Obama's Faked Photographic Past For All To Clearly See.

Originally posted by pshea38

Look to the right of Obama and you'll notice the guy there has his right arm (left from the viewers perspective) around Obama but is also holding the hand of the lady in front of his stomach.

Originally posted by Naptown317
reply to post by pshea38

 

I stopped reading after this part "His arm is obviously hidden but is clearly hanging at his side.".
Cool photos though.

edit on 6-4-2011 by Naptown317 because: (no reason given)

Another funny one "This photo also pixellates at different levels of digital magnification, indicating it has been created by a crude method of compilation."
People with unlimited power using crude methods tisk tisk.

edit on 6-4-2011 by Naptown317 because: (no reason given)

Well considering you didn't take the time to go through the link and
assess properly the critical analysis of an expert in digital manipulation
recognition, along with all the very accessable reasons given for the claims,
I am between two minds trying to decide whose camp to side with....Not.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
in the pic where it looks like he is graduating,
can somebody explain to me why everyone
in the background is looking away from Obama
getting his handshake. They're all looking over
to the left of the pic.

hmmmmm

We had four different lines approaching four different deans to receive our diplomas. Probably someone better looking or entertaining on the other side of the room. I am fascinated by the prominent G in the picture Dock. I'm not sure why...

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by fordrew
Obama had friends right and fellow classmates that could vouch for his presence at graduation.

Pretty much, the whole 'suspicious pictures' thing is tied into the birther groups. I personally feel that there's a bit of racism involved too, but I don't want to point fingers at anyone here, I just mean with 'birthers' in general.

Here's an example of people discussing him: www.politico.com...

No, of course there are no grounds for suspicion based simply on evidence alone.
It all has to do with racist begrudgers looking for even the thinest straw to
cast out a black-man from the power of his undeserved position.
I, for one, was delighted when obama was elected and i am not from
the states and have no agenda.
These photographs are photoshopped fakes, no matter who the subjects is,
even if it was the president of the united states himself.

Originally posted by pshea38
Well considering you didn't take the time to go through the link and
assess properly the critical analysis of an expert in digital manipulation
recognition, along with all the very accessable reasons given for the claims,
I am between two minds trying to decide whose camp to side with....Not.

You seriously aren't claiming this guy is an expert in anything photographic? Just a few gems I found with quick look:

Notice that Stanley Ann's head is larger than her mother's and is out of proportion with the rest of her tiny body. In fact, as represented in the photo, her head is nearly the size of her father's. Those three anomalies, alone, confirm that this photo is a compilation.

A baby who is in front of the other people explains all of those.

All three subjects' eyes are focused in different directions, further indicating that each subject was photographed in different settings at different times.

So it has to be a compilation cause they all look at something different?

Stanley Armour Dunham's overall appearance is gray and outside the light parameters of the rest of the photo. Notice how his tie casts a dark shadow behind his tie, indicating the light is shining from the left side of the photo. However, the right side of his face (that which faces the direction of the light) is obscured within a shadow. If the shadow was created by the light approaching from the left, his tie, his shirt, and his chin would be obscured by his daughter's head. But it is not being obscured by her head, evidenced by the singular shadow behind the tie. Therefore, the tie’s shadow is foreign to any lighting effects present in the overall portrait, disqualifying Stanley Armour’s image

AAARrrrggghhh... The main light is obviously left, above and front of the subjects. Expert anylysis yeah right. That shadow on his face... perhaps if he'd know anything is from his wives head.

This was just a quicky to show that this 'expert' knows jack s%!t.

Anyone who's had a real childhood, especially one who's related to elite families, should have a string of photographs from their whole life. I have boxes of them from my life. It's interesting to note how many people in power can't trace their recent heritage, yet they can trace their ancient heritage back to Alexander the Great.

The elite are philanderers who keep track of their illegitimate offspring as much as the legitimate. How many folks with shady pasts made it into power? Obama, Clinton, Eisenhower, Hitler, etc...

Its no wonder all the Presidents of America are related (save Martin van Buren) it's rule by DNA.

Originally posted by exile1981

Look to the right of Obama and you'll notice the guy there has his right arm (left from the viewers perspective) around Obama but is also holding the hand of the lady in front of his stomach.

She is hugging him around the waist, that other hand is hers.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by fordrew
I must say I found this to be a very interesting thread.

Yes, I find it interesting, too.

It's amazing that whoever Photoshopped these pictures did such a foul job! You'd think that an organization whose sole purpose was to take over the world using a black Muslim from Kenya would have better resources at their disposal. I mean... EVERY PICTURE from Obama's past has not one, not two, but MANY photoshop errors! Did they think they could fool us?

And what's more... I found the original Grandparents photo!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/639cdcdf7bd3.jpg[/atsimg]

/sarcasm

People don't seem to understand that pictures, and even more so pictures of pictures, on the Internet aren't reliable. Every single "photoshop mistake" pointed out by this article (from 2 years ago) can be explained by:

1, The simple fact that these are jpg files of pictures of pictures on the Internet.
2. A plethora of incorrect assumptions (grandpa has 3 arms, everyone should be looking at the camera, the ring on Obama's finger is his wedding ring, etc.)
3. Wishful thinking... Desperate, wishful thinking. Obama's hope campaign wasn't as strong as those who hope he doesn't get elected again.

Check this picture out. How big is this cat?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d64dcc66b641.jpg[/atsimg]

And why do you think this insane 2-year-old article is being brought up now? (Hint: Obama just announced his candidacy for 2012) The push to discredit Obama is going to be hard and heavy for the next year! We have a lot of fun to look forward to!

Interesting thread, for sure.

Hmmm. You seem to be trying to convince yourself and others that if it looks like
a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a giraffe.
If you feel that the original photos analysed were tampered with in the first place,
feel free to enlighten us and shut us up by showing the true originals.

I am at a loss as to what you are trying to achieve by showing a picture of a cat who is
closer to the camera than the owner behind, hence making it appear all the grander
in terms of perspective. Bring the cat closer still and we will all believe that it is a
freak of creation with an absolutely humungous head.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7266f577a34e.jpg[/atsimg]
'I will not be big headed if i become president.'

Explain obama's head size here in terms of perspective relative to the players
closer to the camera.
Are you interested in truth or are you following an agenda?

p.s. I am well aware of the tactic of ridicule as used to try and discredit truth.
Will all those who support known lies be brought along in the end.
I have my doubts.

The first time I heard of Barack...
www.rense.com...

Originally posted by Gemwolf
I can't help but shake my head in disbelief - seeing that the website uses (some of) the same photos to "prove" that "Obama is a Human/Reptilian Hybrid"... Linky... I'm sure they can find some more absurdity in the photographs if they tried even harder.

These articles are written by different people. Two people looked at one picture, one was looking for "reptilian" signs and the other was looking for signs of forgery. Both these people can "prove" different things. If I find something else in that photo, does that make their two conclusions illegitimate? I'm sure you can post some more absurdity in the thread if you try even harder.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
People don't seem to understand that pictures, and even more so pictures of pictures, on the Internet aren't reliable. Every single "photoshop mistake" pointed out by this article (from 2 years ago) can be explained by:

1, The simple fact that these are jpg files of pictures of pictures on the Internet.
2. A plethora of incorrect assumptions (grandpa has 3 arms, everyone should be looking at the camera, the ring on Obama's finger is his wedding ring, etc.)
3. Wishful thinking... Desperate, wishful thinking. Obama's hope campaign wasn't as strong as those who hope he doesn't get elected again.

This is the crux of what's important in your rambling and it amounts to zip. If your job was to explain a photoshop anomaly, these are the three reasons you'd give? The third "explanation" doesn't mean a single thing with regards to a photo, it has no relevance. You'd be fired.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by pshea38

 

In addition to being anti-Obama, I'm also anti hoax and anti Partisan nonsense. This is the worst kind of hoax and nonsense I've seen.

Considering all the lies Obama has told and his transparent history of buying votes with taxpayers money, why do you need to resort to stuff that makes you look like a fool? All your doing is helping him out.

How does this make me look like a fool?
How is it a hoax? How is it nonsense?
Would you do me the honour of enlightening me as i am as much averse to being
taken-in or played for a fool as the next man.
Has this been shown to have been contrived?
I certainly was not aware of it, if so.
As stated before, i was delighted when obama was elected. I am not from the states and
patisanship doesn't come into my reckoning.
If you know something, please share it and put me right!

So you are telling me that ALL of the photos that have ever been taken where the subject is not looking at the camera are photoshopped?

So because one person in a photo has a bigger head than the others means that he's photoshopped in?

Would somebody be so kind as to show me a link that PROVES these are official photos and exactly where they came from? No? Ok.

This thread is almost as bad as the ones that copy and paste sound bites and try to make it appear that he's saying these things.

You [snip] birthers. Keep trying.

Oh, btw........I am on the Internet, and I use Photoshop. So I can now claim (by your logic) that I am a professional photoshopper......Ok. I am a professional photoshopper.

But seriously, when I saw the word reptilian in the link I just about pissed myself. Then I closed the page with my face in my palm.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Omg. I have to remember to dig into this more when I have time. Just looked at the 'analysis' of the first photo and it's so flawed that I don't know wheter to laugh or cry. Who are these people and where do the spawn from? Now there's a conspiracy.

DIg away. Be careful not to fall in.
Great that you can judge a whole book by a corner of its cover.
Who are you? is a more pertinent question, trying to influence people
without any real clue yourself?
Anyone going through the link will clearly see the abundance of damning
evidence and will not be put off by these knee-jerk reactions of someone who doesn't
even know whether to laugh or cry in a given situation.

reply to post by pshea38


We have a black president. Get over it.

Riddle me this,

When the GOP had the reins of power and access/control over CIA/NSA, why didn't they expose Obamas birth lie and prevent him from becoming president? Why did they make up stuff instead of using what birthers call "real" evidence?

That would have guaranteed victory for the GOP.

Logic wins.

reply to post by exile1981


Now that's real evidence! Look at the way he is smiling. Lol!

Barack must have gone back in time to 1983 to take that foto with the grandparents because the wedding ring he's wearing shouldn't be on his hand for almost another decade.lol