Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
One commenter says "They took away his grandfathers left hand."Or maybe the first one added it.Look, I'm generally partial to the first picture being the real one.But why does the grandfather's left arm from the shoulder go down, but his hand is placed where the arm would probably have to go out, not down?
I must be going blind because the "knee" just looks like empty space/shadow to me. In the possibly altered photo, I find the attitude of the man's shoulder a bit off with the position of the hand around Obama. Maybe he was in motion. The hand doesn't exist in the other photo at all.Then again, I never use Photoshop, so I don't know what clues to look for.wv: acticripTopical solution to remove gang-related tattoos?
Superficially they all look fake to me. Check out the hand on Obama's left shoulder. His GF arm is not in proper configuration for the hand to be there.
plus the hand is MISSING in the "original"
One commenter says 'They took away his grandfathers left hand.'Note how the grandfather's hand hovers over young Barack's shoulder but does not embrace.
This is hilarious.The video is very good as well. I wonder why it never crosses Cashill's mind that the Obama-less photo is the one that's been photoshopped.
Can you really photoshop an 'original' image so that it comes into sharper focus -- as is the case in the photo with Obama included?
This could be a forensics job for Palladian.
Who took Barry out of the photo. My guess is someone who thought Barry was not black enough.
Obama is a phony who has never been investigated nor vetted. However, the picture that excludes him is clearly a phony - the patterning on the masonry wall behind them is obviously faked - anyone who has ever applied texture to rocks knows they don't turn out like that.
The give away is the bench legs.They wouldn't be as close as they are in the second picture, if the bench extended as much to the right as it seems to do
The birth certificate was IN THAT KNEE!!!!"Can you really photoshop an 'original' image so that it comes into sharper focus -- as is the case in the photo with Obama included?"No, of course not. I mean, that worked on Blade Runner and most CSI shows, but no.However, what if the conspiracy faked the fake real picture, and added blur and random body parts, so as to draw attention from the real real one that isn't the fake real one?Did ya think of that?Tune it to Newsmax for the next Info wars!!!! There's a war going on... FOR your MIND!
I don't know what has been going on here, but if that is supposed to be his grandfather's hand floating above Obama's left shoulder, his grandfather's arm must be rather oddly jointed.Anyone here read Robert A. Heinlein's "The Number of the Beast"?
Typical Cashill: a lot of good information and questions, but he always takes a step too far.I am more intrigued by the reference to the phrase "human possibility." Ayers uses it in at least three of his books (according to Google Books). It is perhaps not that distinctive a phrase, but it is interesting that it also appears in Dreams.
Someone should point out to MediaMutts that what they think they see as Obama's right knee is not his right knee.Look closely. There is a light effect/shadow on the so-called right knee that is NOT THERE on the right knee of Obama in the picture in which Obama appears.Most likely it's a second bag.Just how lame are MediaMutts? This lame.
In the lower photo grandma was slid over to the left and the pattern on the rock wall was re-created using a "rubber stamp" tool, hence the repeating pattern on the rocks behind where she was in the original.Original looks kinda fake too. Is Obama reflected in grandpa's glasses?
Clearly, Mr. Chip Ahoy must be called to take care of this.It appears there is another Patrick commenting here. Can't have too many, I suppose.
So where does the guy who thinks the pic is fake think Obama was? Does he mean to assert that Obama did not spend time with his grandparents? Guide me through the fever dream of this guy's Manchurian Candidate scenario.Now that I've called him crazy, I will defend him on one point:Does the guy really mean to say that the second pic is real, or is he asserting that the second pic is what he imagines the original pic might look like?
What Jamieson said. Look where grandma used to be and there are all sorts of odd image artifacts. But why were Obama's grandparents hanging out with the fifth Beatle?
It's the hand, not the knee, that looks phony in the first shot.Interestingly, it would appear our literarily maladroit Lefties take much of their (and I use the phrase loosely) writing style from MM.Kell Shocke, as Pepe LePew would say.
It looks like it was photoshopped although the first picture doesn't look right to me either.
It's pretty obvious that they're both fakes. But which is the original fake?
If you could enlarge the photo and look into the gentleman's glasses, if Obama is sitting there, the reflection should be in his glass lens. If he is there, it is real. If not, Media Belief Systems, Not Truth Matters is guilty.It does look fake and what they purport to be a knee looks more like a coat rolled up or another bag. The Grandpa's glasses will decide that one.
The knee of BO rests against the Grandfather's knee differently than the "knee" in the photo with just Gpa and Gma. I have no idea what that means. I don't really care. Frankly, at this point, it would probably more inconvenient to discover that the "birthers" are correct than to just finish up the term.I heard Cashill on with Dennis Miller's radio show. Dennis pretty much blew the guy off as a wacko. Rightfully so in my opinion.
The bush that used to be behind grandma's head but is now fully uncovered in the second photo looks photoshopped, too. One pattern of leaves repeats four times across the front of the bush. I'm entirely opposed to Obama but I have no qualms in calling the second photo a fake. Although grandpa's hand in the first photo does look rather odd, as well. It seems like he'd need a spaghetti arm to get it there.
Both photos are "shopped". Look at the area by Grandma's right foot. Plus, as already mentioned, Grandpa's hand is armless.
I think the first photo was photoshopped from a photo with some other person, perhaps Obama's mother, and the second photo was photoshoped from the first. In addition to the comments above, look at the sag in the top line of the block wall, and the missing vertical joints between blocks.
What's not clear to me is where did the 2nd photo supposedly come from? Is it supposed to be real, or is it something Cashill put together himself (sloppily) to illustrate a point he's trying to make about the first one?
If the author had had the true original 2-person photo then his analysis would not have been needed and his case would have been a slam dunk, so the 2-person photo must of necessity be a photoshop, for illustrative purposes, of the 3-person photo.Which proves ... nothing in either direction. The case still comes down to whether or not one believes the 3-person photo looks fake. To me it looks real.
I remember something similar was done with 'The Last Supper' in The Da Vinci Code. If we follow the clues, will we find the birth certificate that proves President Obama is descended from Christ?
"I remember something similar was done with 'The Last Supper' in The Da Vinci Code."They're Photoshopping novels now? Man, I am way behind the times.(I know you must be referring to the movie, but I don't remember a minute of that shlocky mess.)
The bottom one is really obviously photoshopped, but the top one kind of seems photoshopped to me as well. Maybe just to photo touchup an old picture? The whole thing seems rather silly.
"will we find the birth certificate that proves President Obama is descended from Christ?"Why would we need that when we have Oprah? She has already declared him the One. And wouldn't she know, being the angel that sits at the right hand of God?
Where is Chip Ahoy Althouse? Does he have another day off? Jeez- e must have joined the union.
The first one looks right to me. Grandpa's arm is bent, if it went "out" he'd be patting grandma past Barry. And he's patting Barry's shoulder, so in-motion.It's pretty silly to say that Barry was photoshopped in.People do that sort of thing in family photos though, stick a missing person in the back of a family group, take out someone's ex-wife...
And I have to agree... the photo without Barry is so obviously photoshopped that it's not even funny. Never mind the knee. Those are some loooong bricks in that wall.
Here is another knee! And it's not photoshopped. Get your mind out of the gutter, look carefully and you will see it's just a shadow effect, or maybe it's just your dirty mind. http://static.someecards.com/someecards/images/feed_assets/4d361286790d6.jpg
Proof Obama did not exist in the 1970s. PROOF!He isn't eligible because he is, at most, 30 years old!
And the point of all of this is?(Is that a grassy knoll in the background?)
One thing that crossed my mind when reading the post here is that where these photos came from is highly relevant.From where did each photo come, and can this be verified? For example, if one is in a book, and the other was in a magazine that predated the book and predated Cahill being interested in Obama, that would lead to a very different conclusion than if Cahill is claiming that he just found the second (where? Laying around?)So I tried to click through to the WND article to see what it said. Only the article does not say what Media Matters says is said.Which either means Media Matters linked to the wrong post (and I am not going to spend time trying to find what they meant to link to), Media Matters made up this whole thing, or Cahill scrubbed his article of this.If it is that last explanation, then Cahill is even more of a disgrace than anyone ever claimed.If it is the middle one, then Media Matters is even more of a disgrace than anyone has ever claimed.So I'm going to guess, out of charity, that it is just a matter of them linking badly. Still would like to know where each picture was first seen in a public and verifiable manner./Or, both are photoshopped and the original shows Bill Ayers in between the grandparents.
Or, perhaps, there were two people in between them in the original, and that is Elvis' hand on Obama's shoulder. Is that a jelly donut it is holding?
I think the grandmother is actually Donald Trump in drag.
I just spent the last 8 hours doing Photoshop work so I know a little something about this and the shot without Obama shows EASILY recognizable Photoshop artifacts in the stone wall to the right. I didn't notice the knee right away...and it's so dark I'm not even sure that's what it is but the wall is so amateurishly done it's ridiculous.
Actually, I take it back. The most likely explanation is that Cahill and/or WND scrubbed the original post.I assume that someone took a screen shot of WND's original page?Should be enough to destroy their credibility forever if they scrubbed this.
The video referred to in the Media Matters link is available here:http://www.cashill.com/intellect_fraud/barack_obamas_missing.htmI don't know if Media Matters got the link wrong, or if Cashill changed the post at WND.
Ignorance-- that seals it.The WND article to which Media Matters linked is identical to the text on Cahill's site-- except that the part that Media Matters quoted and the photos aren't there on WND.Obviously Cahill didn't scrub since it is on his site. And obviously Media Matters did not make it up.Which means, WND scrubbed the article but left the rest of Cahill's post up.Anyone who takes WND seriously...
That can't be Obama's knee. Where's the crease in the pants!
I thought Obama was torn from the thigh of Zeus. Why would he have grandparents in the first place?
Enigmatic Core-I'm not sure that WND scrubbed it. I'd find that more convincing if the text in any way referenced the picture or video, but it does not.It could just be a case of someone saw the article with the video, made a post about it, then searched on the title of the article to find the link, and ended up at the different article.I tried to check the internet wayback machine, but it's too recent. We need and internet really-not-that-far-back machine.;
I thought Obama was torn from the thigh of Zeus. Why would he have grandparents in the first place?Maybe the opposite of birthers should be diviners. It could include the people who sing hymns to Obama.
The brick wall is clone stamped to hell, even I could do a better job photo shopping a person out of a picture.
Anyone with an ounce of sense knows this is what really happened. I wish I had looked at images first and picked out the wider version of this than the one that was linked. It would have made filling in the wall a lot easier. That'll teach me.
The first picture looks strange because Barack is posing and the sweet old grandparents are props. That means it is real but fake.
Wow, now Chip gets the bricks right. Seriously, how hard could it be? He even manages to remove the fretful knee!(And I don't think that grandpa's arm is that weird. Grandpa's body is slightly sideways and Barry is rather narrow, after all.)
Looks like both photos are altered to me. Mr. Dunham is taller above the waist than O, but with much shorter legs? The top of his head lightens, but Barry's is all the same? Shouldn't O's left hand be in shadow if it's under his grandma's elbow?
Honestly, more disturbing than that elusive knee is the actual placement Obama's grandfather's junk.
After long and tedious analysis, using all of the newest technology and methods, it has been determined beyond all shadow of a doubt that the "original" photo is a promotional artifact from the never aired spin-off of "Welcome Back Kotter" entitled "Boom-Boom Washington Goes To Waukesha".
I wonder if Barry was incompetent even then, or did he grow into it?
Cashill hung around Free Republic in 1998/99, always misrepresenting himself as a huge player in KC/Missouri. He eventually moved on when nobody paid him any attention.Has always been a media whore, and appeals best to those like Breitbart who love a good trick.
In Alaska once I wanted to get a picture of me with my wife in the woods. I set up the tripod, focused the camera to where we would be standing. Then I put the flash on because it was a little dark.But we didn't stand in exactly the same place that I focused to. So the picture shows us, slightly blurry, with different lighting against a sharp background. It's a real picture that looks fake.That this Cashill guy is the same one claiming he can analyze Dreams From My Father and prove it was written by Bill Ayers doesn't surprise me.
Look, I'm generally partial to the first picture being the real one.Maybe not. Having done a lot of photo manipulation for the local newspaper making cars disappear from parking spaces, adding dead siblings to family pictures and such, the one thing that strikes me is that the "fake" picture with Obama in it is it is sharper than the forgeries.That's a possible plus for Maloy's assertion. But, saving the pix to my hard drive, the "author" of the "forgery" is....Simon Maloy while the author of the "original" is not shown. There is no doubt that at some level Maloy manipulated the "forgery" himself.
Why would anyone assign any credibility to anything Media Matters says?
Post a Comment