Re:Forensic analysis of recent Victoria's Secret photo
by Luc on Monday December 28, 2009 @12:49PM
(#1018958)
A very good friend of mine once told me a story about how her brother's partner visited Paris, was drugged, and woke up in an alley feeling very unwell. He was taken to hospital, were it was found one of his kidneys had been expertly removed. I was dubious about it, but she told me she had seen the scar!
When I retold the story later, people laughed in my face. I guess I don't need to link to Snopes.
I'm just saying, one or two embellishments along the way can make all the difference in credibility...
I think it is very, very unlikely that the photo is faked. If that is the case, however, that makes it an interesting photo not just because of the subject matter, but because it is capable of making most people think it is fake even though it is not.
As far as the comments about the flash go, there is evidence for a flash. First of all, the tapetum lucidum is highly reflective (check out this photo of cats: http://bp1.blogger.com/_N9wtKAb3vvc/RdYLsh3L3VI/AAAAAAAAAA8/...), or do a search and you'll turn up some freaky examples (e.g. http://farm1.static.flickr.com/191/484118524_dce1f8c203.jpg)
Secondly, if you look under the arm of the woman in the foreground, you can see a reflection from a flash there as well, probably from a piece of metal.
The photo's been looked at by a lot of people but I have yet to see a criticism that enters the realm of the scientific. The best criticisms revolve around questioning whether or not it was a wolf, which I think is a much better line of criticism, since there is no way to be sure (but it does seem unlikely).