# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  Airport body scanners - hi def pics

## devil21

This is what they do.  Instead of the low quality grainy-ish pics that fly across the tv screen during the news segments, here is what they actually see.  And what they actually can do, at least according to the blog I got these pics from.



Now just reverse-negative and there's your naked woman.  Even her tan lines are plainly visible.


How can people accept their children, wives, mothers and friends going through these things??  There better be a lawsuit already in the works.

----------


## newbitech

no kidding.  I just read the big drudge headline.  300 of these scanners going out in 2010, maybe more.  

got a link to that blog?

----------


## newbitech

nm..

----------


## 0zzy

although I find this lady very attractive, I do believe this is a violation of privacy and everything America stands for.

Screw "show me your papers," now they just have to look through a scanner and can see you naked!

----------


## Dieseler

Well there ya go.
When will they install these outside all of the big sports arenas?
Why all the sweat over flying?
Someone said in another thread that they want to persuade more people not to fly, I think it was IP.
It fits in my opinion.
Control of movement can come from many different angles.
House lost value, can't sell, stuck.
No job, stuck.
Scared to fly because of the terrorist or refuse due to the scanners, stuck.
They are locking us down.
It's all coming together.

----------


## Dieseler

Look at it like this also.
Division in use once again.
How much of our population actually flies for work, pleasure or whatever on a regular basis?
I don't know the answer to that question but I guarantee you it is not enough people to cause a huge uproar over these scanners. Also, there is quite a few within that group who will just accept it anyway, you know they will and they know it also.
The ones who fly only on Holidays will just stop flying or go another way... Perhaps they will settle for a phone call (monitored) or a conference call (monitored).
People who don't fly at all will not likely give a damn at all.
Some will but not many. 
I for example do not fly but I do care and I will be in the minority of that group.
Divide and conquer.

----------


## torchbearer

> Look at it like this also.
> Division in use once again.
> How much of our population actually flies for work, pleasure or whatever on a regular basis?
> I don't know the answer to that question but I guarantee you it is not enough people to cause a huge uproar over these scanners. Also, there is quite a few within that group who will just accept it anyway, you know there are.
> 
> People who don't fly at all will not likely give a damn at all.
> Some will but not many. 
> I for example do not fly but I do care and I will be in the minority of that group.
> Divide and conquer.


fyi- your avatar is depicting a Knight of St. John's of Jerusalem.

----------


## Dieseler

> fyi- your avatar is depicting a Knight of St. John's of Jerusalem.


Yeah I know, I was being sort of a dick, I'll probably change it to Dimebag Darrell or something later.
How bout that one instead?
Roll Tide!

----------


## dannno

> 


Wow, that really shows how incredible the technology actually is.

It's like they do the reverse-negative thing just so you can't see people's skin.

----------


## Danke

> Wow, that really shows how incredible the technology actually is.
> 
> It's like they do the reverse-negative thing just so you can't see people's skin.


Didn't they use to sell glasses in the back of boys' magazines that could do that?

----------


## Matt Collins

Wow  Someone should stand at the airport and hand out these photos with a description just before people are about to walk through TSA. That should change some minds!

----------


## Revolution_Ready

There is a gun in those pics??? 

I stared at them for hours and didn't see it.

----------


## Dieseler

> Wow  Someone should stand at the airport and hand out these photos with a description just before people are about to walk through TSA. That should change some minds!


Good idea.
Mass email it also and see if Snopes cares to counter it.

----------


## devil21

Sorry I should have posted the blog link but my history automatically clears daily and I don't remember the link.  If anybody finds it please post it to this thread.

----------


## talkingpointes

> Wow  Someone should stand at the airport and hand out these photos with a description just before people are about to walk through TSA. That should change some minds!


How bout a young girl with a slogan like "nice rack". I know that sounds disgusting and maybe a bit extreme but seriously WTF WTF WTF. What is this country coming too, and look at my previous post, I hardly ever express genuine outrage. Imagine the $#@!ing creeps that will be working these things, also imagine if they save the photos. Jesus $#@!ing christ, have some decency !

----------


## dannno

> Didn't they use to sell glasses in the back of boys' magazines that could do that?


Apparently, but I think it was a gag.

----------


## Dieseler

> Sorry I should have posted the blog link but my history automatically clears daily and I don't remember the link.  If anybody finds it please post it to this thread.


Here's one,
http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-en...eally-see.html

Prison Planet picked up also.
http://www.infowars.com/inverted-bod...-living-color/

I just submitted it to Drudge.
Drudge is running the mind reading article by the way.

----------


## dannno

> Good idea.
> Mass email it also and see if Snopes cares to counter it.


Actually all you have to do is take the original photo into photoshop and do a negative filter on it. 

Anybody with photo tools can debunk this if it's debunkable. I guess I'll try it, I think I have that tool with Artweaver.

----------


## Dieseler

> Actually all you have to do is take the original photo into photoshop and do a negative filter on it. 
> 
> Anybody with photo tools can debunk this if it's debunkable. I guess I'll try it, I think I have that tool with Artweaver.


Just read on another forum that members there have already confirmed it is possible.
I'd appreciate it if you would though man, I don't have the skills with those type programs but would love a confirmation from a member here.

----------


## dannno

> Just read on another forum that members there have already confirmed it is possible.
> I'd appreciate it if you would though man, I don't have the skills with those type programs but would love a confirmation from a member here.


Ok, so I took the original image where her skin is all silver and put it into artweaver (which is a free download, great photoshop clone if you want one)

I right-clicked on the layer (layers are the small version of the picture in a box over on the right) and went to layer properties. 

For "Blend:" I selected "Difference" and that gave me a reverse negative, precisely the same picture that is in the OP where she looks nekked. 

So that's step 1 for confirmation. 

To completely confirm this, we should be able to get other scanner photos, like the ones on erowe1's website, do the same thing in Artweaver (or photoshop), and get a picture of a nekked person.


Edit: It seems that erowe1's scanner images have changed since the other day.. I could be wrong tho.. the female pic ix the same as this one, and the male pic is very blurred, I thought it was a little more clear the other day, I dunno.

Somebody should find a good one and post it here, I can run the filter (or people can do it themselves for their own verification)

----------


## dannno

Ya I haven't been able to find a scanner picture that has the same effect, but to tell you the truth they all look a bit different, like they have different filters added on.

----------


## JustinTime

> no kidding.  I just read the big drudge headline.  300 of these scanners going out in 2010, maybe more.  
> 
> got a link to that blog?


300? Sweet Jesus. 

I honestly cant believe people are putting up with it. I remember the first I heard of these things, back in the fall of '01 shortly after 9/11, I thought "Theres no way in hell people will let them install something like that in airports."

----------


## dannno

I see the pic in the OP here:

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-en...eally-see.html


So I have no reason to doubt that it is a fake scanner picture.

It seems like some scanners have more details than others, or the ones with less details have more filters.

----------


## polomertz

If I "helicopter" "it", while standing in one of those, will they see that?

Also, I'm curious, is there some body paint or something I can spread on my body to write messages to them?  Not sure what I'd write but it'd be something along the lines of, "See anything you like?"

----------


## dannno

> If I "helicopter" "it", while standing in one of those, will they see that?
> 
> Also, I'm curious, is there some body paint or something I can spread on my body to write messages to them?  Not sure what I'd write but it'd be something along the lines of, "See anything you like?"


Now we're getting creative.

----------


## Dieseler

Thanks Danno.

----------


## Barackistan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ja...can-uk-airport

People in the UK are starting to accept these scanners. Plus according to the video, these scanners have been trialing for over 6 weeks. I thought these scanners were supposed to be installed and made in response to the 12/25 "attack." Sounds fishy..

.. another thing that caught my eye per the article:




> But Momota Khanom, who is in her 30s, from Leeds, believes Muslim women may be concerned. "I can see why it is being introduced, to improve security, and that is absolutely fine," she said. "But for Muslim women, who dress modestly and choose not to expose themselves, it is going to be a big issue. I think it will prevent many British Muslim women travelling and they may feel imprisoned in the UK.
> 
> "I do not have an issue with it myself, but I think it will cause problems for others." She urged the airport to consider having women-only operators viewing the images of Muslim women.


I find it funny that the name of the company producing the scanners are called "RapiScan Systems". Its motto should be "RapiScan Systems: Raping your liberties one image at a time."

----------


## Matt Collins

> If I "helicopter" "it", while standing in one of those, will they see that?


You mean like in Bruno?

----------


## dannno

> You mean like in Bruno?


Hah, that must have been during one of the parts I was closing my eyes.

EDIT: Nevermind, I was thinking of Borat... still haven't seen Bruno.

----------


## polomertz

> you mean like in bruno?

----------


## FindLiberty

I find this shocking... (thought it was just another saic spy device) and a few years old to boot!

http://www.rapiscansystems.com/fulla...asp?newsid=119

BTW, re: OP, those Hi-Rez photos look completely fake (not rapidscan) to me.

----------


## dannno

> BTW, re: OP, those Hi-Rez photos look completely fake to me.


Did you see the source of the photos? I posted it on the last page. 

They seem to be valid and I did a reverse negative on the original photo straight from the article and she came out naked.

----------


## FindLiberty

> Did you see the source of the photos? I posted it on the last page. ... the original photo straight from the article and she came out naked.


Yea, I think the source photo is fake too... possibly to oversell the scanner's capabilities.

Original? Try a negative reverse effect on some of the older low-rez scanner pictures and see how "nude skin" they really appear...

or, maybe I'm just wrong here, it won't be the first time.

----------


## JeNNiF00F00

Guess I wont be flying anymore.

----------


## devil21

> 300? Sweet Jesus. 
> 
> I honestly cant believe people are putting up with it. I remember the first I heard of these things, back in the fall of '01 shortly after 9/11, I thought "Theres no way in hell people will let them install something like that in airports."


Each one costs about $300,000.  Nice windfall for GE, isn't it?


Thanks to the poster for posting the links earlier.  I have no doubt they are accurate representations of the capabilities of these scanners.  The one thing that threw me off was the tan lines though.  How can a machine "see" skin color differences through clothing?  I guess it could be an outline of her underwear, if she's wearing any, instead.

----------


## dannno

> Yea, I think sourse photo is fake too... possibly to oversell the scanner's capabilities.
> 
> Original? Try a negative reverse effect on some of the older low-rez scanner pictures and see how "nude skin" they really appear...
> 
> or, maybe I'm just wrong here, it won't be the first time.


No, you're right, because I've reversed other photos and none that I have found so far have appeared nude like the one in the op.. Some have looked kinda close, but not near the skin detail.

Not sure why they would want to 'oversell' the scanner's capabilities, seems like it would have been cheaper to use the machine.. I mean, it looks like she has clothes on, do you think they really took a picture of a naked woman, front and back, and took all the time to add clothes, add the gun over her but-tox, etc, when they could have just taken a real scanner image that would already have that stuff?

I dunno, maybe there is a good explanation of why they would fake it.. maybe it was a publication that faked the photo cause they couldn't get a real one.. but they'd still have to do all that stuff above, seems like a lot of trouble.

I still think they're adding filters onto some of the machines to take away the detail so they can focus on objects that don't look right.

----------


## raiha

I think we should all start coming to the airport naked. Personally i would smear myself in ash so as to look like an Indian Sadhu. That may have some interesting consequences. They can't accuse us of being naked in public places. The older, the fatter, the saggier, the better.

----------


## AdamT

I read on some tech forums the scanners can't see hair? So the pic maybe fake, I don't know. Either way this is a total violation and I won't be flying anytime soon if forced though this ridiculous garbage.

----------


## Baptist

You guys are just as gullible as Infowars and Drudgereport.  That chick isn't even holding her arms in the correct position. HELLO.  IT'S A FAKE.  Check the source site, does that look like a legitamate news organization?!  They have all kinds of sex and nakedness on that site.

LOL.

----------


## MelissaWV

> No, you're right, because I've reversed other photos and none that I have found so far have appeared nude like the one in the op.. Some have looked kinda close, but not near the skin detail.
> 
> Not sure why they would want to 'oversell' the scanner's capabilities, seems like it would have been cheaper to use the machine.. I mean, it looks like she has clothes on, do you think they really took a picture of a naked woman, front and back, and took all the time to add clothes, add the gun over her but-tox, etc, when they could have just taken a real scanner image that would already have that stuff?
> 
> I dunno, maybe there is a good explanation of why they would fake it.. maybe it was a publication that faked the photo cause they couldn't get a real one.. but they'd still have to do all that stuff above, seems like a lot of trouble.
> 
> I still think they're adding filters onto some of the machines to take away the detail so they can focus on objects that don't look right.


I smell a fake.  There are all manner of details that don't appear on the body scanner on the "original" here.  Having said that, I don't care.  I put a certain quantity and sort of clothing onto myself when I leave the house.  You don't have to be a religious extremist or Amish to do so and expect a certain level of maintained modesty as you walk around.  You put on your clothing.

Now, let's analyze here.  Let's even give the Government every single benefit of the doubt, because they are certainly trying to downplay this and make it seem like it's no big deal.

Passenger walks through scanner.  Scanner creates an image with face and genitals blurred.  What's the point?  Would that have caught this bomber?  His genitals were PRECISELY where the materials were hidden.  Okay, scrap this... let's go with the OTHER options.

Passenger walks through scanner.  Scanner creates an "outline" image with "details obscured."  Well?  How's the scanner figuring out which details to obscure, again?  Perhaps I decide to hide a bomb inside a plastic phallus, dress as a guy, and blow up a plane?  Will the machine discount me as just freakishly well-hung?  Could I fool the machine by having something implanted (breast implants, false "hip replacement," etc.)?  Will the machine be configured to discount things that look like they have a medical explanation?  If we leave this all up to the machines, to then render what's left, we really haven't done anything but spend money.  Anyhow, in this scenario, the operator off in a dark room looking at "chalk outline images" with areas circled alerts an agent outside to pat down anyone who looks suspicious, directing them to the areas the machine specifically detected as suspicious.  This is PROBABLY what we will end up with at first.  It's useless and still incredibly invasive (not to mention time-consuming).

Passenger walks through scanner.  Scanner creates even the blurry "ghost porn" image we're familiar with from the news.  An agent in a dark room separate from the passengers (supposedly for privacy reasons, so no one can see the scan but the authorized agent) looks through your clothing and at anatomical details.  They can, again, direct an agent outside to detain you or do a pat-down.  

This scenario is the one we might POSSIBLY get that is most offensive.  Someone's in a dark room looking through your clothes.  Not just yours, either, but your mom's... your dad's... your child's.  These machines don't discriminate.  You can't even see them, so you're not sure if they're giggling, making lewd comments, taking pictures with their camera phones.  You don't know what they're seeing, so if they pull you over you have no proof of what the reason was (remember, they don't save photos, supposedly) or wasn't.  You just walk through, get virtually-naked, and then get pulled aside for a pat-down based on something you aren't allowed to see.  It sounds to me like you're being accused of a crime, there, without being able to face your accuser or have access to evidence... there's no real grounds for the search.  The courts aren't going to agree with me, of course, when it gets to that.

Bear in mind that NONE of the scenarios will find weapons, drugs, or chemicals hidden in body cavities.  None.  NONE of them will make up for security guards who leave their posts for a minute or two (see the video of the guy at Newark Airport).  NONE of them will screen every possible employee every time they come into contact with part of your plane.  NONE of them will prevent someone from setting off a device IN the security line or at the ticket counter.  NONE of them will prevent someone from setting up shop near an airport (lots of airports are near interstates that provide a fairly easy getaway) and shooting down a plane that was about to land (which would take awhile to figure out, since at first it might even look like the pilot somehow crashed the plane into the runway).

I could go on, but why?  Point is, we're not going to be safe, kiddos.  Not 100%.  You have way more of a chance of getting killed by slipping in your shower, and they haven't put "Wii-like sensors" (see the story about "mind-reading" scanners) under our showers yet, hooked up to a voice alert that warns you you're about to slip.

----------


## revolutionisnow



----------


## klamath

I smell fake as well.  Why is there hair in perfect detail but it can erase all clothes? Why is her belly button in perfect detail but not one metal button or zipper? And believe me with a behind like hers I would notice a 9mm where she has it on the unscaned photo.

----------


## klamath

> 


Now that one looks more real.

----------


## Liberty Star

Freedom is on the march?




> *New scanners break child porn laws* 
> 
> The GuardianJan 4, 2010 ... Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are too graphic.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...hild-porn-laws

----------


## Reason

> This is what they do.  Instead of the low quality grainy-ish pics that fly across the tv screen during the news segments, here is what they actually see.  And what they actually can do, at least according to the blog I got these pics from.
> 
> 
> 
> Now just reverse-negative and there's your naked woman.  Even her tan lines are plainly visible.
> 
> 
> How can people accept their children, wives, mothers and friends going through these things??  There better be a lawsuit already in the works.


Source? Looks fake.

----------


## devil21

Probably a good idea to read the whole thread Civil.

----------


## Anothercoilgun

Secure in ones person again thrown out the window.

----------


## ian_co

> This is what they do.  Instead of the low quality grainy-ish





but in all seriousness imagine how highly conservative people take this, even more religious people! i think we are on the path of destroying our selves.

also i was listening on the radio here in Canada, the lady said "its okay, i think that if a religious person who is highly conservative is uncomfortable, that that person will have his or her own privacy when going through this scanner as there won't be any strangers viewing it" and the rest of the radio agreed.

I raged pretty hard because she didn't realize that if anything, the strangers are the airport staff because THEY ARE THE STRANGER who has no real authority to view that information about ones self

----------


## Matt Collins

Here is the above image, just negatived...

----------


## FindLiberty

> Here is the above image, just negatived...


Yea, fine and dandy, but this it's not an airport "body scan" image to begin with!!!

I'm sure you can download other HiRez nude photos and make negative images
out of them (by using Photoshop on your PC) if that's your hobby...

But please, I really don't need to seem them shown here on RPF.

The photo above derails the body scan issue and makes the outrage look foolish.  
I wonder if the source of this (adding guns, flipping negative) did with the intent to
undermine and discredit body scan objectors...

----------

