Here're the other posts from the same series:
All entries are simple montages, they're only funny for people who know Hungarian politics, but for them they're quite obvious.
Edit: the man in the middle of the photo is the Hungarian President of the State, and well, he probably won't kneel when signing an agreement -- even if Putin's there. :)
I don't have a bad personal relationship with Putin. When we have
conversations, they're candid, they're blunt, oftentimes they're
constructive. I know the press likes to focus on body language and
he's got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back
of the classroom. 
It is quite funny.
"Diagnosing Sochi Media Coverage: Virulent Russophobia...
The water, the toilets, the hotels – nothing pleases our pampered media divas, whose hatred of all things Russian oozes from between the lines of their "reporting" like pus from an old wound."
All the antipathy we saw aimed at Russia during the cold war years is now being revomited up by the political class, albeit in a new flavor: instead of genuine martyrs like Andrei Sakharov and Alexandr Solzhenitsyn being lionized, we see the professional provocateurs of "Pussy Riot" elevated by Western media to the status of "dissident" stars.
I'm still not convinced about the relevance of the white outline on Putin.
But conspiracies happen all the time, and expecting them is not a "theory", it's a fact of politics and government, since before there was Machiavelli.
Everytime a government decision is taken behind closed doors for things that affect politics/the public/etc, it's a conspiracy.
It can be as simple as a few party heads deciding on who to push for the presidency (outside official party prodecures). Or a company paying a politician to pass some favorable law.
Or some public prosecutor trying to get some black kid thrown in jail, because he is convinced it's guilty, and not hesitating to supress witness and withold evidence (as has happened thousands of times).
Or it can be the head of FBI secretly keeping tabs on politicians and blackmailing them or giving tidbits to the press for those he didn't like. Like this Hoover guy.
It can be the President of the United States ordering people to break in the headquarters of the opposition party or eavesdrop on them. You know, like this Nixon guy.
It's idiotic to think conspiracies do not exist, or that "counter-culture convictions regarding the so-called "Establishment" were somehow proven wrong.
If anything, the whole Snowden affair proves otherwise. As if we needed such a thing.
People living in countries with actual heated political history, even places like Spain or Italy, know all about state conspiracies, including murder of dissidents (tons of them taken to court and proved from later, freeer, governments). Case in point:
It's only apolitical people living work-to-home and back everyday lives, and only getting their information from mainstream news that can claim that conspiracies don't exist. Open a history book -- preferably one that's not about the Civil War but modern history, and you'll find aplenty.
The NSA eavesdropping on Americans? Conspiracy theory.
The head of FBI blackmailing politicians? Conspiracy theory.
And then, when such things came to light, there's this other person (ofter the same as the one dismissing them before), saying:
"Well, duh, we knew all along that something WAS happening, nothing new here...".
Between them it's nearly impossible to get a better understanding of the kind of shitty stuff governments and big corporations do.
In fact Star Trek: Voyager did a two part episode that used this conspiracy theory as part of the main story line.
I suppose "aliens" are a much more attractive explanation than "government-funded wartime R&D centers plus post-war prosperity plus Cold War arms race equals massive scientific advancement"
Think of it: if it's so easy to fake color photos so that people won't notice, isn't it easier to fake black&white photos? How do you know this is real: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Yalta_Con...? I don't. If we routinely don't trust colour pictures in newspapers, why should we trust historic photographs?
We've reached a point in time when we can start actually faking history. The only way to check if something happened now would be to find original copies of old photographs and books. But it's only matter of time before they'll be gone forever, or stuck deep in museum vaults, to be accessed by selected few. We could rewrite the history for next generation and no one would likely notice it.
It has always been possible to fake history, inadvertently or intentionally. There was a narrow stretch of time when photography became widespread which made it a bit harder to fake history, but photographs were being faked and staged long before we had computers to do digital editing of them. And before we had photographs, it was possible to fake manuscripts, etc.
If true we would only be in the 17th or 18th century. Which may explain why the world didn't end in 2012, or why there still aren't hover boards.
[EDIT] Halley's comet apparitions are roughly every century so not that conclusive... cue twilight zone music
Europeans weren't the only ones with calendars and keeping time, y'know. Our current calendar matches up with other calendaers.
Although, even from Ceasers time we can find accounts by other Romans, Greeks, etc and use archeology to see where he is likely bending the truth.
The problem now days is accounts of events, due to ease of communication, while more plentiful are less independent.
Stalin did use black and white photo montages. Check out the Wikipedia article .
> The only way to check if something happened now would be to find original copies
For now. Consider fine-grained 3D printing in the future.
> We could rewrite the history for next generation and no one would likely notice it.
It is actually a fairly practical problem in medium-term future. The only plausible solution seems to have resilient duplicated information on trusted peers. But with time, even trust rusts.
Nearly all tellings of history have a bias, and people nearly always mistell history, espeically history about their tribe/country/ethnicity/country. This is nothing new.
...again. We're always getting better at faking history, because our creative tools are always a step ahead of the forensic tools. A few centuries ago it was easy for a skilled craftsman to make fake Roman antiquities/medieval manuscripts/whatever, and not so easy to detect the fraud by analysis of the pigmentation in paint or ink, for example.
Here is an example that my father found about Putin's person of the year interview with Time. Time published a full transcript  in English and Kremlin published the full transcript  in Russian. The very first question is different! Kremlin's version includes a question where the reported bungled the Putin's birthday and though he was born in 1946 instead of 1952, but Time omits it. It wasn't a very substantive question, but it did set the tone for the interview and the difference is upsetting. As far as I know this particular issue has not been widely discussed for the past 7 years.
If media and/or governments alter the smallest records for reasons of incompetence, what do they do to hide larger errors?
No need to feed conspiracy theorists unnecessarily. Always look for the story behind the story too. Now of course, all of that evidence of digital alteration is another thing. And it may very well have been simply a newspaper who wanted some kind of photo, but didn't have the photographer to get a real one (or the opportunity didn't exist). Maybe Putin ordered it. Maybe he didn't. Maybe his people did. Maybe they didn't. Likewise on the Hungary side.
His name is in the tags with the photo. He's the president of the country. All that effort but can't be bothered to identify the president.
The news portal index.hu regularly republishes his work, this is where the confusion may have originated from:
you can see the post among other posts here:
Here is a thread where a commenter points out how photo manipulation is frowned upon by professional photographers on their forum, and they can't believe "how a political journalist can do this while a war correspondent can't draw smoke near an explosion.", linking to his republished image on index.hu.
Of course szarvas is not a political journalist, he is a funny guy with a tumblr:
I wonder how the article talks about clues detectable only by applying filters to the image, yet misses the most obvious sign of retouching: the middle figure's knees, the blur around them can be seen with the naked eye, not to mention the irregular shape.
Regarding the other conclusion of the article (the outline around Orban and Putin seen in the histogram image), to me it simply looks like sharpening. I may be wrong.
Can anyone explain what this means? It doesn't match my understanding of what a histogram is (i.e., a graph of values vs frequency of occurrence).
You can then use the histogram to identify and highlight particular color values in the image. This would identify the simple artefact described in the text.
Link to Photoshop example use: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/using-the-histogram-in-ado...
Just for some clarification - how does that work, exactly? If you decompose an image using PCA/SVD and find a cliff in the spectrum, is that a fingerprint of JPEG compression?
And that's a feature we intended to get by wearing the same clothes because?
How is the ability to publish any old photo as recent relavent at all?
On goodreads: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9667484-generation / http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/337672.Homo_Zapiens (translated version)
One would expect that, being in a room, a fisheye lens has been used in the original picture. But that would have led to a barrel distortion. Instead, a zoom lens was used. This has an interesting side effect: Putin, sitting at the border of the photo, then appears larger.
First is very realistic, that in 2013 he fabricated fishing in Tyva:
Second is that he has multiple doubles, including one mongoloid.
So there are your pics and it did happen
I read somewhere that the US president always traveled with its own toilets in fear of spies analyzing his "production" oO
Meanwhile people are still dying of hunger ...
Not everyone can take a selfie with Obama!
You can thank me later.
Looks like he wanted to write about two different things but smashed them into just one without coherence...
Another interpretation that requires less guesswork on my part is that his interest was piqued by noticing that Putin wears the same suit, and that was what led him to start investigating other pictures of Putin, culminating in his analysis of this doctored photo.