Partially cross-posted at Expose the Left

*****UPDATE***** Reuters has put out a "corrected" version of the image, but still crediting Hajj. SCROLL to the bottom of this post for the image and the caption, on how Reuters issued a "kill" on the "previous version" (read: fake one).

****UPDATE**** SCROLL for more on the "correction" from YNetNews.com. What a pile of crap Reuters.

***UPDATE*** Photography experts, please analyze the negative I created, and email me at randy at rightwinged dot com. Scroll for more updates.

Once again we have Reuters proving why you CAN'T TRUST ANYTHING you see in the mainstream media. I'm not saying that nothing is true, but the percentage that is seems to shrink by the day.

I'll never be able to totally catch up because much of the right side of the blogosphere has been all over this for a few hours (don't expect the same from the left, because this is the sort of reporting they traffic in anyway). Michelle Malkin has a great round-up, as do others I'll mention throughout this post.

Let me open the post by simply tossing up this Reuters photo for you:

I don't think we need to even debate this. That is clearly a photoshopped image, agreed? I mean, you don't have to know anything about photoshopping or have a keen eye. All you have to do is.... be conscious, and you can see what a photoshop job this is. What the photographer artist did is called "cloning". What he didn't do was make it realistic. What Reuters didn't do is give a sh**, because they like to see images of things being destroyed in Lebanon because it suits the "Israel is the problem" agenda in the media. If that's not the reason, I'm all ears. The big question is why, Reuters? We have a big enough problem with Pallywood, I don't think it needs to be supported with a Reuters paycheck.

Now, the obvious first giveaway is the "billowing" smoke, right? But many other bloggers have noticed it's more than that, check out this image from Jawa that showing some building clone action:

Jawa takes a look at some other questionable images taken by Adnan Hajj. I'm on overload as it is, so I'll just stick with this one for the time being.

Allah at HotAir has been all over this from the get go as well. Being a bigger boy on the block he's had folks emailing him tips to other photos of the same town that leaves one more curious than before. It almost looks like the "window" where the smoke is "billowing" from, isn't even part of that building in other, earlier photos.

After checking out some of the posts on other blogs, I'm beginning to believe that virtually everything the photo is photoshopped. Obviously most of the building are real buildings, but I think that the reality of this photo doesn't go a lot further than that. Check out this slightly larger version of the image hosted by Reuters. Below I've pointed out a dark puff of smoke, and smaller puffs off of it that were clearly cloned.

Check out right in between those cloned sections too. See that little section of roof? What are we supposed to assume that is? The ghost of the building that was hit, floating off to meet it's Allah and it's 72 virgin real estate properties in the sky?

Now for something really odd. I'm not a photography expert, and I don't have any good photoshopping software, just some lame version of Microsoft Picture It that came on my computer, but I used the "negative" feature with one click created this:

I don't know what, if anything, this shows.. but it strikes me as odd. Why are all the buildings in the foreground such a completely different color? I'm getting dizzy looking at all of this, but doesn't something seem a little off about that? Please, photography experts, give me your best analysis on this.

Another quick question for Reuters on all of this. I could provide a long linklist exposing your other lies and extreme liberal bias (like calling Islamofacist terror supporters in NYC, "Supporters of Lebanon"), but I just want to know why you would need to use such an obviously photoshopped image, when there are plenty of real ones that put out your intended message?

Also, why does Mr. Hajj seem to always be at the right place at the right time? Dig through some of the links to other blogs I'll provide and you'll see mention of his works in a number of places. Most notably he was in Qana to take a photo of one of the dead children that was photoed more than once, in different ways, to up the death count (which if you've been paying attention, has come down and there is a lot more to the story than the MSM would have you believe). The Shape of Days has details on this Hajj adventure.

I'll be contacting Reuters shortly, you should do the same. Malkin reminds us of their policy:

"Our policy is to send news to our customers only after scrutiny by a group of production editors who ensure quality standards are maintained across all our news services. When we get something wrong, our policy is to be honest about errors and to correct them promptly and clearly."

What kind of "scrutiny" went in to letting this crap hit the web? By the way, don't expect a "prompt and clear" correction. Expect a low key removal of the photo, which may or may not include a small note somewhere that you won't ever hear of except maybe from a couple of blogs.

Dan Riehl has posted an equally reall photograph, showing that apparently the Reuters headquarters has been struck. Someone get the loose-change guys on the phone incase it collapses. They'll be able to explain how Bush did it.

IMAO proves that even Magic Kingdom isn't safe from the Zionists in this war.

Flopping Aces has questions about other possible smoke screens being put on by Hajj. I find the man walkin on rubble away from a smoking building particularly interesting.

Others who were WAY out in front of this, and I wouldn't even attempt to catch up to: LGF, Left & Right, Ace, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and of course (again) AllahPundit and Michelle Malkin.

More links to others blogging this to come... I've got to eat my Hoagie Hut (Colchester, VT) leftovers first.

Others:
Small Dean Animals, Gateway Pundit, Blue Crab Boulevard, The New American Citizen, Ed Driscoll, Old War Dogs, A Blog For All, Wizbang, Sanctuary, The Broken Chair, Say Anything, Right & Wrong, Blogofascists, Daniel360, Mark Nicodemo, Lightshiner, Willisms, In the Bullpen, Captain's Quarters

***UPDATE***
Dan Riehl has dug back in and done some serious analysis as a preemptive strike on anyone trying to defend the "photo".

***UPDATE***
My own retouch, you think anyone will notice?

***UPDATE***
Originally I didn't mention one other section of smoke that is clearly cloned as well, because I thought it was something everyone would assume. But I don't see anyone else mentioning it specifically, so I thought I'd point it out just so we're all clear. Also, you remember the one duplicated section of dark smoke on the left? I almost think I can make out another place it was copied just above and to the right of it:

Of course I should mention again that I think virtually the entire photograph may have been faked, but these are just a couple more specifics that seem odd.

*****UPDATE*****
Reuters, as predicted has tried to just sneak in a corrected version of the image. I haven't had a chance to fully analyze the photo, but it at quick glance appears to be at least more real than the obvious photoshop we've been talking about. If this new one is infact all real, I have to really wonder what the point of the photoshop was. The photoshopped one, even if someone was stupid enough to believe it was real, adds no value to the image. (h/t Bile, Snark, and Sneer)

ATTENTION EDITORS: THIS IS A CORRECTED FILE OF LBN20. REUTERS HAS ISSUED A KILL OF THE PREVIOUS VERSION. Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. Picture taken August 5, 2006. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj (LEBANON)

I guess in Reuters land, "CORRECTED" means "REAL" and "PREVIOUS VERSION" means "YOU KNOW, THE ONE WE FAKED".

This is expected, but not good enough. I'm still waiting for your very public apology, correction, and prompt firing of Hajj or whoever was responsible for this Reuters. Your move. At least have the cherries to respond to me, or one of the many of us who has emailed you!

And just incase there is future funny business, here are the two photos hosted by Yahoo as they appear at the moment:

Again, the right thing to do here is immediately fire the person responsible. Then the right thing for that person to do is wonder why the hell they photoshopped something that didn't need photoshopping. What purpose did photoshopping the smoke to the top of the screen serve? Does anyone else smell Karl Rove's fingerprints on this?

****UPDATE****
YNetNews has more on the Reuters "correction" (h/t Drudge):

A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs. The blogs accused Reuters of distorting the photograph to include more smoke and damage.

In the message, Reuters said that "photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvience."

"Improperly used"?! You've got to be kidding me. As for the fake causing an "inconvenience"? I didn't realize that "truth" was a "convenience", especially after reading your policy (quoted earlier). Again, please contact Reuters and demand immedaite firings and public apologies. They won't do it, but at least they'll be more careful next time. Be sure to mention Flopping Ace's questions about other Hajj photos.

***UPDATE***
The picture kill order from Reuters (h/t My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy):

UPDATE
Alright kids, I've got to get some sleep. Check in with all the other bloggers I've linked to. I'm certain they'll have some animation to connect the real and fake images. All I have to add at this point is that the "real" image isn't exactly the original of the fake image. Notice it's slightly offset, etc. Not to mention the colors of even the buildings in the foreground are totally different. Maybe both the fake and real are cropped sections from one larger real photo. But I tend not to give the benefit of the doubt to proven liars.

Before I go, a few more blogging:
Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Strangely Silent, Wizbang, HiWired Blog, Amateur Megalomania

***UPDATE***
Michelle Malkin has posted on the "correction" now as well. She correctly wonders about Hajj's other photos.