Filmmaker claims black man removed from 2012 campaign Facebook image
Ping
holy crap, that is a black man’s hand. Is it possible someone in Obama’s camp put the black hand in there just to mess with the birthers?
I don't think so. As a professional graphic artist (since 1972) who has worked with both the old style film techniques and modern Photoshop, I would say her image was masked and then double printed with the original masked negative then the final photo would have been touched up with an airbrush to smooth the edges etc.
Obama’s Fake Family Photo: Obama Photoshopped into Central Park Bench Photo With Grandparents
deathby1000papercuts.com ^ | April 8, 2011 | LBG1
Posted on Friday, April 08, 2011 10:34:21 AM by BenLurkin
Why did Newsweek remove Barack Obama photos?
Why would someone photoshop a young Barack Obama into a photo of his grandparents sitting on a bench in Central Park? A photo that appeared in New Yorker editor David Remnick’s Obama bio, ‘The Bridge’.
(Excerpt) Read more at deathby1000papercuts.com ...
Whenever Obama’s mother was put, or stood in the picture it seems that she was very, very light white. I bet Obama hates to look at pictures of her that remind him of his white half.
Gilbert says the black male hand under Obamas armpit is strikingly similar to the right hand of Davis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, now. If that was FMD’s hand, it would be under no armpit.
I’ll give you that the hand belonged to a black dude.
But it doesn’t make sense that someone would go to such trouble to cover up what? That Obama was shown with Frank Marshall Davis? So?
We know Obama self acknowledged Davis was his mentor. Why the need to do a switcheroo?
Maybe Camp Obama needs another conspiracy NOW to occupy the right sphere for days/weeks.
Bryant Gumble is 0bama’s father?
I hope Sheriff Joe sees this — and it’s genuine.
(check out the “bio” on the poster at bottom of page.)
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/07/obamas-kenyan-birth-records-discovered.html
I’ve analyzed it using several different methods in Photoshop and can see no evidence of the photo being manipulated.
I think her hand, though it does look very dark, is simply in a shadow.
If I had some potentially embarrassing photo from my past and if I thought if the truth got out it could damage me or my career, I do not think I would spend my time trying to get control of them.
I would do the opposite. I would flood the market with embarrassing obvious fakes.
This way if a real photo should surface it can be brushed aside as a fake. True believers and true haters do not care about the truth. It is those in the middle that need to be confused so they give you the benefit of the doubt.
We know the main stream media will not investigate any story that may harm this President. So the fakes only have to be good enough to get it out there to cause doubt and something to be held up when any evidence is presented.
Yes, this is a real newsweek cover. Sullivan argues that Obama had to come out of the "closet" of being black or something.
To be honest though, I think this doctored pic might be more accurate regarding O's character than the other ones are regarding his past.
I use Photoshop professionally and I would say that there is a very high chance that this photo is “shopped,” except that this is such a low res example it is tough to really say for sure.
Some things that stand out:
1. Lower right edge of her dress. That dark line is different from what you would expect to see and could be the remnants from something that was in the her original photo (a dark background on original in that area).
At first I thought that it was just the seat support behind her (and it could be up to a point), except that the dark line extends to her foot.
2. Black, or gloved, hand. Simply put, humans have pretty regular conformations and the human forearm is roughly the length of a person’s foot. The forearm in this photo is grotesquely elongated.
Even if she were wearing a sheer-typed glove, her forearm is too long to fit with the hand as it is positioned in this photo.
3. Something that may be hard to explain, but immediately jumped out to me is that if you printed this photo and then took a straight ruler and placed it along the edge of the top side of the white wall in the background you would find that it is straight all of the way across.
If you place the ruler on the lower edge of the white wall you will find that the left side of her dress is raised up slightly and not in line.
It’s just odd.
4. The lighting isn’t quite right on her face, but that would be hard to judge unless you know how the light is getting into the room (windows, glass, &c.?) and if something were blocking it in places.
5. Hair. The hair above her left shoulder appears to “fade” away. Hair does not do that in reality, but it often does it in bad photoshopping. Hair is often a tale-tell sign.
It would be nice to have a higher res version to see better - especially her hair.
Holy crap its right there!
That's all pretty suspect. Not the photo -- the interpretation. It looks like part of SAD's arm and hand, dark because it's in shadow. The shade is much like her father's arm, also in shadow.
The lighting on Ann Dunhams face is from the far left and is not consistent with the other figures, who are lit from above. This suggests Ann Dunhams image was placed into this scene from a different photo.
She is standing closer to a door or window or passageway. She gets direct light from outside, as well as light from the electric light above. The others, further away from the window or door or passage, get less of that light from the side and are lit more by the electric lights above.
Look at the difference in the wall tiles on different sides of the photo. It's lighter on the left because it gets more sunlight. Or do you think they photoshopped in tiles from different sources?
Ann Dunham looks to be about 25 years old, too young for this 1973 photo. Maya, who was born Aug 15, 1970, looks to be about 3 years old. Ann should look 30 years old.
"Looks to be"? That's an exact science now?
______________
I don't get the rationale on this. Isn't it much, much more likely that a photo of Obama and his half-sister and grandfather would also have his mother in it, than that it would have Frank Marshall Davis in it?
If the Obama people had a photo of Obama with members of his family, they could use it as they do here. If they didn't have this family photo but had one of Obama with his grandfather and FMD, why would they photoshop it, taking out FMD and putting the mother in, and release it? Wouldn't they just lock up the picture and not bother with releasing anything?
Was there some urgent cry now for a photo taken on this date? Was there some important overriding reason why faking a photo and releasing it -- and running the risks involved -- was necessary, when just doing nothing (and running no risks) was the alternative?
Where does this link from 2011 come into the whole situation?
http://www.wnd.com/2011/01/254401/
Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate
Signs affidavit declaring long-form, hospital-generated document absent
Published: 01/24/2011 at 8:48 PM
That photo has been around a long time.
http://www.indonesiamatters.com/2952/barry-soetoro/
From the story...
“Barrak Hussein Obama II was born to a white American Ann Dunham and Kenyan Barrak Hussein Obama Snr, in Nyang’oma Kogelo now in Kenya.”
It’s surprising that he would put it on his campaign fb site. More photos at the link.