These two hands are obviously from the same person because they show 4 knuckles. The image on the left is from Stanley Ann Dunham, and the one on the right is from Frank Marshall Davis, family friend of the Dunhams in Hawaii.
As you know, birthers claim that all photos of Barack Obama prior to him becoming a national figure are fake, including those in contemporary school yearbooks. Now in an article by birther and anti-Christ contender Jerome Corsi, another photo is called into question. Not only is the photo considered fake, but somehow the figure of Frank Marshall Davis is replaced by the diminutive Stanley Ann Dunham.
Here’s the color adjusted image Corsi showed, and yes Dunham’s hand looks dark:
You can read Corsi’s July 19 article for all of the details of why some guy named Robert Nikolakakis concluded that the photo from which the above is taken is a fake. I am not a graphics expert, so I wouldn’t really know “airbrush” from “hairbrush.” However, when I was in elementary school they taught us a useful technique called “measuring things with a ruler.”
Mr. Nikolalakis says:
The chair on the far left next to Ann Dunham is brown and smaller than the chairs on the right, which are white. The horizontal support bar for the brown chair does not align with the white chairs’ support bar.
The problem is, however, that the chair on the left is not smaller than the chair on the right (within the precision I was able to cut and position). I took a vertical slice of the picture from the right side and pasted next to the chair on the left (note that the top part of the left chair is brown):
The other problem is the optical illusion caused by the fact that the wall is not the same height (see arrow for how far off it is) all the way across. The chair bar lines up with the top of the wall, but not the bottom. It appears the floor is not level.
The obvious question with all of these claims is that if the faker went to SO MUCH TROUBLE to smoothly insert Ann Dunham into the picture, why would they be so sloppy as to leave in someone else’s hand?
I’m not an expert, but what I can see suggests that the analysis from Robert Nikolakakis is crackpot (although the fellow does seem to be a professional graphic artist). I also know from experience that the camera shows shadows you don’t expect and that even lighting is really hard to do.
A commenter here wrote:
Start by looking at the unaltered photo, from Obama’s Facebook page:
This image is linked to from:
The image is a scan of a photo printed in the early 70s. As is typical of prints from that era, the magenta pigment is most permanent. Color enlargements are by nature unstable and will degrade over time. Go look at your old photo albums.
Further, as if typical of photos posted online, it is a low resolution (487 x 720), low-quality JPG. Blotchy and full or artifacts.
The jokers at Dreams from My Real Father have altered the photo, ostensible to restore a more natural color balance, but they don’t acknowledge that in their article. (I haven’t bothered watching their video.)
The colors values on Ann’s hand, in RGB terms, are ~2:1:1, as they are in the shadow on her neck. It’s her skin tone. She is directly behind Obama, his arms is casting a shadow. The scene is sunlit from windows to the left/rear. The hand is proportional to her elbow and face.
So, here’s the claims at obamasrealfather.com/breaking_news002/ :
1. The Black hand under Obama’s right armpit doesn’t match Ann Dunham’s right arm. The size and color is wrong for a white female, and the hand is positioned closer to camera than Ann’s arm. The hand appears to be a remnant from a Black male before it was air brushed.
2. The chair on the far left next to Ann Dunham is brown, and smaller than the chairs on the right which are white. The horizontal support bar for the brown chair does not align with the white chairs’ support bar.
3. Ann Dunham’s hair over both her right and left shoulders show signs of airbrushing.
4. The lighting on Ann Dunham’s face is from the far left, and is not consistent with the others who are lit from above. This suggests Ann Dunham’s image was placed into this scene from a different photo.
5. Above and below Obama’s right elbow, there is a ghosting effect where a glow emanates from the arm, suggesting a different underlying image such as a light-colored shirt behind Obama. Uneven pixilation is a sign of cloning.
6. Ann looks to be about 25 years old, too young for this 1973 photo. Obama’s half sister Maya (born Aug 15, 1970) looks to be about 3 years old, so Obama is would be 12 and Ann should look 30 years old.
1. See the above. No technical proof of this claim provided, only assertion, followed by an unsupportable, baseless conclusion.
2. They are from two different units of row seating. No reason why they shouldn’t be different colors. The support rail is not aligned, because the white unit is pulled out farther from the wall. Refer to the shadows cast by the seat backs on the wall, and the distance of the chair leg from the wall. The color of the wall is consistent, and the line at the base of the wall is perfectly aligned. It’s all the same background. Their #2 is a flat out lie.
3. Such as? This is a blank assertion.
4. Everything in the photo is lit from the left! The walls, the chairs, Obama, his sister, the floor. Look at all the shadows cast. #4 is a blatant lie, aimed at those will to be spoon-fed rather than relying on their own observation.
5. No, there are typical JPEG artifacts, found along all edges in the photo, and every other highly compressed JPEG with significant contrasts. Look at the chairs, the outline of each person. Nothing unusual about the “jaggies” around the arm. Their #5 is a case of misdirection by selective observation.
6. Ann looked youthful in all photos I have seen. In a photo of this resolution, no details of complexion can be seen. Age is impossible to determine. They are asserting they can differentiate between 25 and 30 in this photo? C’mon! Note the sag in the forearm. Indelicate as it is to say, there is a sign of age. No reason to believe she is not her correct age for the purported date of the photo.
Everything about the photo is internally consistent.