Airport body scanners - hi def pics

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.
 
newbitech said:
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?
Click to expand...

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."
 
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?"
 
polomertz said:
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?"
Click to expand...

Now we're getting creative.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/07/full-body-scan-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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
FindLiberty said:
BTW, re: OP, those Hi-Rez photos look completely fake to me.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dannno said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
JustinTime said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
FindLiberty said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
dannno said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ClaytonB
Let us remember the torture and rape of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
533
acptulsa
acptulsa
J
Hitler Just Pardoned Josef Mengele, Fauci Gets Away With Mass Murder
Replies
3
Views
673
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
G
PAF
Will TSA Steal Your Mug?
Replies
12
Views
884
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Swordsmyth
Dreams of the Dark Bill of Rights
Replies
0
Views
2K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Anti Federalist
When complex systems fall apart because there is no one qualified to operate them
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
20K
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
Back
Top