Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sam Hill
Thanks, Sam Hill. This is great.

Now if some Freeper could just use these two images, with the fraudulent one mirror-imaged, in an animated overlay, that would be fun to have. At least then most of the Indians would appear right-handed.

I just loved seeing Dan Rather's memo alternating with the easy-to-create copy. It helped illustrate that the fraud was not just similar to the re-creation, but virtually lacked any differences. Every detail lined up.

Churchill could try to claim that he was "inspired" by the original, but the alignment of virtually every detail will reveal that there was no artistic contribution from Churchill whatever. It is an outright fraud.

56 posted on 06/28/2006 12:24:54 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: William Tell

He claimed the original artist gave him permission to use his painting. A claim that cannot be substantiated because the original artist is dead, but his son claims he would never have given such permission.


59 posted on 06/29/2006 12:03:45 PM PDT by Mr. K (Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson