Main Menu

Jack Cashill caught with his pants…

I don’t really want to write this article, so I’ll make it short.

Jack Cashill published an article in WorldNetDaily with this picture of Barack Obama and his grandparents:

Obama with grandparents (WND)

Cashill wrote:

The bench is real. The grandparents are real. The wall behind them is real. Barack Obama is not. He has been conspicuously photo-shopped in. Who did this and why remains as much a mystery as Obama’s extended stay in New York.

Cashill then shows the supposedly original photo:

Obama’s leg with grandparents (WND)

Supposedly Cashill got it from a guy on YouTube. Birthers will believe anything. WND scrubbed the photos.

 

, ,

100 Responses to Jack Cashill caught with his pants…

  1. avatar
    gorefan April 13, 2011 at 11:22 pm #

    The repeating pattern in the bush to the right of Mrs. Dunham is another dead give away.

  2. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 13, 2011 at 11:44 pm #

    And the birthers wonder why people don’t believe them…

  3. avatar
    Obsolete April 13, 2011 at 11:46 pm #

    This is why he, Lucas D. Smith, targets the birthers with his scams. Strong confirmation bias coupled with “magical” or wishful thinking makes the birthers easy marks.

  4. avatar
    mimi April 13, 2011 at 11:48 pm #

    I loved this one, Doc. It’s so absurd.

    Alex Pareene at Salon:

    What was Barack Obama’s knee doing in New York, while the rest of him was in Pakistan, and Indonesia? Dealing drugs? Why are mainstream journalists afraid to ask tough questions about the president’s detachable knee? The people have a right to know!

    (An alternate theory: Is Barack Obama actually fading from this photo because he accidentally prevented his parents from falling in love while traveling through time? And if so, doesn’t Obama teaching his father Jimi Hendrix how to play guitar based on listening to Jimi Hendrix records present a paradox?)

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/07/birther_photoshop_fail

    And Joey Farah must have been upset that Pareene ignored the fake legal mumbo-jumbo Farah adds to his emails. Pareene posted quotes.

    I asked Farah if it is standard practice at WND to remove major sections of stories without any correction. To which he responded:

    How long have you been in this business, punk? My guess is you were in diapers when I was running major metropolitan newspapers. You call what you wrote a news story? You aren’t fit to carry Chelsea Schilling’s laptop.

    Worm.

    (Chelsea Schilling is the WND staffer who wrote the stories on which Trump’s “$2 million” falsehood is based.)

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/11/joseph_farah_wnd_misinformation/index.html

    And the video at YouTube. Hilarious.

  5. avatar
    richCares April 14, 2011 at 12:55 am #

    WND has made many such phony claims, what is surprizing is that their readers continue to trust this lousy source, no mater how often they are debunked. Hating Obama causes brain damage.

  6. avatar
    aarrgghh April 14, 2011 at 1:31 am #

    richCares:
    WND has made many such phony claims, what is surprizing is that their readers continue to trust this lousy source, no mater how often they are debunked. Hating Obama causes brain damage.

    i have heard that among right wing christians it is considered not merely permissible but obligatory to deceive non-infidels.

  7. avatar
    Lupin April 14, 2011 at 2:32 am #

    And this comes as a surprise? 🙂

  8. avatar
    US Citizen April 14, 2011 at 4:23 am #

    Blurring present in many places.
    Copied and pasted patterns in the bushes and wall.
    The unlikely framing of the photo with the subjects to the left.

    When they have no evidence, they make things up.
    No respect for the dead, for the law, for truth… just hatred.
    When caught, they delete the photos.
    “What are they hiding?”

    Disgusting.

    But I’m so glad you’ve caught it here to be archived.
    An example of Trump-style politics and Farah-style journalism caught for posterity forever.

  9. avatar
    The Magic M April 14, 2011 at 5:24 am #

    And some really ridiculous backpedalling by the birther apologists on YouTube:

    “OBVIOUSLY the original photo is not available. Obama was photoshopped into this photo and tried to pass it off as authentic. It is really a piss poor job too. The person in this video did a good job of UNphotoshopping it.”

    I think the original creator of the video also claimed, of course only after being called out for his sloppy fake, that all he wanted to do is “show what the original may have looked like”. Of course since he didn’t say that in the video in the first place, it shows again the lies and deceit one can expect from a birther…

  10. avatar
    borderraven April 14, 2011 at 6:59 am #

    The top photo is original.

    Bottom photo shows alignment and detail issues caused by copy and paste.

    Examine the ground, wall, and trees in the background.

  11. avatar
    ellid April 14, 2011 at 7:24 am #

    borderraven:
    The top photo is original.

    Bottom photo shows alignment and detail issues caused by copy and paste.

    Examine the ground, wall, and trees in the background.

    I believe the other posters already did, old sport. That’s why this theory is so ludicrous.

  12. avatar
    Eglenn harcsar April 14, 2011 at 8:08 am #

    Hi doc. You’re right to point out the photoshopped leg. Also look to the park bench leg that moved with mad. It leaves the bench floating in the air!

    I remember seeing this photo in the summer of o9 about the same time that photos of him at occidental posing as Joe cool for a girl classmates camera. What I remarked is that it seems he is wearing a wedding ring! It just seems in retrospect nAtch that some controversy regArding a secret marriage to gain entry back into the country would have surfaced long ago. I guess that there is some restraint after all in the birther ranks 😉

  13. avatar
    Loren April 14, 2011 at 8:17 am #

    Cashill has cast-iron balls. Because after this scandal of his last week, check out how he begins today’s column:

    “Word to Donald Trump: Nothing scares our Lilliputian media like facts. Each fact you present makes them rethink their petty little mission to whittle you down to size.”

    Jack Cashill. Talking about how other people are scared of facts.

  14. avatar
    Keith April 14, 2011 at 9:19 am #

    borderraven:
    The top photo is original.

    Bottom photo shows alignment and detail issues caused by copy and paste.

    Examine the ground, wall, and trees in the background.

    And the bench!

  15. avatar
    Sean April 14, 2011 at 9:36 am #

    What I think is funny is what exactly is the conspiracy that’s being presented here? Obama never knew these White people? What about all the other photos he in with them?

  16. avatar
    DaveH April 14, 2011 at 9:49 am #

    Sean:
    What I think is funny is what exactly is the conspiracy that’s being presented here? Obama never knew these White people? What about all the other photos he in with them?

    Sean. Tisk, tisk tisk… Don’t you know that every photo of Obama with family is faked?

  17. avatar
    Mary Brown April 14, 2011 at 10:28 am #

    This one -well I have no words. This episode in the birther soap opera speaks for itself.

  18. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 14, 2011 at 10:37 am #

    Keith: And the bench!

    I just love the way sunlight and the shadows work in the bottom picture. You can totally tell the wall was cloned a lot but they tried to duplicate parts of the sunlight. It just doesn’t jive with reality

  19. avatar
    J. Loleczek April 14, 2011 at 10:48 am #

    Both photos look fake.

    Someone explain the strange light area between obama’s left leg and his grandmother.
    It seems to me that there should be a shadow there.
    Also, if you blow the top photo up obama’s left and right trouser pants leg have a
    straight, non-pixelated end to his leg image.

    Very strange. To me there are both photoshopped. Sorry.

  20. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 14, 2011 at 10:59 am #

    J. Loleczek: Both photos look fake.Someone explain the strange light area between obama’s left leg and his grandmother.It seems to me that there should be a shadow there.Also, if you blow the top photo up obama’s left and right trouser pants leg have astraight, non-pixelated end to his leg image.Very strange. To me there are both photoshopped. Sorry.

    “leg image”? Kookoo. Actually you may not have realized this but light works in 3 dimensions. Depending on the time of day the light would be at a different angel. You can tell by the shadows of the trees near the wall. Also the bench isn’t against the wall but probably a few feet from it. So the light would be directly hitting the wall behind Obama and his grandparents.

  21. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 11:00 am #

    J. Loleczek:
    Both photos look fake.

    Very strange.To me there are both photoshopped.Sorry.

    Nonsense.

    Why

  22. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 11:02 am #

    “Why”

    As in, for what possible reason? Unless someone is just chasing shadows and inventing conspiracies like most birfers.

  23. avatar
    James M April 14, 2011 at 11:05 am #

    J. Loleczek:

    Someone explain the strange light area between obama’s left leg and his grandmother.

    It’s an upright pillar for the bench. Since the bench is still there, you can compare it and especially the stone wall behind it, to these photos. The big tree is still there, and it has grown.

  24. avatar
    James M April 14, 2011 at 11:07 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): You can totally tell the wall was cloned a lot

    You can compare the altered photo with the wall and it will become extremely obvious.

    http://cryptome.org/info/obama-bb/obama-bb.htm

  25. avatar
    James M April 14, 2011 at 11:11 am #

    Sean: What I think is funny is what exactly is the conspiracy that’s being presented here?

    I can’t read this without laughing, but it’s all “expained” here:

    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/nicoloffthreestooges6part25apr09.shtml

  26. avatar
    J. Loleczek April 14, 2011 at 11:11 am #

    Majority Will: Nonsense.

    Why

    I told you why. Look closely at the light space between obama’s left leg and his grandmother’s ankle. If you blow it up you will also see that the light pixels intrude into
    his grandmother’s ankle. There is an even shadow under the bench until you get to
    this area. Also, there is a very strange non-pixelated line to obama’s trouser leg. It might be true that all three people were there but someone photoshopped at least the small, light area between his left leg and his grandmother’s ankle IMO. I’ve sent the photos to a professional photographer that does a lot of photo retouching with photoshop to ask his opinion. He has not responded as yet. I’ll share his opinion when I get it if you are interested. I agree that the bottom photo was a poor photoshop attempt.

  27. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 11:24 am #

    J. Loleczek: I told you why.

    And I’m telling you that you’re wrong. I have 20 years of experience as a professional using Adobe® Photoshop® software.

    I’m also telling you that your confirmation bias has you chasing non-existent aberrations in the photograph.

  28. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 14, 2011 at 11:25 am #

    J. Loleczek: I’ve sent the photos to a professional photographer that does a lot of photo retouching with photoshop to ask his opinion. He has not responded as yet. I’ll share his opinion when I get it if you are interested. I agree that the bottom photo was a poor photoshop attempt.

    Pollarik doesn’t count as a professional

  29. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 14, 2011 at 11:32 am #

    James M: I can’t read this without laughing, but it’s all “expained” here:http://educate-yourself.org/cn/nicoloffthreestooges6part25apr09.shtml

    I kinda started laughing when I read 3 arms. Yeah the author doesn’t notice his grandfather’s arm is at an angle and arms have elbows and his grandfather could bend his

  30. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 11:33 am #

    Sean:
    What I think is funny is what exactly is the conspiracy that’s being presented here? Obama never knew these White people? What about all the other photos he in with them?

    Exactly. Birthers reek of desperation and homemade hooch.

    Farah has to keep his Lie Factory busy.

  31. avatar
    J. Loleczek April 14, 2011 at 11:38 am #

    Majority Will: And I’m telling you that you’re wrong. I have 20 years of experience as a professional using Adobe® Photoshop® software.

    I’m also telling you that your confirmation bias has you chasing non-existent aberrations in the photograph.

    Well, OK then, ignore your bias and explain this area I’m talking about. 1) Is it possible to have the light area in front of the grandmother’s ankle? 2) Why does this light area exist when compared to the shadow to the left and to the right and with people sitting close together above? 3) Explain, professionally, the abrupt end to the shadow right after obama’s left leg. I have limited experience with photoshop. Educate me please.

  32. avatar
    The Magic M April 14, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    > If you blow it up you will also see that the light pixels intrude into
    his grandmother’s ankle.

    You shouldn’t be drawing inferences from an image that has very poor quality to begin with.

    First, it is very small. Then it looks like it was JPG-compressed at least two times, possibly including some kind of sharpening or contrast enhancing process, maybe not even in a “good” program such as PS.

    In short, it is really impossible to tell if it is unretouched or not. Anything that might seem suspicious can be due to the quality of the image (“bleeding”, pixel patterns etc.). OTOH, anything that might be used to identify tampering can be hidden in the poor quality (I usually retouch my images at the original 21 megapixels, then reduce to about 1.5 megapixels for web publishing which reduces any traces of editing to the sub-pixel level).

    This may be different if we had a high-quality version (at least 2 megapixels, first-generation straight-out-of-camera). This would then assume any forging that was not detected must have been done by someone who *really* knew their tools-of-the-trade, not some sloppy amateur.

    As many have said, it is virtually impossible to say “this image is not a fake” with 100% certainty; you can only say “this image is a fake” with 100% certainty – as with the second image above.

  33. avatar
    The Magic M April 14, 2011 at 11:48 am #

    In addition, another thing that gives the 2nd image away as forged is its blurriness. I don’t think even the best sharpening filters (and I have a couple that are very good) could create image 1 from image 2.

    I supposed it was blurred because the forger hoped to hide traces of his PS work (he must have been a real dilettante if he didn’t know the clone tool traces would be noticed by anyone even remotely familiar with editing).

  34. avatar
    richCares April 14, 2011 at 11:52 am #

    J. Loleczek, Obama takes a picture with his grandparents and you see a conspiracy. You need professional help, see a doctor.

  35. avatar
    J. Loleczek April 14, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    The Magic M:
    > If you blow it up you will also see that the light pixels intrude into
    his grandmother’s ankle.

    You shouldn’t be drawing inferences from an image that has very poor quality to begin with.

    Thanks for your comments but they really didn’t address my questions.
    I’ll leave it at that.

    First, it is very small. Then it looks like it was JPG-compressed at least two times, possibly including some kind of sharpening or contrast enhancing process, maybe not even in a “good” program such as PS.

    In short, it is really impossible to tell if it is unretouched or not. Anything that might seem suspicious can be due to the quality of the image (“bleeding”, pixel patterns etc.). OTOH, anything that might be used to identify tampering can be hidden in the poor quality (I usually retouch my images at the original 21 megapixels, then reduce to about 1.5 megapixels for web publishing which reduces any traces of editing to the sub-pixel level).

    This may be different if we had a high-quality version (at least 2 megapixels, first-generation straight-out-of-camera). This would then assume any forging that was not detected must have been done by someone who *really* knew their tools-of-the-trade, not some sloppy amateur.

    As many have said, it is virtually impossible to say “this image is not a fake” with 100% certainty; you can only say “this image is a fake” with 100% certainty – as with the second image above.

  36. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 14, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    J. Loleczek: 2) Why does this light area exist when compared to the shadow to the left and to the right and with people sitting close together above? 3) Explain, professionally, the abrupt end to the shadow right after obama’s left leg. I have limited experience with photoshop. Educate me please.

    You’re thinking two dimensionally

  37. avatar
    The European April 14, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    borderraven:
    The top photo is original.

    Bottom photo shows alignment and detail issues caused by copy and paste.

    Examine the ground, wall, and trees in the background.

    Borderraven, why don´t you keep taking pictures of underage girls on the beach instead of trolling here and elsewhere ?

  38. avatar
    DP April 14, 2011 at 12:51 pm #

    What a bunch of clowns. I can manipulate a photo better than that.

  39. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 1:13 pm #

    richCares:
    J. Loleczek, Obama takes a picture with his grandparents and you see a conspiracy. You need professional help, see a doctor.

    I doubt medical science can help.

  40. avatar
    elmo April 14, 2011 at 1:24 pm #

    Uh oh. I think they’ve figured it out!

    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/baracksoetorofamilyphoto16sep08.shtml

  41. avatar
    That Other Mike April 14, 2011 at 1:25 pm #

    borderraven:
    The top photo is original.

    Bottom photo shows alignment and detail issues caused by copy and paste.

    Examine the ground, wall, and trees in the background.

    You’re never yet seen a stupid conspiracy theory you didn’t like, have you?

  42. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett April 14, 2011 at 1:27 pm #

    James M: I can’t read this without laughing, but it’s all “expained” here:http://educate-yourself.org/cn/nicoloffthreestooges6part25apr09.shtml

    and if you can make it through that without laughing, try the next bit

    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/baracksoetorofamilyphoto16sep08.shtml

    it provides proof that Obama is, like, OMIGOD,. a REPTOID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!elevelty

    I’d say you couldn’t pay people to make this up, but I doubt people write for WND for free

  43. avatar
    J. Loleczek April 14, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

    Majority Will: I doubt medical science can help.

    Hey Majority Will, I’m still waiting for the answers to my three questions.
    I’ll understand if you do not wish to comment.

  44. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett April 14, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

    oops. elmo beat me to it 😀

  45. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett April 14, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    J. Loleczek: Hey Majority Will, I’m still waiting for the answers to my three questions.I’ll understand if you do not wish to comment.

    The answers to all three are simple, “because that’s what it looked like when they took the photo.”

    Here’s my question. Who are you REALLY?

  46. avatar
    misha April 14, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    “WND scrubbed the photos.”

    WhirlNutDeli also scrubbed the photo of Joseph Farah in a sheep stable.

  47. avatar
    misha April 14, 2011 at 1:34 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: Here’s my question. Who are you REALLY?

    Orly Taitz.

  48. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 1:34 pm #

    J. Loleczek: blah blah blah

    Ambient light comes from many sources. It reflects and refracts. Shadows and fabrics curve.

    It’s not a high resolution scan so pixelation is expected.

    However, I see absolutely nothing to indicate that the place and subjects aren’t as photographed.

    You’re suffering from severe confirmation bias, pareidolia and apophenia.

  49. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 1:35 pm #

    J. Loleczek: Hey Majority Will, I’m still waiting for the answers to my three questions.
    I’ll understand if you do not wish to comment.

    You understand very little obviously.

  50. avatar
    J. Loleczek April 14, 2011 at 1:44 pm #

    Majority Will: You understand very little obviously.

    So those are your “I have 20 years of experience as a professional using Adobe® Photoshop® software.” answers to three simple questions? Insults? That’s it?

    The questions were in regard to the “original” photo and are namely:

    1) Is it possible to have the light area in front of the grandmother’s ankle? 2) Why does this light area exist when compared to the shadow to the left and to the right and with people sitting close together above? 3) Explain, professionally, the abrupt end to the shadow right after obama’s left leg

    Put your own biases aside and please provide answers as a professional looking at any typical photo.

  51. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 1:46 pm #

    J. Loleczek: So those are your “I have 20 years of experience as a professional using Adobe® Photoshop® software.” answers to three simple questions?Insults?That’s it?

    The questions were in regard to the “original” photo and are namely:

    1) Is it possible to have the light area in front of the grandmother’s ankle? 2) Why does this light area exist when compared to the shadow to the left and to the right and with people sitting close together above? 3) Explain, professionally, the abrupt end to the shadow right after obama’s left leg

    Put your own biases aside and please provide answers as a professional looking at any typical photo.

    I answered your questions. You’re not paying attention.

  52. avatar
    J. Loleczek April 14, 2011 at 1:52 pm #

    Majority Will: I answered your questions. You’re not paying attention.

    No, I don’t believe you did. Sorry.
    I don’t blame you for not answering.

  53. avatar
    JoZeppy April 14, 2011 at 1:59 pm #

    The answer is obvious…It isn’t Obama that was photoshopped in, it was his grandfather…

    Why is he looking in a different direction than everyone else?

    Why doesn’t he actually put his hand on Obama’s shoulder?

    What is up with that male camel toe of his…is that for real?

  54. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 2:00 pm #

    J. Loleczek: Put your own biases aside and please provide answers as a professional looking at any typical photo.

    Let me ask you a question.

    How familiar are you with the art and science of photography, physics in general and the properties of light specifically, and either darkroom or digital photograph scanning and retouching?

    If you look real closely at the wall behind the President’s grandmother, you’ll see an image from a Mayan spirit totem.

    Do you see it?

  55. avatar
    misha April 14, 2011 at 2:01 pm #

    misha:
    “WND scrubbed the photos.”

    WhirlNutDeli also scrubbed the photo of Joseph Farah in a sheep stable.

    That was not intended to be a factual statement, per Sen. John Kyl. Kyl is from Arizona, and that explains everything.

  56. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett April 14, 2011 at 2:01 pm #

    J. Loleczek: No, I don’t believe you did. Sorry.I don’t blame you for not answering.

    Answer MY question, please – who are you really?

    Do you believe the President was born in hawaii?

    Do you believe the President is eligible to be President?

    Do you believe he’s hiding something about the details of his birth?

  57. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 2:02 pm #

    J. Loleczek: No, I don’t believe you did.Sorry.
    I don’t blame you for not answering.

    Belief. Interesting choice of words. And yes, I did. You’re still not paying one lick of attention.

  58. avatar
    J. Loleczek April 14, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    Majority Will:

    If you look real closely at the wall behind the President’s grandmother, you’ll see an image from a Mayan spirit totem.

    Do you see it?

    More insults but no answers.
    I take it the questions make you uncomfortable.

  59. avatar
    JoZeppy April 14, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    J. Loleczek: So those are your “I have 20 years of experience as a professional using Adobe® Photoshop® software.” answers to three simple questions? Insults? That’s it? The questions were in regard to the “original” photo and are namely:1) Is it possible to have the light area in front of the grandmother’s ankle? 2) Why does this light area exist when compared to the shadow to the left and to the right and with people sitting close together above? 3) Explain, professionally, the abrupt end to the shadow right after obama’s left legPut your own biases aside and please provide answers as a professional looking at any typical photo.

    It doesn’t take a professional to answer your questions….just someone who is not a conspriacy nut. All the copies of this picture I have seen leave very little of the area you’re focusing on. Add to that, we don’t know what time of day it is (what direction the sun is), add that the area is obviously partially shaded by trees, and finally throw in light reflection and refraction. Given how little we have of the area, making it impossible to figure out what the actual shadow pattern are, and how little we know about the conditions that would effect the lighting and shadows, how could anyone, with any level of expertise make any conclusions?

  60. avatar
    Sean April 14, 2011 at 2:15 pm #

    James M: I can’t read this without laughing, but it’s all “expained” here:

    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/nicoloffthreestooges6part25apr09.shtml

    My favorite line from the article is: Digital technology’s role in the creation of illusion

  61. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 2:16 pm #

    J. Loleczek: More insults but no answers.
    I take it the questions make you uncomfortable.

    How is that insulting? And I asked you a legitimate question:

    How familiar are you with the art and science of photography, physics in general and the properties of light specifically, and either darkroom or digital photograph scanning and retouching?

    “I take it the questions make you uncomfortable.”

    Not at all. But I find your posts and questions ridiculous. If you think that’s insulting, then the shoe fits.

    Light reflects and refracts. Ambient light bounces. Different colored and textured objects like fabric curve and fold.

    Once again, there’s your answer. Do the normal properties of light make you uncomfortable if they don’t fit your paranoia and suspicions? Are you shredding tissue into a box right now?

    If you don’t want to be ridiculed, then stop being ridiculous.

  62. avatar
    Sean April 14, 2011 at 2:28 pm #

    I think J. Loleczek is behind the whole thing. Not ust the pictures butte whole Obama fraud. She’s come back to the crime scene like many killers do. No one would suspect she masterminded this entire Manchurian Obama candidate thing, but I did. J. Loleczek isn’t crazy, she’s hiding something. She’s hiding a lot. What does she get out oncoming to this site?

    If we want to clear up any of this we need to start with her. We need to go through her personal files (if she early is a her).

    What is she hiding?

  63. avatar
    J. Loleczek April 14, 2011 at 2:38 pm #

    Majority Will: How is that insulting? And I asked you a legitimate question:

    How familiar are you with the art and science of photography, physics in general and the properties of light specifically, and either darkroom or digital photograph scanning and retouching?

    OK, fair enough. I started my career as an engineer with Kodak in Rochester, NY in the photo processing division. My whole career was in the photo industry. I started my own manufacturing company producing goods and services for the photo industry. I do have darkroom experience.

    Being a engineer (electronics) I am well grounded in physics in general. The properties of light specifically is not a specialty although I am well versed in it. I have used PS but only as an amateur photographer, and not very much at that.

    So when someone presents themselves as having superior knowledge of a discipline as you did I want to glean information from them. You presented yourself as such and I asked you three simple questions. My original statement was that I believed that BOTH photos were PS’d. I limited my concerns to only the small area between obama’s left leg and his grandmother’s right ankle.

    I feel you want to avoid the subject because you also suspect something is wrong with that area or, on the other hand, you lied stating that you have 20 years experience with PS.

  64. avatar
    Sef April 14, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

    I wonder who Simon Maloy is?

  65. avatar
    Sef April 14, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

    Sef:
    I wonder who Simon Maloy is?

    Answered my own question. He’s with MMA.

  66. avatar
    Sean April 14, 2011 at 2:51 pm #

    J. Loleczek: OK, fair enough.I started my career as an engineer with Kodak in Rochester, NY in the photo processing division.My whole career was in the photo industry.I started my own manufacturing companyproducing goods and services for the photo industry.I do have darkroom experience.

    Being a engineer (electronics)I am well grounded in physics in general.The properties of light specifically is not a specialty although I am well versed in it.I have used PS but only as an amateur photographer, and not very much at that.

    So when someone presents themselves as having superior knowledge of a discipline as you didI want to glean information from them.You presented yourself as such and I asked you three simple questions.My original statement was that I believed that BOTH photos were PS’d.I limited my concerns to only the small area between obama’s left leg and his grandmother’s right ankle.

    I feel you want to avoid the subject because you also suspect something is wrong with that area or, on the other hand, you lied stating that you have 20 years experience with PS.

    I don’t believe you. You’ve already lied about everything else. I know you’re hiding something and I have a hunch I know what it is…………..yeah THAT!

    I’m on to you. Don’t think I’m not!

  67. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 14, 2011 at 3:01 pm #

    J. Loleczek: More insults but no answers.
    I take it the questions make you uncomfortable.

    I haven’t noticed discomfort on the part of any of the responses to you – what I have noticed is you attempting a naive analysis of a low-quality compression of (presumably) a scan of a photograph. As amateur ‘analysts’ often do (especially if they are as impaired by their confirmation biases as most birthers are…), you are seeing ‘anomalies’ in everything you can’t explain (and I suspect that ‘everything you can’t explain’ regarding image analysis is pretty close to everything there is to know about the field of image analysis…). If you want to prove that you are an intelligent human being, go and learn something about image analysis and and figure out the ‘meaning’ of your anomalies on your own (I guarantee that they will turn out to be insignificant artifacts of one sort or another). If you want to provide evidence that a particular anomaly is significant, you must explain not only how such an anomaly could have arose, but also provide some evidence that it could not have arisen naturally (as well as evidence that it isn’t an artifact of the repeated lossy conversions of the image…). Pointing out a bunch of things that are, in your naive opinion, anomalies and expecting others to explain how you are full of crap is both lazy and intellectually dishonest.

  68. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    J. Loleczek: I feel you want to avoid the subject because you also suspect something is wrong with that area or, on the other hand, you lied stating that you have 20 years experience with PS.

    I’m saying you’re wrong. I suspect nothing. You’re being paranoid. And I haven’t lied about anything. There’s no reason to “believe” (your word) that the photograph has been faked or significantly altered. Of course, there’s no way of knowing unless you can produce the original film. I’ll stick with Ockham’s Razor, common sense and the absence of motive.

    “Being a engineer (electronics) I am well grounded in physics in general.”

    Nice pun but you’re still seeing phenomena easily explained by the natural properties of ambient light.

    Your suspicions are unwarranted and you’ve done nothing to prove any significance whatsoever.

    And what you feel is irrelevant.

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 14, 2011 at 3:40 pm #

    J. Loleczek: ) Is it possible to have the light area in front of the grandmother’s ankle? 2) Why does this light area exist when compared to the shadow to the left and to the right and with people sitting close together above? 3) Explain, professionally, the abrupt end to the shadow right after obama’s left leg

    I really don’t see what you’re talking about. Are you looking at a different photo than in my article above?

  70. avatar
    obsolete April 14, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    J. Loleczek, are you one of those “moon hoax” people who pore over NASA photos looking for oddities?

  71. avatar
    J. Loleczek April 14, 2011 at 3:46 pm #

    Majority Will: Of course, there’s no way of knowing unless you can produce the original film.

    ******OK, I suspected a discussion would be impossible on this site. Could anyone tell me the history of this photo (the top one)? How did it pop up on the internet? Who published it initially? Thanks in advance.

  72. avatar
    obsolete April 14, 2011 at 3:47 pm #

    OMG- Look at the cryptome link above! What a great job- I wonder if the anomaly hunters will still see Photoshop where none exists!
    The location looks exactly the same except the tree behind them is thicker, proving either A) Photoshop or B) Trees grow over time.

  73. avatar
    J. Loleczek April 14, 2011 at 3:48 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I really don’t see what you’re talking about. Are you looking at a different photo than in my article above?

    I copied both photos from your article.

  74. avatar
    Thrifty April 14, 2011 at 3:54 pm #

    I’m not sure I follow. So…..

    1) The top photo (Obama plus grandparents), is real, but WorldNetDaily is claiming that it is fake.

    2) The bottom photo is a fake done by someone at WorldNetDaily, but they are claiming it is real.

    Is that it?

  75. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 3:54 pm #

    J. Loleczek: OK, I suspected

    Well, aren’t you a suspicious little fella?

    What else do you find suspicious?

  76. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 3:56 pm #

    BTW, the Mayan spirit totem image on the wall also looks like an angry gorilla from the nose up.

  77. avatar
    J. Loleczek April 14, 2011 at 3:58 pm #

    Majority Will:
    BTW, the Mayan spirit totem image on the wall also looks like an angry gorilla from the nose up.

    sigh.

  78. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 4:02 pm #

    J. Loleczek: sigh.

    Harumph.

  79. avatar
    Thrifty April 14, 2011 at 4:03 pm #

    J. Loleczek: The questions were in regard to the “original” photo and are namely:
    1) Is it possible to have the light area in front of the grandmother’s ankle? 2) Why does this light area exist when compared to the shadow to the left and to the right and with people sitting close together above? 3) Explain, professionally, the abrupt end to the shadow right after obama’s left leg
    Put your own biases aside and please provide answers as a professional looking at any typical photo.

    I have no clue what you’re talking about. This is like those “Magic Eye” pictures.

  80. avatar
    J. Loleczek April 14, 2011 at 4:05 pm #

    Majority Will: Harumph

    noob

  81. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 14, 2011 at 4:11 pm #

    obsolete:
    OMG- Look at the cryptome link above! What a great job- I wonder if the anomaly hunters will still see Photoshop where none exists!
    The location looks exactly the same except the tree behind them is thicker, proving either A) Photoshop or B) Trees grow over time.

    Photoshop has an aging function for trees? Awesome!

  82. avatar
    richCares April 14, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    curious about J. Loleczek, what is his point, does anybody know (except maybe the point on his head)

  83. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 4:37 pm #

    J. Loleczek: (weak trolling)

    Best of luck with your mysterious quest but it sounds like you need a nap first.

    Have you looked here? http://weeklyworldnews.com/

  84. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm #

    James M: It’s an upright pillar for the bench.Since the bench is still there, you can compare it and especially the stone wall behind it, to these photos.The big tree is still there, and it has grown.

    Yes, I was already “guessing” that it was the same thing as what can be seen behind Obama ‘s grandfather’s right leg. And yes, there is more shadow there ( I mean between Obama and his grandmother).

    But you do kmow what birfers when confronted with actual reality, will do: stick to their delusion.

    How long before Loleczek claims that whoever takes care of those benches in the neighborhood, reconstructed this bench to make it resemble the bench with the support pillars that people with nonconspirational minds see in the first picture. It proves how deep and far-reaching the conspiracy really is.

    And now naughtily, I will re-quote your linj

  85. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm #

    oops, hit the wrong button meant to write “re-quote your link:
    http://cryptome.org/info/obama-bb/obama-bb.htm

  86. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 14, 2011 at 5:39 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I really don’t see what you’re talking about. Are you looking at a different photo than in my article above?

    Doc, he ‘s talking about the support pillar in the middle of the bench – not realizing that it is a support pillar. Me and you just do not see the problem, because we subconsciously link it to that thing behind Grandpa’s right leg. Funny thing: he claims it is too light for the rest of the photograph, while it is probably the fact that there is so much shadow there that obfuscates the fact that it is, well, a pillar. Those, d.mn three dimensional things can sure deceive the eye – of someone who is deliberately looking for inconsistencies.

    In all fairness, James M already pointed it out much higher in the comversation.

    The question remains: why would they photoshop that first picture. I also wonder when that picture was taken, because Adobe Photoshop is from 1987.

  87. avatar
    Sean April 14, 2011 at 6:25 pm #

    richCares: J. Loleczek

    J. Loleczek shot Kennedy.

  88. avatar
    James M April 14, 2011 at 6:25 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: Doc, he s talking about the support pillar in the middle of the bench – not realizing that it is a support pillar. Me and you just do not see the problem, because we subconsciously link it to that thing behind Grandpa’s right leg. Funny thing: he claims it is too light for the rest of the photograph, while it is probably the fact that there is so much shadow there that obfuscates the fact that it is, well, a pillar. Those, d.mn three dimensional things can sure deceive the eye – of someone who is deliberately looking for inconsistencies.

    In all fairness, James M already pointed it out much higher in the comversation.

    The question remains: why would they photoshop that first picture. I also wonder when that picture was taken, because Adobe Photoshop is from 1987.

    I thought this was all stemming from a theory that the Obamas and the Dunhams are all Lizard People. Once you’re down that road, wondering why people would do stuff like photoshopping seems fairly pointless.

  89. avatar
    bjphysics April 14, 2011 at 7:01 pm #

    J. Loleczek: Both photos look fake.Someone explain the strange light area between obama’s left leg and his grandmother.It seems to me that there should be a shadow there.Also, if you blow the top photo up obama’s left and right trouser pants leg have astraight, non-pixelated end to his leg image.Very strange. To me there are both photoshopped. Sorry.

    Nobody has noticed this so far but I would like to call your attention to it since you have photography knowledge gained at Kodak (usurped by ITEK) :

    Note in the top photograph grandpas fingers are pointing straight outward in the way alien’s fingers would point outward if they were trying to beam an effect using their extraterrestrial powers. I am a physicist at Lockheed Martin and I can tell you that using my super-secret photo enhancement technology it is clear there is an alien beam rendered visible using electro-optical techniques. I believe the conspiracy involves time travel and DNA implantation but I can’t be sure. My analysis indicates the beams have rendered Obama (originally a normal Earthling) 12 times more intelligent than any previous Earthling. Additional investigation indicates that beams similar to Grandpa Dunham’s (around the world) have systematically reduced birther IQ’s by 0.73, leaving them at the imbecilic IQ level.

    Give me your coordinates (is it Rochester?) and I’ll try to get you back up to 0.78.

  90. avatar
    Suranis April 14, 2011 at 7:18 pm #

    I just think they were trying to help him with his amkneesia.

    *drumroll*

  91. avatar
    Keith April 14, 2011 at 7:26 pm #

    For crying out loud, just look at the bench on grandma’s left.

    Which image is faked?

    You don’t need to be a CIA image analyst to figure it out.

  92. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 7:48 pm #

    J. Loleczek: ?

    Were you babbling about the freakin’ bench support pillar? You didn’t know that benches need support and you claim to be an engineer with a knowledge of physics?

    I didn’t realize you had no idea how a bench was made.

  93. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett April 14, 2011 at 10:27 pm #

    Hmmm. You know, Loleczek is just “LOL” with some letters thrown on at the end.

    Do you suppose we’re being lolbirthered?

  94. avatar
    Majority Will April 14, 2011 at 10:38 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett:
    Hmmm. You know, Loleczek is just “LOL” with some letters thrown on at the end.

    Do you suppose we’re being lolbirthered?

    No, but J. Edward Tremlett is an anagram for “Drat! Wet, melted Jr.”

    Hmmmm. 😀

  95. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 14, 2011 at 11:04 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Pollarik doesn’t count as a professional

    Ron Polland (Polarik) has said that ALL photos of Obama’s early life have been Photoshopped. I wrote about this two years ago, this month.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/obamas-entire-life-photoshopped/

  96. avatar
    todd April 14, 2011 at 11:09 pm #

    The Magic M:
    In addition, another thing that gives the 2nd image away as forged is its blurriness. I don’t think even the best sharpening filters (and I have a couple that are very good) could create image 1 from image 2.

    I supposed it was blurred because the forger hoped to hide traces of his PS work (he must have been a real dilettante if he didn’t know the clone tool traces would be noticed by anyone even remotely familiar with editing).

    Standard practice when shooping an image. It helps make the edited areas less noticeable. It’s impossible for the picture of all three to have originated from the picture with just the grandparents unless there is a MUCH higher quality image that hasn’t been released yet. I’ve checked but could find nothing but that degraded quality pic that World Nut Daily posted.

  97. avatar
    todd April 14, 2011 at 11:12 pm #

    borderraven:
    The top photo is original.

    Bottom photo shows alignment and detail issues caused by copy and paste.

    Examine the ground, wall, and trees in the background.

    Exactly. I found this after a search:
    http://cryptome.org/info/obama-bb/pict74.jpg

    It’s apparently the bench that the photo was taken.

    You can see which image is clearly shooped.

  98. avatar
    Sef April 14, 2011 at 11:40 pm #

    Majority Will: I didn’t realize you had no idea how a bench was made.

    Overspecialization.

  99. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 15, 2011 at 12:12 am #

    Majority Will: Were you babbling about the freakin’ bench support pillar? You didn’t know that benches need support and you claim to be an engineer with a knowledge of physics?

    I didn’t realize you had no idea how a bench was made.

    He’s not that kind of “engineer”

  100. avatar
    The Magic M April 15, 2011 at 6:54 am #

    Slartibartfast: Photoshop has an aging function for trees?Awesome!

    Well, the CS6 version does, which all us Soros minions get a year in advance, you know?