Just received this image in a message from our old mate Polarik. I don't understand a lot of his terminology, but he asked me to post it. So here it is.
Posted on 01/23/2011 5:20:33 AM PST by TexasCajun
Just received this image in a message from our old mate Polarik. I don't understand a lot of his terminology, but he asked me to post it. So here it is.
Just received this image in a message from our old mate Polarik. I don't understand a lot of his terminology, but he asked me to post it. So here it is.
Check out image at # 841.
Thanks Fred Nerks and Polarik.
Was the white cloth behind the Sailor's legs a prop deliberately staged to suggest it was a bassinet?
Thanks for the interesting image and its “dissection.” I’ve thought a number of things in that photo were “off” but couldn’t quite put my finger on them.
thanks Lucy, there’s something there on the ground behind that asian woman in the black dress, but it’s hard to tell what it might be.
The photo, accordig to Polarik, has been comletely fabricated.
It seems that the longer you look at that photo the wierder it gets. Like a collage of people.
Ron sent a text file explanation of his photo analysis of the dock image and asked me to post it to you two.
Here's the photo again first for convenience:
The following is an analysis of the dock scene photo by Polarik:
The first thing that I noticed is the head of Barack Obama Senior. I had seen this head before in the photos above it - the so-called “party at the Nachmanoffs.” It's clear that his head was stuck on another body and both were then inserted into this picture after was created. There are a lot of leis around Obama's neck and down to his stomach. There is also a light area to the top of his head from retouching. Also retouched are his pants and the suit itself. There is space in between his calves and ankles which make them look bowlegged. The area between the legs is artificially darkened. To his left, the viewer’s right, is a picture of someone Stanley Armour Dunham from the 1980s. He is wearing parachute pants as they were known in the 80s, or basically pleated pants. He is wearing a white shirt with a pen protector in his shirt pocket -- the classic look of the Geek. His left-handers in his pants pocket but his right hand and arm are foreshortened is hard to tell where he has his hand seems to go in between the arm of the suit. Stanley's hand is basically gone.
Standing behind Stanley to the right is a dock worker with a gray cap, to the left is another gray cap and head that could be made from the same person by cloning. In front of the second dockworker is a guy with glasses and perhaps a beard holding up the victory sign or the peace sign. This person with glasses looks a lot like the person standing behind the sailor dress in white. More than likely it belongs to the person who did this composite picture.
In the center of the picture in the last row is the head of a very tall young man. To his left and right behind him are two additional heads that may or may not be attached to a body. The yellow circles around the heads indicate where they are located. Over to the far left there are two women who were the last images of people added to the composite.
The second woman from the left [giraffe neck] has her neck stretched out at a 45 degree angle to her head and body. Both women are wearing dresses that have identical patterns between them [follows a pattern], as well as on the man’s shirt who is standing behind the woman in the glasses, and the woman standing to the left of Obama Sr. The pattern of her dress also flows onto Obama’s leis on the left side. This petite Asian woman is wearing a 1960’s style dress popularized by Jackie Kennedy, wife of JFK. The neckline and shoulders of the dress were painted on her, if not the entire dress.
Over on the far right is a person who looks like a younger version of the guy [evil twin] on the far left standing behind Giraffe neck lady. The second guy in from the far right [Oxyclean] is wearing a floral shirt that looks brighter on the right side than it does on the left.
Asian lady also has a flip-face: a symmetrical face created by taking one-half of an existing face, copying it, flipping it horizontally, and then pasting it against the original half to form a full face. She also has false shadows along her arms and legs because she also was added to this composite but before the two women on the left. Before all of these women could be added to this picture, they had to be cut from separate photos in the same way that a paper doll is cut from paper. Since the edges of a two-dimensional cut-out are easily seen when placed on a three-dimensional photo, the forger hides them with lines of black pixels. Various shades of gray also create a shadow effect and adds depth to the two dimensional cutout of a person.
In real life, shadows are created by objects or people that block the path of light from its source to where it is either reflected from a surface or absorbed by it. In the case of this photo, all of the people in the back row appear to have little to nothing behind them except for the darkness of night. Consequently, they do not have a way to produce shadows behind them. Conversely, everyone standing in front of them will, or should, produce shadows. As the light gets brighter, the shadows get darker and more well-defined.
People closer to the light will appear brighter than those further away from it. The shape and direction of the shadows are determined by the position of the light source or sources. The light source used for this photo is presumably a common flash bulb and reflector either attached to a camera or held away from it. People standing directly in front of the flash receive more light than those standing to the sides of it. People standing further away from the light source will receive less light than those standing closer to it. Knowing these simple rules will help you determine whether or not a photo is violating them, as well as the laws of physics.
For example, take a look at the woman in glasses on the left and the man behind her. Although they are wearing light colored clothes, they appear to be much brighter than the white shirt worn by Stanley Dunham. In fact, the sailors dressed in all white are reflecting the most amount of light as expected but not necessarily more than the man and woman on the far left. Notice also how much brighter in color (stronger illumination) are the clothes worn by the woman with glasses (her name is Marda) as compared to the clothes worn by giraffe neck. This is also true about their faces: the lady in glasses appears to have gotten the most amount of light as compared to the man behind her and the woman beside her. The term used in photography is that the image is washed out -- namely that the features of the image are not clearly defined.
If that was the case – that the lady in glasses was closest to the light source – the flash gun – then everyone to her right would get progressively darker, unless there was a second source of light, or more likely, we are looking at an unnatural assemblage of people.
Another trick for identifying the source and direction of light is to look at the reflections in the eyeglasses worn by the people in the photo. Judging by the reflections in her glasses, it appears that Marda was the subject of the photo, i.e., that she is the person or object that appears closest in proximity to the front of the camera lens.
Getting back to shadows, however, you can see how the forger painted in (with black pixels) the long dark shadows that run parallel to people’s arms. The shadows would not be found in real life because they appear as perfectly symmetrical black lines [call to arms]. To see this properly, you may need to increase the brightness of the photo in your image editor. In a lighter photo you would see these symmetrical, black lines running along the length of a person's arms. You can see them on the Asian lady, the Sailor in white, giraffe lady, the man standing behind her, and along the arms and hands of these three young men squatting in the first row, as well as on Obama's left hand.
Moving down to the bottom half of the photo, we see numerous other abnormalities. For starters, the ground on which these people stand is not real. There is absolutely no depth of field present in the photo -- the depth of field pertains to how an image looks from close up to far away. In particular, there are virtually no shadows being cast on the ground from feet or from legs, except for those shadows that I have marked as being phony: in particular, there are shadows underneath the two young men in the front row a shadow cast by the camera case, and a slight shadow cast by the foot of the Asian lady. This leaves around 13 or 14 feet with no shadows anywhere near them.
In other words, this is an example of what should be there but is not. Just as we look for components of the photo that should be there, we also look for components that are not there, such as shadows. Starting from the lower right, you can see that the case -- what is likely a camera case -- is drawn as if it is seated on a flat table instead of being on the sloping ground. Notice also that the case is casting a shadow in the wrong direction.
The young man seated in the middle of the three has a very small head, too small for his body. His feet are bent and positioned in a very uncomfortable alignment. The shadows that are painted in and run parallel along his right leg are exactly what should never be there in a real photo.
If you look at his left hand, you'll see that one of his fingers is making a very strong shadow on the ground on the basis of where that shadow lies relative to his finger, it would appear that the light source is over to the right and name down to the floor and to the left. However, if that was the case, then we would expect everything else to cast a shadow, not just his hand or fingers. Likewise the directions that the shadows travel should be the same depth angle. At the angle suggested by the hand and fingers, there should be shadows cast by the left leg of the sailor as well as from his shoes in the shoes of everyone else's left of him.
Getting back to the guy in the middle with the mini head, his feet seem to be floating off the ground. More problematic however is the number of legs that he has: there are two legs that can be seen on the left side, as if he had a third leg, with the knee on that leg being the most prominent. At the notation called "Boing!!” There is an arrow indicating where and on what his eyes are focused. He is looking down to his right, the man next to him is looking almost straight ahead, and the young boy to his right is looking directly to his left and is also levitating off the ground.
Here we have a number of problems with the feet, beginning with the left foot of the captain -- it's missing. In between the sailor and giraffe lady there is a shoe in pants leg turned sideways it does not belong to the man behind her belongs to a person whose body and head we cannot see. In addition to her head and neck being out of whack, her ankles look positively anorexic. Her left foot looks appreciably smaller than her right foot. The man standing behind her, like the sailor, points his toes outward. However it appears that he is also angled his right foot to the side. The lady with the glasses as her heels on top of the foot of the person behind her.
Drawing realistic looking shadows is one of the hardest things to do in making a composite photo look like one. The reason why it is so difficult is because shadows do not change from light to dark as a perfect gradient. The shadow itself is made up of light and dark areas that may alternate on a random basis. Using a computer graphics program, drawing straight lines or lines with uniform gradients are a breeze, and that is the problem for in real life rarely is anything perfectly straight or perfectly illuminated. Shadows don't necessarily run perpendicular to oblong objects. Using an image editor, one of the hardest things to do is to re-create the proper depth of field for a two dimensional object so that it looks like a three-dimensional object that has realistic shadows -- even for Photoshop.
One way to measure the richness of a photo is to judge its dynamic range, or the degree of change between absolute black and absolute white at the pixel level. Digital cameras do not have the dynamic range of film cameras Computer graphics along with digital cameras can reproduce a lot of very realistic photos -- certainly it can be used to enhance an image or to detract from it. But it cannot replicate the way that each of us see a particular scene or a particular person. The limitations of film in comparison to digital sensors is actually one of the strengths of it.
The intention behind this photo is to corroborate events that never happened. On the one hand we have a welcoming party or a Bon Voyage one. It is certainly odd that Barack Obama senior is the only person wearing a complete suit when everyone else is wearing short sleeve shirts. The bottom line is a question: “Why was this phony photo created?”
One reason (though this is not a "photo" openly/publicly circulated by BO and his supporters) would apparently be to put together Stanley Armour Dunham and BO Sr., to give credence to the idea that the Dunham family was supportive of the union of SADO and BO Sr.
Off the top of my head, that's the only think I can think of.
Aaargh. I mean to say "thing I can think of."
I agree. The original image could have been taken anywhere, the core group might have been two men in the centre, the young woman, a captain, an officer, a group of dockworkers, three crew in the foreground...a camera-case. And everyone else we see was added later, including the false lei, to give the impression the photograph was taken in Hawaii.
If Obama Sr. came to Hawaii in 1960, that would make Stanely Armour Dunham 41/42. Which looks about right in the picture, in fact, he looks younger.
I found an interesting article from the American Thinker[July, 8,2008] titled, "What Barack Obama learned from the Communist Party" detailing the affect the House Un-American Activities had on the Communists in America and their search for safe havens.[Recommended read].
"In 1955, the chairman of the Mercer Island school board, John Stenhouse, testified before the House Un-American Activities Subcommittee that he had been a member of the Communist Party."
Davis was born in Kansas and moved to Hawaii in 1948.....Did the Dunhams move to Hawaii for the Communist cause? Were they in communication with Davis before the move? I don't believe in coincidences.
How in the HELL did this ISLAMO-COMMIE get into the White House......
How in the HELL did this ISLAMO-COMMIE get into the White House......
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The weenies in our conservative media let him.
weirder than weird
Frank Marshall Davis had four daughters. Maybe there was something going on between Stanley Armour and one of them.
As a young entrepreneur living in Hawaii, I made and sold leis. They were primarily single plumeria leis, but I also made doubles, with plumerias, orchids, carnations, etc. The neck leis were usually around 40" long strung on dental floss. Homemade leis (like some in the photo)may be a little shorter if fewer flowers were available to make them. Most people just bought them ready made down at the airport or dock from vendors. The leis were usually worn in multiples. They would be worn like a long necklace and leave a rounded v shape opening below the neck and hang usually to mid/upper abdomen depending on the height of the person. For them to cover up to the neck they would have to be worn backwards with the long part hanging down the back. That would be extremely uncomfortable and pull on the neck below the chin. Even a large amount of leis should leave a space open below the neck. Shorter leis were made for wrists and headbands but would not fit over a head. In the above photo you can see two people in the background and the back of their leis.
Because the press in the US was playing at being three wise monkeys?
Davis was born in Kansas and moved to Hawaii in 1948.....Did the Dunhams move to Hawaii for the Communist cause? Were they in communication with Davis before the move? I don't believe in coincidences.
USE KEYWIKI AS A RESEARCH TOOL
TYPE INTO 'SEARCH' IN CAPITAL LETTERS AND PRESS 'GO'
FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS
HELEN CANFIELD DAVIS
And ask yourself why it took a NEW ZEALANDER to identify 'FRANK' in 'Dreams From My Father'
No...nothing is legal...this is why he lost his law license....but there isn’t a BC in HI for him....Tim Adams has signed an affidavit stating such...he is a former HI election official...
KEYWIKI
Helen Canfield Davis - originally Helen Canfield Peck (1923-1998) was the second wife of Frank Marshall Davis.
Communist Party
Helen Canfield Davis, was a member of the Paul Robeson Club of the Communist Party USA, in Chicago and her 1947 Communist Party USA card number was 62109.
Marriage to Frank Marshall Davis
Davis’ wife, Helen Canfield Davis was from Libertyville Illinois. She was white and 18 years younger than Davis. It was money from her trust fund, which came to her in the fall of 1948, which enabled the couple to move Hawaii.[1]
The couple married in 1946 and divorced in 1970.
USE KEYWIKI!
http://keywiki.org/index.php/Main_Page
BTTT
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.