detection competence. And probability will tell you that while it has been known to happen that manipulated photos are put out with an intent to harm, that is nonetheless a fairly rare occurrence. Hence, it's probable that it's not the case here either, at least until there's actual information pointing in a different direction. Unsatisfying and imperfect, certainly, but it sure as hell beats throwing yourself down the rabbithole at the first opportunity, persuading the most gullible person in the world (which, for everyone, is always yourself) that you've got the hang of this and don't need to wait for someone who actually know what they're talking about.

You don't have to stand by a bad post. You can just say "yeah what I said was a bit silly"

 

[Slevs]

The photo looks clearly edited but in this day and age nothing would surprise me about human indecency.
Really hope its fake.

 

[Waynne]

I swear there's some international dickhead competition going on

This however is waaay beyond simply being a dickhead. I can't even put into words how to describe such people.

Only a lifetime ban for them would suffice.

 

[justsomebloke]

This post took an awful long time to say nothing and plant its arse on the fence. It's an edited photo and I'd bet my house on it, it looks utterly ridiculous.

It certainly seems to have been wasted on you, yes.

 

[Sara125]

I zoomed into the phone and I agree that it’s definitely photoshopped. Badly, actually.

 

[kaku06]

The little fella’s picture (pixels) in the phone is more clear than the accused holding the phone. How’s that possible?

 

[justsomebloke]

You don't have to stand by a bad post. You can just say "yeah what I said was a bit silly"

Lovely. You guys have worked yourself up to the point where you are now completely convinced you are 100% foolproof right, and have no intention of being told otherwise.

 

[Semper Fudge]

Lovely. You guys have worked yourself up to the point where you are now completely convinced you are 100% foolproof right, and have no intention of being told otherwise.

Who made you the arbiter of right and wrong, though?

 

[Sara125]

Apparently the police have verified its authenticity

 

[Cascarino]

Lovely. You guys have worked yourself up to the point where you are now completely convinced you are 100% foolproof right, and have no intention of being told otherwise.

Not quite sport, I actually don't think it's photoshopped, I just think it's a weird angle, I'm just ok with being wondering if it's fake because it does look weird, and also I don't know either way. You're being really odd.

 

[justsomebloke]

Who made you the arbiter of right and wrong, though?

I'm not claiming to be. In fact, I was pretty clear I have no idea what is right or wrong regarding the veracity of the picture. I just claim to have enough sense to understand what I don't know. Which is unfortunately more than quite a few other people here can claim.

 

[Chris-Red]

Those saying it’s clearly edited, what do you see as the tell tale signs that are that obvious? I don’t see anything that screams photoshop.

 

[justsomebloke]

Not quite sport, I actually don't think it's photoshopped, I just think it's a weird angle, I'm just ok with being wondering if it's fake because it does look weird, and also I don't know either way. You're being really odd.

May I ask what exactly you think is odd about the argument I made?

 

[christy87]

Those saying it’s clearly edited, what do you see as the tell tale signs that are that obvious? I don’t see anything that screams photoshop.

Well first thing that looks suspect is the top of the screen seems to be slanted

 

[The Cat]

Where are the sources saying the police say it's genuine? If it is genuine they deserve jail time.

 

[Cascarino]

May I ask what exactly you think is odd about the argument I made?

It's because the posts you quoted used wording like

" I might be wrong though"
"If they've been stitched up"
"I might be wrong though"

And you call them conspiracy theorists and say they're 100% foolproof convinced, and then go on to admit you're not sure yourself.

 

[Robin Your Persie]

Where are the sources saying the police say it's genuine? If it is genuine they deserve jail time.

The parents of Bradley confirmed it on Bradleys foundation page.

 

[Sara125]

Those saying it’s clearly edited, what do you see as the tell tale signs that are that obvious? I don’t see anything that screams photoshop.

Personally when I zoomed in, I noticed on the second pic the left side of the phone was curved where he was holding it and as a whole it just looked…off. Also, as others have mentioned it’s very clear even from a distance. Mind you, not sure anymore as it has since come out that the police have said it’s authentic.

 

[justsomebloke]

It's because the posts you quoted used wording like

" I might be wrong though"
"If they've been stitched up"
"I might be wrong though"

And you call them conspiracy theorists and say they're 100% foolproof convinced, and then go on to admit you're not sure yourself.

I didn't "go on to admit" I'm not sure myself. I have never said I was. I haven't called anyone conspiracy theorists. My point in my original post was that people's readiness to jump off in that direction as soon as someone brought up that angle shows how easy it is to steer discussion down a path. Obviously I don't think duffer or anyone else is trying to launch a conspiracy theory on the caf, but you know, if you're prepared to grab that angle on the basis of the photos looking a bit dodgy to you after having it suggested to you that they are, maybe you should have a think about how you respond to stuff on the net. Because people who are serious about manipulating are really good at using plausible doubt, and they are relying on people responding in exactly this way. Hence the comment about making conspiracy theorists happy. Just basic intellectual hygiene really.

I'm glad to hear you're not 100% foolproof convinced, but your brief and rather arrogant reply did give that impression.

 

[VorZakone]

So it's authentic?

 

[jadaba]

South Yorkshire Police have just made a statement that a man has been charged for it.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Rhyme Animal]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

You know what’s actually funny about that?

The notion that they think by holding up a photo of a beautiful, strong human being with more fierce bravery and gnarly grit than they’ll ever have displayed is somehow an insult to opposition fans.

‘Look, this person was THIS much better a human than I am!’

Congrats, you must be really… proud!?

 

[Cascarino]

I didn't "go on to admit" I'm not sure myself. I have never said I was.

I never said you said you were sure, I said the opposite, that you said you weren't sure

I haven't called anyone conspiracy theorists. My point in my original post was that people's readiness to jump off in that direction as soon as someone brought up that angle shows how easy it is to steer discussion down a path. Obviously I don't think duffer or anyone else is trying to launch a conspiracy theory on the caf, but you know, if you're prepared to grab that angle on the basis of the photos looking a bit dodgy to you after having it suggested to you that they are, maybe you should have a think about how you respond to stuff on the net. Because people who are serious about manipulating are really good at using plausible doubt, and they are relying on people responding in exactly this way. Hence the comment about making conspiracy theorists happy. Just basic intellectual hygiene really.

I'm glad to hear you're not 100% foolproof convinced, but your brief and rather arrogant reply did give that impression.

There was like 5 posts before Duffer's comment which isn't exactly a very telling sample size is it?, and as wonderful as he is, he's hardly Jim Jones, I'm sure people are capable of coming to an opinion without him pulling the strings. There were people on my whatsapp (and the wider internet as a whole) who said it looked fake to them, and none of them have had the misfortune in life to spend their Sunday nights on a football forum. They just voiced that opinion because the picture looks weird.

And I might be arrogant, but tomorrow i'll still be arrogant, and you'll still be very odd.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[horsechoker]

Are we sure that the bloke holding the phone wasn't just roleplaying?

 

[justsomebloke]

I never said you said you were sure, I said the opposite, that you said you weren't sure



There was like 5 posts before Duffer's comment which isn't exactly a very telling sample size is it?, and as wonderful as he is, he's hardly Jim Jones. There were people on my whatsapp (and the wider internet as a whole) who said it looked fake to them, and none of them have had the misfortune in life to spend their Sunday nights on a football forum. They just voiced that opinion because the picture looks weird.

And I might be arrogant, but tomorrow i'll still be arrogant, and you'll still be very odd.

Oh, you were rather pleased with that, weren't you? Although when you nick a famous saying and try to adapt it for your own purposes, it generally works best if you manage to transpose the basic structure of it, which in this case rather relies on contrasting a temporary state with a permanent one. That's sort of the whole point.

Anyway, never mind about arrogant. Try inattentive in reading, lackadaisical in counting (there were 16 posts before duffers, but then you'd already know that if you paid attention to what you read) and generally unpleasant.