No, Sigmund Fraud. What I claimed is what you deliberately altered to change its meaning:
Do you have any stories after June 2008 where they even mention that particular rumor?
Yes, I do. It's in the videos.
Posted on 07/22/2010 8:29:11 PM PDT by Polarik
Dr. Ron Polland recently completed a comprehensive research investigation into the controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s birth certificate. On June 12, 2008, nine days after Obama was nominated as the Democratic candidate for President, a scan image claimed to be his “original birth certificate” was posted on the Daily Kos, an ultra-liberal blog. It was also on this date that Dr. Polland looked at the image and thought, “This is not a genuine scan,” setting into motion the most intensive and exhaustive scientific evaluation ever conducted on a birth certificate facsimile.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
I meant the pic on the couch, sitting really close together.
The colour is also very unnatural, seems to have been tinted, her hair was BLACK.
Someone tell Politifact and Loren. ;^) Politifact thinks Odinga is not a socialist, and they say it is false that Obama “openly supported” Odinga in 2006. I almost forgot about that video.
“I hate to say this but this picture just does not look right.”
I never really noticed before but I have to agree Obama looks inserted, would granny really be leaning on him like that it looks like she fits in Pops arms
yup
That’s what I thought too. It seems to me to be another example of them taking a photo and superimposing it on a different one. This is one weird concoction of a life story. I really think the real story will someday emerge but it worries me that I might have passed on by then and I’ll never know what really happened. That would be so disappointing to such a curious person as I am!
The photo of them on the couch is not photo shopped. Now there is one that is. It is the photo but someone added things to it, like gay magazines on the floor, a bong and other things. The original is real and yes, they were sitting that close.
That picture with the grandparents has been discussed over and over again. I agree that it seems strange that Madelyn is sitting in that position looking away from both of them. 0’s position I find weird also. I think most grandsons who were posing for a historic family photo celebrating his grandparents coming so far to see him would have put his arm around his Granny and she would have faced more to the left. But he seems entirely detached from both of them except for that crazy floating hand over his shoulder. Also take a ruler and place it along the top of the wall behind 0 and Madelyn. Look at what happens to it on the left side of Gramps. It doesn’t line up with the other side. Also look at how messy the stonework of the wall is compared to the photo of the empty bench that Fred Nerks posted. I am completely convinced that photo like so many others that are on line has been tampered with.
If you think they don’t both have dirt on each other that could destroy each other, then you know nothing about the Clintons or 0thugga and his handlers.
Anyone who believes the crap spewed by the 0thugga toadies is also a hireling or just volunteer toady. There is no other explanation.
Why do you think they would have inserted him into the photo?
He’s a super 0thugga toady.
too close for guys. that was in the 80’s and my boyfriend and his friends would NOT sit that close in the movie theater. they didn’t want anyone to think that they were gay. that’s just the way it was back then.
Brown Deer: "There is also a "Barrack Hussein Mohamed Obama" born on 23 August 1961 in Canada"
And that thread you linked to contained links to the obviously-phony document in posts #51 and #100, and visible inline images of the document in posts #72, #76, and #86.
I think it has been done to market a certain image of the man and his life. It’s like whenever they reference his grandmother in articles it’s almost always “his beloved grandmother”. We really have no idea what the relationship was really like by the time he was living in New York. We have no way of knowing if the grandparents were even in New York sitting on that bench either by themselves or with their “brilliant” grandson. The whole photo could have been manufactured from some other photo of them sitting on some other bench somewhere else which I think is reasonably possible due to how badly messed up the image of the wall is behind them. We have no idea who even took the photo. A passing stranger? His mother? If Stanley Ann, why is there no photo of him and her sitting on the bench? Putting them in New York just makes people think/feel/believe they were so devoted to him that they flew all the way from Hawaii to New York, an immense and very expensive round-trip
distance to fly, just so they could be there for his graduation(?). Wow! They really had a close relationship for them to do that! Maybe they did but I think this photo was “made” not “taken” just to add to the life story myth.
It’s kind of like the story and film shown at the convention about Gramps taking the little boy sitting on his shoulders waving a little American flag to see the astronauts land. After researching all the landings back then I discovered that the only time they could have come even close to doing such a thing, 0 would have been at least 10 years old—you know the big, tall, very chubby guy we’ve seen in other photos of after he returned to Hawaii from Indonesia, riding on Gramps shoulders with his little flag! Yeah right! Phony marketing of a false image of a tale filled with lies and discrepancies.
You still didn’t answer my question Loren. You seem to make a lot of invalid assumptions. How does that work out for you in the courtroom? Hmmm, judging from your posting times, one could assume that you must not spend a lot of time in the courtroom.
No, Sigmund Fraud. What I claimed is what you deliberately altered to change its meaning:
Do you have any stories after June 2008 where they even mention that particular rumor?
Yes, I do. It's in the videos.
The couch picture is definitely a composite. All you need is for one primary aspect to be wrong to call it a fake.
There are a ton of things wrong with this. You may need to crank up the brightness and contrast (or gamma) to see all of it, but it’s there.
Primarily the shadows are all over the place.
To get dark, heavy shadows and light faces, there would need to be two constant light sources used. A flash was not one of them because the curtains to Ann’s right side are not illuminated at all, but are suspiciously cast in smudged shadows.
The shadow cast by Stanley Armour’s head is highly suspect, given its overall too bright that does not change in brightness or shading as you go from his jacket to the sofa to the window sill.
That window sill between Stanley Armour and Madelyn is hidden by shadows that are not from any person or object blocking the light.
The shadow on the window frame above Madelyn goes in the opposite direction to the right side curtains, which do not hang straight but are tilted to the right going up from the couch.
You’ll have to enlarge the picture at least 500%.
All directions listed are relative to the people POV, not the photographer.
The left side of Stanley Ann’s face is overpixilated - the right side is smooth. Her eyes have been altered - especially her left eye.
The left side is closer to the light and should be brighter and less pixilated - compare to Stanley Armour and Madelyn.
The shadows have been drawn in.
The easiest way to see it is to draw straight lines between the tips of everyone’s noses and the tips of the shadows each nose casts. That will show you the direction of the light source.
According to the lines drawn, the light sources on Ann’s nose and Stanley Armour’s nose converge to the left side of the right curtain panel, just above the window frame.
No light source exists there.
Shadow across the right side of Ann’s and Stanley Armour’s faces are totally inconsistent.
The line drawn along the shadow cast by the upper lapel of Stanley Armour’s jacket, along the shadow cast by his nose, and the line cast by Madelyn’s nose run close to parallel to each other, converging way too far off in the distance.
She has an impossible shadow across her top right side of her chin, requiring a light source to be located down below and to the left of her chin.
The shadow behind Madelyn’s right shoulder does not follow the lines of her dress.
Note, there is no transition between the collars of the clothes and the necklines - that is, there are no shadows along the left side necklines of Madelyn and Stanley Armour. Ann has a little bit showing but should show more being further from the light source.
There are no shadows cast by the shoulder section of Ann’s dress on either side.
The shadows along the tie and left edges of Stanley Armour’s jacket go off in multiple angles - especially the shadow that goes across his tie and abruptly shoots almost straight upwards where it meets the edge of his jacket.
The surfaces of the lapels on Stanley Armour’s jacket have been smudged using short, nearly horizontal strokes.
His tie is way too short and straight up and down for being in a scrunched position for the long-legged Daddy.
His left hand has a perfectly straight horizontal edge across the top, running from the knuckle of his index finger straight back to the wrist. There is no curvature across the back of the hand.
Many of the shadows have no gradients at all - they are just jet black cutoffs.
Next, look at the shadow cast onto the crick of Ann’s right elbow. Where and what is that coming from?
There should be a shadow cast from Ann’s left elbow.
Drawing a line across the shadow caused by the lower left edge of her dress (skirt) intersects with the lines from Madelyn’s nose and the lower right lapels of Stanley Armour’s jacket and converges above Madelyn’s left ear.
Polarik - which photo are you referring to? The only couch photo with SADO and her parents I can think of is the one where she is child dressed in a school jumper. Or is it a different photo you are discussing? Thanks -
wow. that is an analysis! thanks!
Could you post that photo so we could check it out as you have analyzed it?
That is the same thing I saw as well. You can see the hairline solid below the lights but both right & left of the lights the hairline stops then fuzzes up. I vote photoshop.
Plus grandpas’ shoulder is pointing down and does not look right in relation to the hand. Either his elbow is realllllly short up his arm or he has two elbows. His elobw (in relation to the angle) should be showing under obamas armpit.
...and look at the shadow beneath the bench, there is NONE between Madelyn’s leg and zero.
No, it is the iconic Dunham family portrait with the SAD Kid in the jumper, SAD Sr. in suit, and Madelyn Dearest in dress all sitting on a couch.
If anyone has not seen it, simply Google Images on “Dunham family”
Now, has anyone ever done an analysis on the magazine photo of Obama in 1991?
If not, I have. Normally, analyzing a Black and White film photo is easier than doing one on a B&W halftone, but in this case, it was an easy call. I’ll post it tomorrow.
Thank you, Polarik - that’s the one I thought you were referring to.
Thank you. Looking forward to seeing that.
very interesting. wonder what the ring is for?
gramps left arm is bizarrely angled. whomever shopped that should have just left the hand out of it.
nice analysis, BTW.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.