Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY AND EXPLAIN WHAT'S WRONG WITH THESE IMAGES. I'M GOING TO HAND THEM OVER TO FREEPERS FOR COMMENT.

671 posted on 07/25/2012 8:24:09 PM PDT by Fred Nerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies ]


To: Fred Nerks

LET'S PLAY INSTANT BABY, SHALL WE?

673 posted on 07/25/2012 8:35:00 PM PDT by Fred Nerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies ]

To: Fred Nerks

With a right arm that long at that age, it’s no wonder little barry abstard boy plays basketball. And the ability to be in two places at the same time? Well, talent like that could land the slug an NBA contract don’tchaknow!


674 posted on 07/25/2012 8:36:04 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies ]

To: Fred Nerks

Fred - I’ve missed a lot of the history concerning the photos in your post 671. What was the source of these photos, and what narrative were they originally being used to tell? Its obvious the baby from the clear picture was superimposed on SA and BO, but why? With all the other deliberate misinformation out there is this another diversion?


700 posted on 07/26/2012 2:50:21 AM PDT by rusty millet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies ]

To: Fred Nerks
I'll explain about the photos:

The one on the top, call it A, is a composite formed by
1. combining the infant from the big one on the bottom left, call it B, with the original version, call it C1, of the little one on the bottom right, call it C2, though before it was blurred, cropped, and used as C2,

2. cropping the hell out of the top composite photo to obscure what would be seen as obvious manipulation if any more of the infant could be seen and

3. using the blurring and overexposure to obscure other signs of assembly.
Therefore, there were two photos originally, B and C1, both the same size, both same distance from the camera, both the same focus, and only B is shown in the group below. A portion of B (the infant) was combined with a portion of C1 (cropped to include just Barry and his mom) and then enlarged to make A. C1 was blurred and perhaps shrunk a little bit to try to make it look like a separate photo, the result being C2. The unseen original, C1, though, was not any blurrier than B for this reason: Top photo A came from C1 as seen in Barry's position and the wrinkles in his shirt and the curve of her hair on the left side; therefore the cropped blurry photo, C2, shown to the right of B, being blurrier than B cannot be the source of the top photo A. The blurriness in A could possibly arise naturally from the approximate 50% enlargement of the composite constructed from B and the unseen original, C1. The blurriness of C2, though, is deliberate, since it was the source of Barry and mom in top photo A and you can't go from a more blurry and smaller photo to a less blurry and larger photo that also shows pixelation unseen in bottom left photo B--so the manipulation wasn't done in the darkroom using film and photographic paper.



902 posted on 07/27/2012 7:37:13 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies ]

To: Fred Nerks; LucyT; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; ...
Extra comments from FReepers Ping...............

Fred Nerks wrote:

I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY AND EXPLAIN WHAT'S WRONG WITH THESE IMAGES. I'M GOING TO HAND THEM OVER TO FREEPERS FOR COMMENT.

Well, I have noticed the following:

1- Look at the back of the couch and the upholstery...it has a very light straw-like back and seat on Lolo's side. OTOH, it has a very dark back (almost black) and cloth/material-like seat on SADO's side.

2- The camera flash creates shadows that are inconsistent with the position of the photographer standing directly facing SADO and the baby, the way such a "family" photo is normally taken. Say, the photographer was standing opposite to Lolo. Where is the pronounced shadow from SADO's left leg casted on the couch to be consistent with Lolo's, right arm, head & left ear, 0b0z0's head, left ear and right arm shadows?

0b0z0's head and ear shadow is much more extended than his left arm's shadow, which is farther from the strobe, means longer shadow, supposedly.

3- Lolo's right arm "resting" on the armrest is very peculiar. Lolo's hand is on the end while his forearm isn't "resting" on the armrest otherwise, you would see his forearm flattened.

If the photographer is facing SADO, there shouldn't be any shadows below Lolo's right arm and shirt or to the left of his head; rather, there should be shadows on the wall behind the right shoulder and behind the right side of his head.

4- Note where the actors' eyes are focused. Look at 0b0z0's eyes looking to his left, anywhere from 30-60 degrees away from the camera! Also, they're not in the same degree of sharpness although they are sitting next to each other on "ONE" couch.

Then again, the "composite" couch could be as long as a freight train if they keep composing and adding 0b0z0's hippo pet at the time, more girlfriends, molesters called mentors and the whole Indonesian army.

This couch could be dubbed, "The Composite Ouch!" That's because it really hurts to look at such garbage being pushed down our throats.

Nothing is real, it’s all composite from the mind of the minders!

I don’t know the make of the camera, but it would be fitting to quote an old camera ad:

FROM THE MIND OF MINOLTA!

1,056 posted on 07/29/2012 9:03:23 AM PDT by melancholy (Professor Alinsky, Enslavement Specialist, Ph.D in L0w and H0lder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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