Look at the body language. Zero is leaning back away from gramma. The hand is attached to an arm (I think his grandfather’s) with the elbow down in a “v”, so it doesn’t look Photoshopped to me.
I know. It's a perfectly natural photograph. His grandfather was putting his hand up to Barry's shoulder but had not set it down at the time the shutter was clicked. Things happen like this in photos that the photographer may not be aware of at the time--there may be a tree or light pole in the background that will later appear to be growing up out of someone's head or one of the people in the photo is starting to turn his head and, as often happens, his eyes briefly close or someone in the background is flipping him off. But this photo is one of many for which is claimed manipulation and fakery. The way the "fakery" is spotted is for the viewer to find anything that he thinks is beyond his expectation of what should or should not have been in the photograph and then claim that as proof the photo had been altered. In this case it was the "floating" hand.
If the photo had been snapped a second or so earlier when the hand was obscured behind Barry's back, it would be claimed that it was a missing hand. "See? You can see by the angle of the grandfather's arm that his hand should be visible resting on Barry's shoulder. But it's not there! It's not there because it's a faked photo!" The question is why, in an otherwise skillfully done fake, the hand was left floating to attract attention. "Well, it's because they're leaving us a clue!" Uh huh. You know, stuff like that.
I'm sure if there was nothing at all in the photo he could "detect" in this way, he would claim that the alteration of the photo had been done so perfectly that it left no traces. This type of person does to photos what cultists do to Bible passages: they
>claim to see things that aren't there,
>claim that what they should have seen used to be there but was removed for nefarious reasons,
>claim that a portion of what is there (the part that messes with their interpretation) was later added or altered, or
>give unusual interpretations of what is there.
And--gee--they all happen to reinforce that cultist's position that otherwise would be undermined by a plain reading (or viewing in this case) of the passage in question.