Mechanical

Things To Do When You're Sick (Do You Live in St. Louis?)

So there's a Wall Street Journal blog entry about an Obama rally in St. Louis. It claims 100,000 people attended. Of course, as I've been at political rallies before (mostly anti-war ones), I've discovered that newspaper reporting of attendence is a bit, er, questionable at times, so I was curious how they arrived at the number. So I looked closely at the photo. For some reason, it seemed odd. It's extremely low-resolution and the skyline seemed, well, strange.

In the background, you'll notice the courthouse. To the right of that, you'll see the Adams Mark St. Louis hotel. Notice how, in the top right, there's a blurry sign about one story high.

In this much larger photo of the St. Louis skyline, that same sign is clearly about four stories high. In every photo I can find of that hotel, the sign is four stories high instead of the one story high in the Obama story. Now I'm a strong Obama supporter, so you know this isn't some strange wing-nut conspiracy thing, but why is there such a large discrepancy? Is this new? Does anyone who reads this both live in St. Louis and is in a position to verify that this sign has changed?

Update: Whew! I feel better (well, I'm still sick, but I feel better about the photo). Apparently it's now the Hyatt hotel and the image Exif data tends to support this.
  • Current Mood: curious curious
Tags:
I posted & then saw your edit. :) Damn chains taking over.. soon there will be no independently owned stores, hotels, or restaurants left in America!
Heh. Yeah, that happens. I recently bought some shoes from a shoe store here in London only to discover that it was the last independent shoe store in London!

And yes, that photo does seem ... wrong.
I was at the rally.
(Anonymous)
I posted about the rally, in fact. Do you not read my blog, sir? ;) The turnout was fantastic. I have many photographs of the event (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ginabanina/) and as you will see in my pics there were thousands upon thousands there. I am unsure how the WSJ got the actual numbers, though.

Go read my post about it! ;)

Gina
http://www.seeginablog.com

I do wonder what sort of suspicion this aroused, though. What sort of manipulation would produce this kind of terribly obvious (once you know to look for it) discrepancy in an unrelated part of the image? As in, what did you expect that to be evidence of, if anything?

Due to the low-res image, I was curious why the background looked, well, digitally manipulated. In comparing the background to real skyline shots, I noticed that one of the buildings was wrong and I wondered if someone had taken various photos and "created" the picture. Since it was of such poor quality, it was difficult for me to tell if the image had been digitally manipulated, but the glaring discrepancy just stood out to me.