SYRIA: More questions about alleged nuclear site

Professor William Beeman at the University of Minnesota passed along a note today from "a colleague with a U.S. security clearance" about the mysterious Syrian site targeted in a Sept. 6 Israeli airstrike.

The note raises more questions about the evidence shown last week by U.S. intelligence officials to lawmakers in the House and Senate. 

The author of the note pinpoints irregularities about the photographs. Beeman's source alleges that the CIA "enhanced" some of the images. For example he cites this image:

The lower part of the building, the annex, and the windows pointing south appear much sharper than the rest of the photo, suggesting that they were digitally improved.

The author points to more questions about the photographs of the Syrian site.

1. Satellite photos of the alleged reactor building show no air defenses or anti-aircraft batteries such as the ones found around the Natanz nuclear site in central Iran.
2. The satellite images do not show any military checkpoints on roads near the building.
3. Where are the power lines? The photos show neither electricity lines or substations.
4. Here is a link to a photo of the North Korean facility that the Syrian site was based on. Look at all the buildings surrounding it. The Syrian site was just one building.

Now compare this photograph of the site:

To this one:

The site looks like a rectangle in the first shot, but more like a square in the second shot. Huh?

Thanks to Beeman, a professor of anthropology and Middle East studies as well as a member of the blogosphere, for allowing us to share his colleague's comments.

— Borzou Daragahi in Amman, Jordan

P.S. The Los Angeles Times issues a free daily newsletter with the latest headlines from the Middle East, the war in Iraq and the frictions between the West and Islam. You can subscribe by registering at the website here, logging in here and clicking on the World: Mideast newsletter box here.

Comments

[GeoMarko]

There seemed to be a couple of other problems with the reactor pictures that I have not seen mentioned. I investigated the first one below by changing the "exposure" and "gamma" (using Preview furnished with Mac OS 10.4). They allow expanding the range between given brightnesses to see if any pattern exists that is normally washed out by insufficient contrast.
1) Jet Black shadows: The shadows the main building casts are nearly perfectly black. Brightening them only shows a small amount of noise and no pattern. However, the smaller extension that looks too sharp shows practically no shadows at all. At least near the bottom, much of the front of the extension should be in an almost perfectly jet black shadow. Proceeding upwards, the shadow should progressively lighten as the front of the extension will be exposed to more reflected light from the surrounding area as the height increases. This is not seen either. [5th picture at moonofalabama, see below]
2) The front of the extension above appears identical to the cartoon figure of the front extension in one of the earlier pictures, except it has been rotated into the proper perspective. Any architectural software will do this change in perspective. (Cartoon figure can be see at http://www.moonofalabama.org/cia-syria-show.html [see 7th picture] and were referenced by http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8823 ) [The roof also seems to have been placed on top of the "building" by putting it into the proper perspective in picture 7; compare with the insert in picture 11. I am assuming the top of the bldg. is "real". ]

The conclusion seems hard to escape the picture of the extension is fake.
[I have no issue with enhancing a real picture or creating a CGI from a video. This picture, except for the color changes, looks more or less real.]

[George Stuart]

Is David Bosie back on the job? Did Dan Burton give his OK?

[Sean]

The first photo is from a video presentation. It is computer generated (CGI). That is why it looks different.

I could tell it was CGI from the first second I looked at it. I can't believe so many people believe it to be an altered photograph. Sure, coming from stupid politicians. But the rest of you? Wake up, people.

[Manuello Paganelli]

Totally fake images and done by the CIA.

The same CIA who along with the main culprit, Mr. Bush, said there were WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was pal with Osama?

Same CIA who said that Iraq could attack us in less than 30 mins"

Nuff said.

[Jim]

Where are the bomb craters and points of impact? Are we to believe that the Israeli jets released a single bomb that precisely impacted the roof of the building, and collapsed it? The destruction in the satellite photo of the damaged building does not appear to be caused by the kinetic energy of bomb impacts.

[CKR]

There is much more analysis of the photos in the CIA video at the WhirledView blog.

Something about those "side views:" http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2008/04/al-kibar-the-ov.html

Why the reactor is not "the same" as the Yongbyon reactor: http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2008/04/al-kibar-the-re.html

The photos of the destruction are not all oriented in the same direction: http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2008/04/al-kibar-orient.html

And there is a great deal of discussion about the reactor photos at Arms Control Wonk, particularly in this thread (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1866/just-how-big-was-al-kibar-again) and this one (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1869/hayden-sticks-to-al-kibar-size-estimate).

[Fascist Nation]

There is a far more important difference between the Korean reactor and the Syrian "reactor." There was a river flowing by the Korean reactor. Where was the Syrian "reactor"'s cooling? Don't tell me the Syrians have developed nuclear reactor technology well beyond even our own reactors that do not require cooling water.

And don't tell me our CIA doesn't realize this, just like they ignored the missing milling equipment in the Saddam Hussein mobile anthrax lab diagrams they got from Ahmed Chalabi.

[Jason Berry]

It's a 3D image...no question. The front of that building shouldn't even be visible if the shadow it's casting is that stark. We wouldn't be able to see the windows on the front of the building.

It's a shockingly bad fake for the CIA. Maybe they should some of these guys faking UFO videos.

[Chris collins]

Hi all,

Has anyone seen a nuclear reactor building from up above?

We cannot believe the so called intelligence because they have a not so distant dishonorable track record.

The point remains; there was no reactor inside the "reactor building". Maybe it was destined to be a tricycle factory!

[R.Ashton]

The first photograph did strike me as altered.
However, I do want to point out that, like the famous "face on Mars" at Cydonia, that turned out years later to be a big optical illusion and not an ancient sculpture, the mind and eye function together and view things a certain way, and it could be the case that the government is telling the essential truth about what it is saying and it is our perception that is wrong.
Anyone who studies visual perception knows that, because of either intent or just unintentional happenstance, things can appear different in photos than they really are. An obvious examples is that of female models who are objectively very thin, yet in the occasional photo taken a certain way look like they have huge thighs. Certain cars look beautiful in person, yet don't come across well in photographs. There are dozens of other examples. You must understand the essential fact that a photograph or a digital still image is still a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional World, and so our eyes and brain are trying to see it as the real 3 dimensional thing it is showing us, while it still remains a 2 dimensional image.
One more salient fact is that 99% of us are used to seeing things close up or from a certain distance standing or driving 99% of the time. Pilots who fly a lot over buildings and compounds and observe them closely are the exception. Most of us are judging one aerial photo based on other aerial photos we have seen.

[Nelson]

The first picture was clearly edited. Certainly it could have been enhanced for clarity. Whatever the reason, the front of the building at the bottom of the picture just looks fake. The shading is all wrong, like a badly rendered 3-d object.
Again, it may be simple digital enhancement. But since a photograph is "a picture created by projecting an image onto a photosensitive surface", this can't really be called a photograph anymore. There's been so much enhancement, it could only be called a visual representation.

[A. Magnus]

You need a cooling tower to have a viable nuclear reactor design. Try finding the cooling tower in these pictures - whoops, there isn't one! This is no better than Colin Powell shaking his little vial of powder meant to signify anthrax at the UN in February 2003. It's a load of horse manure designed to give job security to sociopaths who want to juice up their portfolios with some extra blood and guts. The people pushing war don't care who dies - middle easterners or Americans - so long as they get paid.

[Stephen Pruitt]

If you look carefully, comparing shadows, you will see that it's clearly the same building, the variation is strictly due to the difference in angles of the sunlight.

In the first image, the sun is angled sharply from the upper left corner, which emphasises the shadows to the lower right of both the main building and the secondary building in the upper left corner.

In the second image, the sun is much more directly overhead, and coming from the lower left instead. That angle makes the lower left part of the main building almost disappear, but close inspection will see that it's still there.

There is also a slight difference in the angle of the actual photograph, with the first taken from a more direct angle above and the second taken at a larger angle. When the differences of the angle of light and the angle of the image are taken into account, it's very clear that this is simply the same structure photographed at different times of day.

[bogi666]

Israel is not a signatory of the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty[NPT] and Syria is a signatory of the NPT. At the behest of the USA Israel, non NPT, attacked Syria, an NPT signatory, for allegedly producing nuclear weapons at a site that didn't even have utilities or a fence. Now who are we supposed to believe,Israel. NOT. WHY IS IT THAT NON NPT signatories have veto power over NPT SIGNATORIES AND CAN ATTACK THEM WITH IMPUNITY.

[Brendt H.]

I was an imagery analyst in the US military from 1975 to 1982. Looking at the images, there are a few things that are clear.

1) Images 2 and 3 (the "Rectangle vs Square" question) are probably unaltered. In the first image, the shot is almost straight down at the building (no more than 2 degrees from vertical). In the second, the angle may be as great as 20 degrees from the vertical. The effects of perspective cause the rectangular building to appear squarer.

You can see this if you look at the lower right corner of the building. In the second image, you can see a tall pole (beam, whatever), and it is apparent that you are looking at it from further in whatever direction the bottom of the image is (south should be to the left, so let's call it east). In the first image, although you can see the shadow of the pole, the pole itself is not obvious/visible, because you are looking straight down.

2) The image of the undestroyed building does appear to have been enhanced somehow. The annex and windows pointing *west* (not south - at ~33 degrees north, the sun is to the south of the building, and the shadows should point generally north. Comparing all three images, it is apparent that south should be to the right in this image) are clearer than they should be. Looking over the entire image, there are a few other areas that appear unnaturally sharp - the mound in the upper portion of the image, the brightly reflecting truck to the right of the upper corner of the building, and the shadows on the edge of the bunker in the lower right (a triangular area bisected by a raised pipe).

I would say that enhancement was added to areas of higher contrast and shadow, so details could be identified more clearly. This would explain well the pattern of unnatural sharpness and unenhanced image. It does not intrinsically invalidate the image, although caution must be taken in interpreting the areas of sharpening, since the sharpening process can introduce artefacts into the image that are not really present on the ground.

None of these facts invalidate the images. In fact, there is no evidence that the black and white images are enhanced at all, no matter what the claims of the professor's contacts, and the enhancement on the first image is clearly for the purpose of identifying detail in shadows, not for anything nefarious.

[Phil]

Wow who dropped my cd drive in the dirt with the door partially open?

[Capt Todd]

It's more likely some sections of the photos were deliberately blurred or otherwise distorted to protect national security interests. Even commercial satellites are able to render far better resolution than what we see in these pictures. Military / NSA sats are so far beyond commercial hardware that it is virtually impossible that these photos are unaltered.

[Barry Freed]

Looks like the Bushies have been watching to many re-runs of "The Running Man."

[Brian]

I'm actually a former student of Professor Beeman's (Hi, Bill!) and an archaeologist with a lot of experience in satellite and aerial imagery. Now whether this site indeed represents a nuclear reactor or not is certainly beyond my expertise, but I have to respectfully disagree that there is any evidence here of nefarious image manipulation.

As several readers have pointed out, the first is a still from a rendered 3-d animation distributed by the DOD and was never claimed to be an unaltered photograph, so we can remove that one form the discussion immediately.

As to the second set of photographs, a review of the surrounding terrain, especially the shape of the roads in the upper left and lower right corners, reveals that the two pictures are almost certainly in the same location. The apparent difference in the shape of the buildings has entirely to do with the angle from which the shot was taken (doubly likely if these are spy plane photos rather than sat) and the time of day.

Unlike in the first, where light is coming from the upper half of the image, in the second photo, the sun shines from the lower left, causing the lower edge of the building to be poorly defined. There is also the possibility that the wall has collapsed, making the true edge even harder to see. An examination of the area surrounding the site reveals similar differences in contrast and visibility in the vegetation and outbuildings surrounding the site.

A good illustration of how differences in angle and lighting can make sat images of identical locations seem very different is this comparison (http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_marsface_compare_010525_02.jpg&cap=Three+views%3A+Viking+1+photo+from+1976%3B+Mars+Global+Surveyor+%28MGS%29+image+from+1998%2C+and+the+latest+MGS+image+from+April+2001.) showing several shots of the so-called "face" on Mars, which, with different lighting, is recognizable as nothing more than the eroded hilltop it is.

[Praedor Atrebates]

The first photo doesn't look "digitally enhanced" as I understand the term, it looks FAKE. It actually looks like a GoogleEarth building rendering, or something rendered in a video game. I look at that image and immediately see it as fake. I suspect US "intel" is making extravagant use of GoogleEarth and its tools to create rendered buildings the way they WANT them to look rather than the way they actually look.

[William Beeman]

As the "source" for the relaying of this information, I want to emphasize that there is nothing secret about these photographs. They have been promulgated by the U.S. government as "proof" of their assertions. My colleague, who drew my attention to this material makes no claims of having any secret or privileged information, beyond having a sharp eye and a skeptical view of this material. The commentary on this shows a variety of opinions, and has drawn people with real expertise in image analysis. I invite readers to draw their own conclusions.

William O. Beeman
University of Minnesota

[Franklin]

It's simple. Our elected leaders have lied before about WMDs, so we have no actual idea if they are lying this time.

[MsJoanne]

Poorly doctored like, oh, say, the Iranian gun boat incident that had most people laughing because of its silliness...yet could have been a trigger to war with yet another country.

And then there's this bit: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a094x7Qa8Qeo

Bush and the neo con's bringing forth WW3.

[george in Toronto]

Recall in 1991 leading invasion of Iraq--USA used phonie pictures of 1000's of Saddam's tanks on the border of Saudia Arbia to UN. The Photo shop geek forgot to paint in the tank and military tracks. After the killings of over 282,000 fleeing iraqies,the Russians provided satelite photos--no tanks ever were stationed at the border. Suadias--got suckered to pay 90% of USA military bill$
So tell us more bullsh!t!

[Linus Bern]

A response to Effivin Cod

"LA Times,
Thanks for the Syria version of events. It's good to know America's enemies have a friend and voice in this country to spin for them plotting to kill thousands of people. Are you guys aware of how dangerous it is what you are doing or are you leftists that willing to be useful idiots for our enemies?"

But as we've seen from Iraq, there is no danger whatsoever to flying headlong into war based on faulty or false intel.

Do you remember a time in America when right wingers considered the government to be something to be treated sceptically? Remember when you wanted to keep the govenment out of your lives? Remember when you thought the only reason the government wanted to spy on American was to find out who was a gun collector so they could be rounded up in the future? Remember when you were appalled by government waste and mismanagement?

Whatever happened to turn such proud mavericks into frightened toady's that will swallow whatever the government feeds them?

[Steven Bobker]

Just for laughs, a state exists between Syria and Israel and has since 1948, The attack thus wasn't a war crime no matter how you hate Israel.

[S. Nihaadi]

Syria's Smoking Gun
by Trish Schuh – "Syria Comment" Sept 17, 2007

DEIR EZ ZOR, Syria- On a bridge over the Euphrates River at sundown, neighboring mosques weave a chorus calling Muslims to prayer. This destitute, ramshackle oil town on Iraq's desert frontier seems calm, despite Israel's recent raid on a military base outside the city to destroy "Syria's nuclear program."

The Qamishli-Deir Ez Zor highway, alleged by Israel to be a weapons route for Iraqi insurgents, was also quiet, and there were no heavy construction machinery or building cranes visible in the opposite direction on the road from Deir Ez Zor to Iraq.

At the Syria-Qusayba checkpoint near the Iraq border, I was stopped by the Syrian military. Across the road on the Iraqi side, sounds of American military operations puttered as blackhawk helicopters flew overhead. "No photos," said the Syrian military captain. Cameras could draw US sniper fire.

The surrounding terrain is flat barren desert, with visibility extending for miles. It is difficult to see how smugglers, insurgents or anything that moves could penetrate here. This is also where CNN claimed Israel punched "a big hole in the desert" by attacking North Korean nuclear materials. But the big hole could be in CNN's story.

As far back as 2002, Charles Duelfer of the United Nations Iraq Survey Group called then Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton's nuclear claims against Syria "exaggerated." It was also the assessment of the CIA. In 2004, Muhammad El Baradei chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reiterated that there was no evidence Syria had a nuclear program.

After the invasion of Iraq, former US Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner identified charges against Syria as one of 50 false news stories created by Israel and the White House to justify war. "Saddam's nuclear WMDs moved to Syria" was propaganda he said.

Several days ago, after the attack on Syria's "nuclear program", I spoke to western oil company officials in Deir Ez Zor. One technician told me they routinely monitor radiation as part of the refining process. They registered no heightened levels of nuclear residue in the area as there would have been if the Israelis had hit a North Korean atomic stockpile. Operations and technical foremen put it this way: "The nuclear claims against Syria are pure bullsh*t."

The Syrian smoking gun is the complete lack of any mushroom cloud.

[Zardoz]

Scott Ritter pointed out yesterday that there would be no violation of the NPT unless they had introduced nuclear material to the site, then they would be obligated to declare it as a nuclear reactor. If they blew it up with nuclear material, there would be a measureable amount of radiation. So far there is none. He also stressed that this looked more like a test reactor, and not one that could produce enough plutonium to make a bomb. In addition there was the absence of fences around the perimeter, or guards. So Syria committed no "violations". Also, since no nuclear material was present, there is nothing for the IAEA to do, since without nuclear material, it's out of their jurisdiction.

Israel, on the other hand, bombed a sovereign nation without a declaration of war, which is a war crime.

In short, looks like another "yellow cake" affair. They blew up a hunk of concrete, nothing more. They broke international law to do it. And now they're trying to whip up international sediment against the Syrians for it. The whole thing smells like old fish on a hot day.

One note about the timing of the "coming out" of the recent information. It occurred the day after the biggest Israeli spy scandal since Jonathan Pollard. Turns out the Israeli spy network was much larger than previously thought. Seems like every time there's a story that hurts the Israelis or the US administration, the next day we see a big "fear monger" story. Tell me I'm wrong.

[bobdevo]

The destoyed building in top photo has as aspect ratio of .74/1.00.

The destroyed building in bottom photo has an aspect ratio of .95/1.00.

The difference in angle for aerial photos is not going to account for that great a difference. They are not the same building.

[Nate]

Hahaha, this is a 3-d representation of the building. I'm surprised nobody at the Times saw the actual video presentation. (for the video and some more intelligent commentary, go to armscontrolwonk.com )

the discrepancy in the shadows is because the two pictures were taken from a slightly different angle. Jeez. There's enough to criticize in this story without this.

[Effivin Cod]

Sounds like the LA Times and it's far left minions are using their 9-11 conspiracy caps again barking up this tree here. Ugh...

[Effivin Cod]

LA Times,
Thanks for the Syria version of events. It's good to know America's enemies have a friend and voice in this country to spin for them plotting to kill thousands of people.

Are you guys aware of how dangerous it is what you are doing or are you leftists that willing to be useful idiots for our enemies?

[Ed]

As a Professional Retoucher, I would have to say that the professor is right on the money. The Photos have been retouched. To really tell, see if there is any way to seethe original released pictures. If there was retouching there will be tell-tale differences in the pixelation when viewing the photo's various channels.

[Antiup]

Israel, who's sitting on 'X' amount of unlawfully obtained and maintained nukes and who is allied with the U.S. who sits on 'XXXX' nukes illegally attacks Seria who has '0' nukes. What's wrong with this picture is not the picture at all; it's the international laws that are being blatently ignored by the US and Israel in persuit of their Imperialist aims.

You can't be attacked by the knee-jerk authoritarians in this thread-- who believe that anyone but the U.S. and Israel who even THINKS about defending themselves with nukes-- should be "obliterated" if you just stick to the facts--rules of international law--and skip speculating about faked photos.

[Eli Stephens]

Be sure to see Scott Ritter's take on the affair here:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/28/un_nuclear_watchdog_chief_blasts_us

[Marc W]

I have been photoshopping since 1992 or 3 -- or since version 2. - Without a speck of reservation -- THOSE PHOTOS ARE PHOTOSHOPPED - digitally enhanced. America - you've been dupped -- AGAIN! It's time to take this Government DOWN -- IMPEACH IMPEACH the lying thieving bastards....!!

[Theophilus]

So I hadn't seen the "VOAvideo" on YouTube before writing my earlier comment about the necessary cooling tower or other cooling facilities. It is the claim of US authorities that cooling water was pumped from the nearby Euphrates river to cool a graphite-moderated, gas-cooled, plutonium-production reactor. The coolant is a major point of the video, and the ancillary facilities (a pump house, buried storage pond, gas-to-coolant heat exchangers, etc.) are all indicated as well.

The problem is almost all of these data are suggested by computer-generated graphics. It is unclear what actual photographic evidence exists to support these various claims.

Surely, the IAEA must have some sort of independent analysis to support, or not support, the US interpretation. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Syria is a signatory nation and a declared "non-nuclear-weapon State" -- the IAEA has certain inspection rights under Article III and other provisions.

What does the IAEA have to say about these claims about a plutonium-production reactor? Surely. the IAEA would have conducted on-site inspections of the ruins by now. If Syria has been such a flagrant violator of its treaty obligations as a non-nuclear-weapons State, wouldn't the IAEA have something to say?

See http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf

[Brad]

"Note the North Korean facility has a very large hyperbolic cooling tower nearby. I suppose if there were a substantial water supply, you might use some sort of drilled well to reject waste heat -- but this would require a lot of water and a lot of work. Is there any evidence for how they got rid of waste heat, if this were a reactor facility?"
Did any of you "CIA IS BAD!" conspiracy theorists see the videos on youtube? The first photo is from A COMPUTER GENERATED VIDEO!!!!!!!!!

1. Syria built a second building AROUND (and over) the reactor was built to change the outline in order to be covert (may they just wanted a more asthetically pleasing useless building in the middle of nowhere)
2. There were pipes from the Euphrates river bringing up cooling water to a underground holding tank and another returning heated water from the "reactor" back to the river. Probably just a useless building on the middle of nowhere... that needed a lot of water.

Good, Gosh! Another MSM hatchet job w/ no proof or clue. Methinks your heads are buried deeper than the remains of this reactor.

[pmorlan]

But it has to be real because Diane Feinstein said that she was briefed about this and well it just has to be true don't you know. Why would those experts say it was true if it wasn't. Yada, yada, yada. She needs to go!

FEINSTEIN: Well, Wolf, the Senate Intelligence Committee did have a classified briefing. And I can say this, based on the analysis of the people that were there, namely Admiral McConnell, General Hayden and national security adviser -- the national security adviser, the facility was not configured for civilian use. They had a number of I think documenting points to make the case that this was, in fact, a nuclear weapons facility.

Now, having said that, I was surprised that they hadn't given the information to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and I was also surprised by the timing of it, because there have been some reports that Israel and Syria were looking at a settlement, quite possibly, and this could very well disrupt that settlement. So I...

BLITZER: But you believe -- based on what you know, Senator Feinstein, you believe that this was a nuclear reactor that North Korea was constructing in Syria?

FEINSTEIN: Look, none of us on the committee are nuclear experts. We take the views of nuclear experts. According to those experts, the answer is yes, this was a nuclear facility. I would be very surprised if it turned out to be anything other than that.

[Luca Ponti]

Has anyone asked whether they pulled the appropriate building permits? No cooler tower, no power lines, etc. Obviously shoddy workmanship.

OK. So hopefully you had a quick laugh from this scary stuff.

[Novista]

I say, digitally plonk a few granite columns at the front and drop the bloody thing in Washington, DC. It'd fit right in with the neo-classical mythology of the damn place.

[bern Dell]

The obviously doctored photo looks like the building has been created in a 3D rendering package like Strata 3D.

Extremely poorly done. I could do a much better job in 30 minutes.

For some time now the government has obviously felt so powerful that it doesn't need to try too hard with its bogus evidence. Plausible deniability is the term, I believe.

[Phillip]

The article is specific to the subject of whether these photographs (or representation in the case of the first image) are genuine. It's a valid, healthy question.

But that's a bit of a red herring in terms of what's happening right now. What we should be asking:

1) The Israeli strike took place on 6 September, 2007, at which time it was mentioned discreetly in various media. Why is the White House publicizing the attack in April 2008? What other current events may be related to or impacted by this news?

2) Why is the United States publicizing this information instead of Israel?

3) Does anybody benefit from the publicizing of this information? If so, who benefits and in what way?

If you pay attention, there is a great deal of tension between the US and Israel right now -- perhaps so much as to be unprecedented. This is an interesting article, even if it is highly inaccurate, but if you narrow the focus of your questioning to something so granular, you're going to miss the big picture. No bad pun intended. ;]

[Squeegee]

Um, if that's a reactor, where's the cooling tower? There is clearly one at the N. korean site, and it would be pretty insade to not have a way of drawing heat from the reactor core.

[Theophilus]

My question is -- if this is a nuclear-reactor facility, where's the cooling tower?

All nuclear reactors, even very small research ones, require a fairly large cooling towers. I live two blocks from MIT's research reactor in Cambridge, which operates with less than a few kW; nonetheless, it has an adjacent slat-type cooling tower about the size of a small house. If this were a plutonium-production reactor, it would work with hundreds to thousands of times the thermal output, and it would require either a comparably larger cooling tower, or would need a large cooling pond or an adjacent river into which to reject its waste heat. But I see no obvious evidence of such a tower or alternative cooling apparatus.

Note the North Korean facility has a very large hyperbolic cooling tower nearby. I suppose if there were a substantial water supply, you might use some sort of drilled well to reject waste heat -- but this would require a lot of water and a lot of work. Is there any evidence for how they got rid of waste heat, if this were a reactor facility?

[random bystander]

The first picture is obviously CGI...because it is from a CGI video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ah6RmcewUM

[bluestatedon]

I'm a professional graphic designer and work with Photoshop every day in my work. I concur with Illustrator's comments about the first image. It has been heavily and inexpertly modified using digital means, and as such should not be regarded as a useful piece of information unless further explanations were forthcoming regarding the manipulation of the image.

Regarding the two images of the bombed structure, I also agree with others here in that there is no obvious graphic manipulation. There are none of the telltale digital artifacts that usually accompany modification, and the apparent differences in the site are due to the different times of day and viewing angle.

[illustrator]

I am a professional illustrator, using Photoshop everyday. The top photo is obviously Photoshopped. The giveaways are the shadows- the 'hook" in the shadow of the front gable is rounded- this is a classic trace left by an inexpert use of the eraser tool set to a soft feather. Additionally, the shadow is the wrong shape, and is too simple. Further, the shadow on the shaded side of the structure is all the same value and hue. This is incorrect and is characteristic of invented structures with bad painting.

This image is heavily modified, and may be entirely fake. At the very least, someone tried to change it, and botched the job.

[Shawn]

I have some serious issues with the weight of this " colleague with a U.S. security clearance".

First, yes - the top photo was enhanced, but it's a still from a 3D enhanced video (linked just above it). It wasn't enhanced to fool anyone, it was enhanced with advanced methods - not some Photoshop hack job.

Also, the bottom two photos are the same building - taken at different times of the day from slightly different angles.

As well, the photo comparison to the N. Korean facility would be easier to see if you flipped one of the images, they are currently oriented opposite of each other - as is the top image in comparison to the bottom two images.

I'm a former AF imagery analyst and I'm actually more convinced now that this was a real facility than I was before seeing the evidence.

The facilities are very similar, considering they were built 35 years apart - the subtle differences can be accounted for by looking at the building post destruction.

[jeff]

The photo at the top looks a lot like the kind of image you'd find in a common videogame. It looks like 3d geometry textured with low res images and rendered in a 3d game application.

Thats why you see the sharp details on the front of the building and the unrealistic reflections of the windows.

[SlimGuy]

Rebuttal reasons

1) put SAM sites around and you might as well flag the area for containing something of value

2) ditto

3) Graphite core reactors only require only a little power to operate..obviously something was powering up the pumping station down at the river. There is a building just to the north west that could be a generator building and a diesel plant could be built nearby in short order to supply enough power for full operation

4) one photo is directly overhead the other from a side angle ...distortion will occur from that alone.

[Jesse]

It's obviously a 3D representation of the building. The CIA is displaying some of its more sophisticated satellite based radar mapping or equivalent tech. This is how modern militaries map out the battlefield. This is not photoshop.

[tc399]

The site looks like a rectangle in the first shot, but more like a square in the second shot. Huh?

The pictures were taken from different satellites at a different time of day which accounts for some of the oddities. But the resolution we see is not even worth attempting to identify. It could be anything. Both satellites have the ability to read a phone number on a desk in those buildings, if they are even the same building. One looks like a mock-up.

This is not evidence of anything. It's more blarney. Bush will use the same kind of 'evidence' to bomb Iran, and it will be a huge mistake. Like Iraq, except with even more unimaginable consequences.

[Aride]

It seems that we are being lied to again--lied into another probable war. Who is running our country, demons from hell?

[DanR]

Given the Bush Administration's pattern of near-absolute deceit, all evidence they produce on any subject should be considered suspect.

[Bill S]

Make no mistake - the Bush crazies are going to attack Iran. They are looking everywhere for pretext.

Unfortunately the world is not buying it. The only way they will get their justification will be a false flag attack against an American warship in the Gulf or "terrorist" attack in the U.S. Homeland. I expect this within 60 days as they have to go into Iran before August.

Just Google Earth Iran - it's all friken mountains - a horrible place for an infantry offense and an air attack is just going to poke a stick in the bee's nest.

It will be the final death knell for the American economy as if these crooks and war criminals haven't done their best to destroy us in the last 8 years.

[Observant Person]

Hey, those final two photos are taken from two different angles.

The first is nearly straight above birds-eye-view and the second, "square" shape is taken from a lower angle that faces the front wall of the building. You can see the walls in it and not in the "rectangle" straight above view.

When you tilt your angle like that, shapes shorten vertically.

Come to think of it, the first photo looks like a google-earth 3D building overlay - sharp corners and shapes with very low resolution photographic textures on.

I won't claim any knowledge of nuclear plants but just answering the questions posed in this post.

[guest]

I have analyzed sat images professionally for 4 years

I can't explain the first shot. Maybe there is a quality to windows that cause their light band signature to be sharper?

The second comparison shots that the author though were different shapes is really typical in sat images from different times and angles. I am sure that is nothing more than phones fooling the eye.

Just look at the underground entrance on the top photo, due to the difference in shadow and angle you almost can't see it in the second

[Nick B]

The last two photos likely look different because they were taken at different angles. The first one is obviously right overhead, while the second one is at an angle. Besides, that wouldn't gain anyone anything. As far as the first one, it looks to me like it was 3D rendered using the image as textures... which is weird, but could account for the sharpness of the lower roof. Disclaimer: This is the opinion of a novice.

[D Dulmage]

I too was puzzled about the lack of utility power.
I scoured Google Earth, and there are no power
lines for miles. And I would guess that most of
the processes inside a nuke facility would require
an awful large supply. I have to imagine the need
for cooling water, etc. and these would require
hundreds of amps of AC. And to anyone that thinks that it's
an issue of visibility vs. resolution limits of GE,
I've found many cases of just residential power that's easily
visible, let alone 3 phase megawatt towers needed for
a facility like this.

ld

[Navin]

Sounds like LA Times is engaged in another hatchet job like
P .Diddy knocked off Tupac.

Those of us who are in intelligence clearly understand what the problem with the picture is.

[Andy]

The first image is a composite and is taken from the fly-through at the beginning of the presentation. It's make with similar technology that google earth and google sketchup use so no, it's not an "actual" photograph.

As for the questions, here are answers:

1. Air Defenses clue in intelligence agencies that something is important. The entire point of this facility was that it was covert. For an extended explanation, see this: http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/04/syria-and-north-korea-nuclear-partners.html

2. See answer to #1

3. Powerlines are not needed unless the reactor intends to produce electricity. And anyway, at one corner of the building there is a single powerline coming in to provide power to the facility.

4. Yongbyon (the DPRK facility) has so many buildings because there is so much going on there. There are two reactors (one uncompleted), a fuel fabrication plant and rreprocessing plant, among other things.

Finally, the square vs rectangle is the result of the angle the to two images were taken. In the first, the shot it almost directly overhead - in the second, it's at an oblique angle. Unlike the movies, not all satellite imagery is straight down.

[Sam]

The question of after touching on the Photos is an important one, but before we jump to any conclusion maybe we should think about the fact that the NRO and CIA are known to digitally downgrade Sat imagery to protect the classified specs of the collection assets

[Matt Osborne]

As someone who has worked with satellite imagery before, I can safely say the top image was touched up to bring faint elements into focus. The difference between the bottom two photos is created by (A) the angle of the photo (B) damage to the building, whether by attack or collapse of a section post-attack. Imagery is never "straight-up" and requires a trained eye; this has been true ever since the first photographic reconnaissance flights by balloon in the US Civil War. There are WWII recon photos that still stump trainees in service schools throughout DOD. I'll never forget a photo at which I stared for what seemed an hour, increasingly sure that I was seeing ICBM silos. But not: they were tethered cows in a field, and they had eaten circles of grass around their pinions.