Main Menu

They all look alike

image

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):

image

 

 

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:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150902091511749&set=a.10150902090006749.401812.6815841748&type=3&theater

This image is linked to from:
http://www.obamasrealfather.com/breaking_news002/

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/ :

Photo Anomalies
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.

,

91 Responses to They all look alike

  1. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 1, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    Or the birthers are just throwing another ball faced like out that, and they photoshopped the pic themselves. Give me a minute with a photo, and I can give it a convincingly real Hitler mustache.

  2. avatar
    justlw August 1, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    “Hey, we need to post another picture of Barack from his childhood on the Facebook, stat! Have to, have to have to!! Lives are at stake!”

    “I know! But the only one we have left has, you know… him in it…”

    “Didn’t you hear me? We need this now! Call in the Photoshop team!”

  3. avatar
    gmyers25 August 1, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

    Ignoring for a moment the inherent absurdity of the whole Frank Marshall Davis wing of Birtherdom, I must ask one question.

    How is it that even though Obama and all of those who are supposedly involved in the “conspiracy” are considered so diabolical and calculating in their actions, putting in place all of these “fake” items from birth certificates to pictures to newspaper announcements and assorted other records, yet the people who apparently are trusted with the creation of these supposed forgeries SUCK SO BAD AT THEIR JOBS that these “fakes” are exposed as such?

    Seriously, its like the birthers think that this is some sort of comic book work where the villains are crafty and diabolical yet horribly inept.

  4. avatar
    US Citizen August 1, 2012 at 6:44 pm #

    Those chairs and the location itself looks a lot like the airport in Oahu.
    They have revamped it many times with another renovation expected in 2013.
    The chairs in this airport were OFTEN varied.
    Here’s some pics that shows their inconsistency in the 70’s.

    http://hawaii.gov/hawaiiaviation/aviation-photos/1970-1979/honolulu-international-airport/hnl-terminals/1974-10-10%20HNL%2007.jpg/ha_image_view_fullscreen

    http://hawaii.gov/hawaiiaviation/aviation-photos/1970-1979/honolulu-international-airport/hnl-terminals/1970s%20HNL%2035%20HNL.jpg/ha_image_view_fullscreen

  5. avatar
    Potter, J. August 1, 2012 at 7:07 pm #

    US Citizen: Those chairs and the location itself looks a lot like the airport in Oahu.

    Yes, the forgers are cagey, they handled the set dressing well. 😉

  6. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter August 1, 2012 at 7:12 pm #

    Sadly, the photograph looks fishy enough on its face, that this particular little fire isn’t going to be put out unless the original photo pops up somewhere, or somebody fesses up to doctoring it. Unfortunately, this will go into the Permanent “Fake Obama File” along with the “Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia” bio from his book agent and a few other pieces. Alas, this stuff will have a life of its own. If you doubt me, see:

    http://www.loch-ness.com/images/surgeonspicture.gif

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  7. avatar
    webmaster August 1, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    chairs, shmairs, why not knuckle under to the simplest explanation:

    Stanley Ann Dunham had a big brown right hand.

  8. avatar
    Potter, J. August 1, 2012 at 7:24 pm #

    There was one add’l point I should have hit on in my ramble, and that’s the apparent deceitful intent on the part of the perpetrator(s). The photo is a scan of a faded print. If you look at a histogram of the image, the shadows have all lightened into midtones. All the detail and any subtlety that was in the shadows is gone. No amount of digital filtering can bring it back. Any kind of “professional graphic artist” knows this very well … as should any photographer with any technical insight.

    The only way to restore this photo faithfully would be to go back to the negative …. assuming it wasn’t a polaroid (I don’t think it was, image quality is too good) … and scanning the neg or making new enlargements from it.

    What these jokers have done is attempt to manipulate the color balance and levels in order to restore a normal range of color and value. They’ve stretched the remaining 60-70% to cover 100%, plunging midtones into shadow, and lightening highlights, increasing contrast drastically … and making that sunlit arm lighter while making the shadow’d hand much darker.

    The shadow knows …. 😉

  9. avatar
    Sean August 1, 2012 at 7:46 pm #

    All photos of Obama are fake. I believe that. I also believe Obama is a reptilian lizard man.

  10. avatar
    ASK Esq August 1, 2012 at 7:49 pm #

    I am becoming more and more convinced that birtherism is some sort of internet prank or performance art piece or flash mob kind of thing. Every so often the command goes out for someone to come up with something absurd, and for the rest of them to pretend to believe it. This makes more sense to me than the idea that there are people actually believing it.

  11. avatar
    misha August 1, 2012 at 7:50 pm #

    Sean: I also believe Obama is a reptilian lizard man.

    What’s the difference between Orly Taitz and a lizard?

    One is hatched from eggs, eats insects and sleeps under a rock.

    The other is a lizard.

  12. avatar
    Scientist August 1, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: Sadly, the photograph looks fishy enough on its face, that this particular little fire isn’t going to be put out unless the original photo pops up somewhere, or somebody fesses up to doctoring it. Unfortunately, this will go into the Permanent “Fake Obama File” along with the “Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia” bio from his book agent and a few other pieces. Alas, this stuff will have a life of its own. If you doubt me, see:http://www.loch-ness.com/images/surgeonspicture.gifSqueeky FrommGirl Reporter

    Squeeky, seriously, what exactly will such nonsense mean to a voter in Peoria (not that any of them will bother to look at the obscure web sites where such idiocy is featured)? Who honestly cares about some picture from when Obama was 12? I realize the ostensible goal is to paint the President as a liar. Here’s the problem with that strategy. Anyone over the age of 12 believes that all politicians lie and exaggerate (hell, all humans do). Romney has already painted himself as the most mealy-mouthed, flip-floppingest, squirliest, lyingest dude to ever run for office. He has yet to make it through a single day of campaigning without about 10 clarifications and backtracks on what he said 15 minutes ago.. So, even if someone altered a photo of Obama, he is to Romney in lying as a 400 lbs couch potato is to an Olympic athlete.

    As we like to say in the hiking world, when you are out in the woods with a group and you run into a bear, you don’t have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the slowest member of your group.

  13. avatar
    Mary Brown August 1, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

    I live a life. What do these people have?

  14. avatar
    Bob August 1, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    And who took the photo? And where’s the negative?

  15. avatar
    Loren August 1, 2012 at 9:04 pm #

    Once again, what we have here is an anomaly (i.e., Ann’s hand), and a hypothesis (i.e., that the original picture here featured Frank Marshall Davis, who was Photoshopped out and replaced with Ann Dunham) advanced to explain that anomaly.

    As is often the case, most of the attention goes to examining and explaining the anomaly. I prefer a different tack: pointing out that the explanatory hypothesis makes zero sense.

    Imagine, for the moment, that the Obama camp has a photo of young Barry that they’d like to release. But it has Frank Marshall Davis standing next to Obama. Now considering that the photo is exclusively in their possession, they could simply stick it in a drawer. But they figure the world really needs to see this picture, just minus Frank.

    So someone goes to the trouble of Photoshopping out Frank. He’s naturally not the same size and shape as Ann; in particular, he’s several inches taller. That means that the photoshopper would have had to paint in a lot of space above Ann’s head. Which seems to have been done pretty flawlessly.

    Now I imagine that most photoshoppers, if tasked with removing someone from a photo, would start with exactly that: removing the person from the photo. ALL OF HIM. Instead, the Birther hypothesis here is that MOST of Frank was Photoshopped out, but his hand was left in. And then the photoshopper added in Ann, being careful to match up Ann’s arm with Frank’s hand.

    WHY? There’s absolutely no rational reason why anyone would ever do that. Maybe if there was a random, inexplicable THIRD black hand hanging around the photo, that could be attributable to crappy photoshopping. A remnant left in. Like these: http://www.psdisasters.com/category/too-many-already

    But the Birther claim is that the forger was competent enough to flawlessly drop in Ann and paint in the space around here, that he was detail-oriented enough to match her arm to the pre-existing hand, but utterly INcompetent enough to simultaneously leave a preexisting hand in the photo in the first place for no reason. And not even bother to color-correct it.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 1, 2012 at 9:23 pm #

    Except this one. I took it myself:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Asheville-097.jpg

    However, birthers may have a point that SOME photos of Barack Obama are Photoshopped. I firmly believe that the photo in this article, for example, is altered to insert Obama:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/dr-conspiracy-concludes-obama-photoshopped-into-photo/

    And this story is about Obama being removed from a photo:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/jack-cashill-caught-with-his-pants/

    Sean: All photos of Obama are fake.

  17. avatar
    Great Kim August 1, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    I suggest we all declare it fake and have some fun. This is becoming so ridiculous

  18. avatar
    Loren August 1, 2012 at 9:31 pm #

    Sean:
    All photos of Obama are fake.

    All videos too. Obama is actually a digital creation, like in that movie “S1m0ne.”

    Neither I nor anyone I know has ever come into physical contact with the man. Even Doc C’s photograph isn’t proof. Why? One word: holograms.

  19. avatar
    Potter, J. August 1, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

    Loren: WHY? There’s absolutely no rational reason why anyone would ever do that.

    You forget that the forgers, being liberals, are careless, lazy, and stupid.

    Duh. 😉

    ________________

    I’m tempted to have some fun with this photo, have plenty of experience in transplanting people and places. Anyone have any suggestions?

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 1, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

    Perhaps a normal photoshopper would do that, but a birther photoshopper, removing Obama from this photo, forgot to remove his leg.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/wnd-20110407-obamaforgeryarrow.jpg

    This is the fake fake photo Jack Cashill was pimping.

    Loren: Now I imagine that most photoshoppers, if tasked with removing someone from a photo, would start with exactly that: removing the person from the photo.

  21. avatar
    Potter, J. August 1, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Except this one. I took it myself:

    Nice shot, Doc. I am camera-shopping (mine was stolen! Grrr.), the features in the new models have me drooling.

    I had forgotten about the hysterical Obama removed from grandparents photo. What an amateur job!

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 1, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

    Well, I think maybe you might put Jerome Corsi in the place of Stanley Dunham.

    Potter, J.: I’m tempted to have some fun with this photo, have plenty of experience in transplanting people and places. Anyone have any suggestions?

  23. avatar
    Scientist August 1, 2012 at 9:42 pm #

    The birthers have finally succeeded. This photo proves Obama is ineligible. Just look at him, there is no way he is 35.

  24. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 1, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Well, I think maybe you might put Jerome Corsi in the place of Stanley Dunham.

    Don’t put crazy ideas into my head, because I’m liable to follow through with them.

  25. avatar
    John Reilly August 1, 2012 at 10:01 pm #

    I checked out the photo on Adobe software. It has layers.

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 1, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    My favorite example of PhotoShop gone wrong is this actual publication from the University of Wisconsin. What were they thinking?

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PHO-10Sep22-253751.jpg

  27. avatar
    Joe Acerbic August 1, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

    Please put Corsi in Pennywise (the demon clown) makeup, so birfoons will use it as proof that Obama associates with eeeevil.

  28. avatar
    Potter, J. August 1, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    I have to repeat this one … birther troll Jack Osborne has his own theory on this photo. It makes the FM Davis theory look almost likely.

    Wacko Jacko asserts that the person originally in the photo is Raila Odinga. I kid you not. He is obsessed with Odinga for some reason.

    ” But what was Odinga doing in Hawaii in the early 1970s? ”
    [ WhocaresWhoknowsPleaseshutupObotdammit. ]
    It’s birf-obvious! The photo was taken in Indonesia, where every muslim socialist emanates from.

    ” Er, what was Odinga doing in Indonesia? ”
    [ Ohbequietgoddammit! ]
    Being all moooozlim-my, duh.

    As proof of his claim, he offers this photo (note the site he finds it on):

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2008/01/06/obamaodinga.jpg

    “See, they are wearing the same dress!”
    ” Ummm, Trolljack, that isn’t a ‘dress’, it isn’t the same cut, color, or pattern … ”
    [ EmptyObotmalarkey! ]

    “…. and you realize that photo was taken 35 years later, right?”

    “…. right, Trolljack?”

    “… right?”

    😉

  29. avatar
    Potter, J. August 1, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

    John Reilly: I checked out the photo on Adobe software. It has layers.

    Only as of version 3.0.

    Through 2.5 (Nov ’93) it is birfer-approved. Which is conveniently awesome, as it’s perfectly compatible with Win 3.11! 😀

    Stay away from “Deluxe CD-ROM” version. Lasers, like spellcheckers, are of the devil.

  30. avatar
    misha August 1, 2012 at 10:23 pm #

    Here’s my Photoshop disaster:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/05/taitz-makes-peace-with-obama.html

  31. avatar
    Potter, J. August 1, 2012 at 10:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well, I think maybe you might put Jerome Corsi in the place of Stanley Dunham.

    Hmmm … have any 1970s shots of Corsi?

    Cheney might be nice. I have been noticing his increasing resemblance to the Red Skull.

    Could actually put FM Davis in the photo, but do a hackjob, and see if the birfers go for it anyway. …. no, that wouldn’t be nice. Mr. Davis has been abused enough in this.

    Reagan! 😀

    Or Nixon, birfers and wingers in general love to try to pawn Nixon off on the Dems.

  32. avatar
    Majority Will August 1, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    My favorite example of PhotoShop gone wrong is this actual publication from the University of Wisconsin. What were they thinking?

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PHO-10Sep22-253751.jpg

    smh

  33. avatar
    Majority Will August 1, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

    Potter, J.: You forget that the forgers, being liberals, are careless, lazy, and stupid.

    Duh.

    ________________

    I’m tempted to have some fun with this photo, have plenty of experience in transplanting people and places. Anyone have any suggestions?

    John C. Drew (lmao)

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 1, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

    You could put Davis in, but leave Dunham’s foot. No, that would be just too dangerous.

    Potter, J.: Could actually put FM Davis in the photo, but do a hackjob, and see if the birfers go for it anyway. …. no, that wouldn’t be nice. Mr. Davis has been abused enough in this.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 1, 2012 at 11:23 pm #

    That was shot with a Canon T3 with an image-stabilized 250 mm zoom lens. The T3i has better resolution and does some flash control mine doesn’t. I like the lighter weight better than the Pro models I’ve held.

    Potter, J.: Nice shot, Doc. I am camera-shopping (mine was stolen! Grrr.), the features in the new models have me drooling.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 1, 2012 at 11:36 pm #

    Just this one:

    http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw7vbhXXrM1qeu6ilo1_400.jpg

    Potter, J.: Hmmm … have any 1970s shots of Corsi?

  37. avatar
    Sean August 1, 2012 at 11:42 pm #

    Bob:
    And who took the photo?And where’s the negative?

    The negative was faked too.

  38. avatar
    Randy August 1, 2012 at 11:42 pm #

    How about we photoshop Jack Cahill, Jerome Corsi and Orly on a bench with Obama. I mean fair is fair.

  39. avatar
    Potter, J. August 1, 2012 at 11:54 pm #

    C’mon now, as any birfer will tell you, forgery is serious business. Seriously.

  40. avatar
    Potter, J. August 1, 2012 at 11:55 pm #

    Sean: The negative was faked too.

    So was the photographer.

  41. avatar
    Potter, J. August 1, 2012 at 11:56 pm #

    Randy: How about we photoshop Jack Cahill, Jerome Corsi and Orly on a bench with Obama. I mean fair is fair.

    Only if Jerome gets to have his arm around Orly 😀

    ________________

    Birfer class photo? A spoof annual of birfers by year of first birf? Squeeky should be all over that.

  42. avatar
    misha August 2, 2012 at 12:04 am #

    Potter, J.: Hmmm … have any 1970s shots of Corsi?

    Dr. Conspiracy: Just this one: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw7vbhXXrM1qeu6ilo1_400.jpg

    Brilliant.

  43. avatar
    Sean August 2, 2012 at 12:28 am #

    I think this proves Obama’s real father was Nat Turner.

  44. avatar
    justlw August 2, 2012 at 12:34 am #

    Bob:
    And who took the photo?And where’s the negative?

    You’re lucky you still have your brown paper bag, small change.

  45. avatar
    y_p_w August 2, 2012 at 1:04 am #

    While of course this is just an extreme amount of shadow, there’s one question that’s just dying to be asked?

    What would be the point of placing Stanley Ann Dunham into this picture?

    It’s pretty well established that Stanley Ann Dunham is the mother of BHO II. Why they heck would anyone need to fake a photo of her with her son? If someone was just trying to cover up the existence of this photo, scanning it and then faking his mom is a lousy way to do it.

  46. avatar
    misha August 2, 2012 at 1:06 am #

    Sean: I think this proves Obama’s real father was Nat Turner.

    Anksthay orfay illingspay ethay eansbay.

  47. avatar
    GeorgetownJD August 2, 2012 at 2:03 am #

    Can you photoshop a morphing of Corsi into Jabba the Hut?

  48. avatar
    The Magic M August 2, 2012 at 5:00 am #

    > 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?

    Hate to play the devil’s advocate here, but blogs like “Photoshop Disasters” are full with sloppy work by technically competent graphics artists. I particularly remember one photo where a bank had a photo modified where several people sat on a table. They had their designer replace a white guy with a black guy (or the other way around, don’t remember) but the designer just changed the head (flawlessly) but forgot to change the hands.
    And nobody noticed, obviously, neither people from the agency nor the client nor the publisher nor…
    These things make it into print/publication despite at least a dozen people being involved after the image left the artist’s desk. It’s like buying “Harry Potter” and finding a typo on the first page.

    I’m just saying that “no-one would be this stupid” is never a good argument to rebut “it’s forged”. That’s why you and others provided solid evidence that layers on Obama’s BC had a rational explanation – you didn’t just go “nobody would be so stupid as to leave layers from Photoshop in there, case closed”.

  49. avatar
    Northland10 August 2, 2012 at 6:23 am #

    Randy:
    How about we photoshop Jack Cahill, Jerome Corsi and Orly on a bench with Obama.I mean fair is fair.

    Or maybe just Obama’s knee.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 2, 2012 at 8:27 am #

    Or perhaps a Cashill/Corsi wedding photo.

    Randy: How about we photoshop Jack Cahill, Jerome Corsi and Orly on a bench with Obama. I mean fair is fair.

  51. avatar
    El Diablo Negro August 2, 2012 at 8:32 am #

    or it could be Ike Turner…but Michelle would have to learn how to bob & weave.

    Sean: I think this proves Obama’s real father was Nat Turner

  52. avatar
    bovril August 2, 2012 at 8:39 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Or perhaps a Cashill/Corsi wedding photo.

    Corsi in a scarlet dress to go with his apopleptic face as well as denoting his media-whore status

  53. avatar
    JPotter August 2, 2012 at 8:43 am #

    GeorgetownJD:
    Can you photoshop a morphing of Corsi into Jabba the Hut?

    Sure, it took all night, but it’s perfect. Very subtle tho.

  54. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 2, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    GeorgetownJD:
    Can you photoshop a morphing of Corsi into Jabba the Hut?

    “Bring me Zullo and Arpaio! They will pay for this outrage!!!”

  55. avatar
    Bill Maher August 2, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    The racist birthers would say that’s what happens when white girls give too many hand jobs to black folk!

    politically incorrect on hbo.

  56. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater August 2, 2012 at 11:38 am #

    JPotter: Sure, it took all night, but it’s perfect. Very subtle tho.

    Jabba see no truth in the honkabee

  57. avatar
    Lupin August 2, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    May I say, with all the respect required, that Stanley Ann Durham was HOT!

  58. avatar
    richCares August 2, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    Can you photoshop a morphing of Corsi into Jabba the Hut?
    .
    No need, fat little ugly Corsi is already there!

  59. avatar
    sfjeff August 2, 2012 at 12:01 pm #

    I love everyone’s comments, but I have a real question.

    I am not going to go wading through WND or Corsi’s dreck to figure it out, but I know some of you have already held your nose and done so.

    Where did they get the photo from? I would assume it was released by Obama or his campaign at some point- can we see the version that was released rather than the one promoted by Corsi and WND?

    Of course none of this makes sense to any rational person. Which is why it is perfect for Corsi and WND.

  60. avatar
    Thrifty August 2, 2012 at 12:05 pm #

    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.

    Oh for Christ’s sake. A photo is inconsistent because someone looks different than her actual age? How old you look is completely subjective. My best friend is 41, but she looks like she’s in her 20s. The first time I met her, I guessed she was about 10 years younger than she actually was, and was surprised to learn her correct age.

    Some folks, conversely, look much older than they actually are. This is usually due to repeated exposure to a harsh environment.

  61. avatar
    justlw August 2, 2012 at 12:10 pm #

    sfjeff: can we see the version that was released rather than the one promoted by Corsi and WND?

    It’s on Obama’s Facebook page. Direct link: https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/179728_10150902091511749_1705550623_n.jpg

  62. avatar
    G August 2, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

    ROTFLMAO!!! 😉

    Bill Maher: The racist birthers would say that’s what happens when white girls give too many hand jobs to black folk!politically incorrect on hbo.

  63. avatar
    HellT August 2, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    I’m tempted to have some fun with this photo, have plenty of experience in transplanting people and places. Anyone have any suggestions?

    Well, since they’re obsessed with the idea that Ann was replaced by a black man, and that black man is actually Barack’s REAL father, it’s obvious who belongs in that photo:

    Darth Vader.

  64. avatar
    Potter, J. August 2, 2012 at 7:08 pm #

    HellT: Darth Vader.

    Replace Obama with Anakin, and throw in the shadow to boot!

  65. avatar
    foreigner August 3, 2012 at 12:07 am #

    light is coming from the left windows which can be seen in the curvature of the left seat.
    With one smaller source of light almost directly from above making the shadow
    of Ann’s dress on the floor.
    There is a light/shadow border line on Stanley sr.’s hand, two on his shirt,
    one through little girl’s face.
    Where does that light come from ?
    I speculate the topright-bottomleft line on Stanley’s hand comes from Ann’s
    collar, going between Ann and Barack. What other line could give a shadow
    in that direction ?
    I see 3 triangular structures on Stanley’s shirt, 2 light one dark.
    With one almost horizontal line in the middle
    Gilbert should test it with puppets

  66. avatar
    JPotter August 3, 2012 at 12:42 am #

    GeorgetownJD: Can you photoshop a morphing of Corsi into Jabba the Hut?

    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BwbVB7E55h6GRmdFTjhrTWhrbGs
    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BwbVB7E55h6GeTRkZ1JZckR4Z0U
    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BwbVB7E55h6GSTdHR3RSQnJGeEk

    They’re all the same, .mov, .avi, .swf, in that order. Hope the lame google links work; my lazy self need to set up a web domain again.

  67. avatar
    JPotter August 3, 2012 at 12:43 am #

    foreigner: Gilbert should test it with puppets

    That’s where you come in, bubba.

  68. avatar
    Rickey August 3, 2012 at 1:03 am #

    foreigner:
    Gilbert should test it with puppets

    Did you know that one of Gilbert’s documentaries claims that Elvis is still alive, and another claims that Paul McCartney was killed in an auto accident in 1966?

  69. avatar
    misha August 3, 2012 at 1:10 am #

    Rickey: Did you know that one of Gilbert’s documentaries claims that Elvis is still alive

    It’s true. I saw Elvis in the frozen food aisle.

  70. avatar
    linda August 3, 2012 at 2:28 am #

    You are right, she was.

    Lupin: May I say, with all the respect required, that Stanley Ann Durham was HOT!

  71. avatar
    Keith August 3, 2012 at 4:22 am #

    Rickey: another claims that Paul McCartney was killed in an auto accident in 1966?

    Whaddyya mean, ‘claims’?

    “He blew his mind out in a car”, haven;t you been listening to the words?

    And haven’t you seen the butcher cover?

    And he is barefoot on Abbey Road for cryin’ out loud!

    Everybody knows the guy calling himself McCartney today is an impostor named William Campbell.

    How can you be breathing and not know this stuff?

  72. avatar
    Lupin August 3, 2012 at 4:23 am #

    linda: You are right, she was.

    Lupin: May I say, with all the respect required, that Stanley Ann Durham was HOT!

    I wish I was [number redacted] years younger. 🙂

  73. avatar
    foreigner August 3, 2012 at 5:43 am #

    Nikolakakis’ analysis looks incomplete to me.
    He didn’t examine the shadows on Stanley sr.’s shirt and right hand at all.
    Supposed to come from Dunham or Davis.
    Nor the shadows on the floor.
    The shadows in the faces, i.e. caused by noses are consistent
    with the light source from the (upper,front) left

    Robert Nikolakakis looks more like an artist than a forensic expert.
    http://www.robniko.com/

  74. avatar
    Majority Will August 3, 2012 at 7:22 am #

    JPotter: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BwbVB7E55h6GRmdFTjhrTWhrbGs
    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BwbVB7E55h6GeTRkZ1JZckR4Z0U
    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BwbVB7E55h6GSTdHR3RSQnJGeEk

    They’re all the same, .mov, .avi, .swf, in that order. Hope the lame google links work; my lazy self need to set up a web domain again.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !

    Excellent work!

  75. avatar
    Rickey August 3, 2012 at 12:05 pm #

    Bob:
    And who took the photo?And where’s the negative?

    The photo was most likely taken by Obama’s grandmother, since she isn’t in the photo.

    As for the negative, show me your collection of negatives from the seventies and I’ll show you mine. It shouldn’t take us long.

  76. avatar
    justlw August 3, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

    misha: It’s true. I saw Elvis in the frozen food aisle.

    Are you sure it wasn’t Eddie?

    “That’s a rather tender subject.”

  77. avatar
    Jody August 3, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    The alleged brown hand doesn’t look like a hand to me at all, but a brown leather clutch purse. You can see that neither of her shoulders has a shoulder strap, so any purse that she is carrying has to be a clutch purse. I’d say it’s probably the kind that is only about twice the length of her hand because a larger one would be tucked under her arm.

  78. avatar
    Majority Will August 3, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Jody:
    The alleged brown hand doesn’t look like a hand to me at all, but a brown leather clutch purse. You can see that neither of her shoulders has a shoulder strap, so any purse that she is carrying has to be a clutch purse. I’d say it’s probably the kind that is only about twice the length of her hand because a larger one would be tucked under her arm.

    Or it could be the “nuclear football”. Now there’s a conspiracy. 😉

  79. avatar
    justlw August 3, 2012 at 5:54 pm #

    Jody: he alleged brown hand doesn’t look like a hand to me at all, but a brown leather clutch purse.

    Whoa. It does. If you look at original photo, sans any of the color hackery, you can see a little shiny dot on its top, underneath the middle of the big blue stripe on Barack’s sleeve — right where a metal clasp might be.

  80. avatar
    Keith August 3, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    Rickey: The photo was most likely taken by Obama’s grandmother, since she isn’t in the photo.

    As for the negative, show me your collection of negatives from the seventies and I’ll show you mine. It shouldn’t take us long.

    I’ve got all mine.

  81. avatar
    Keith August 3, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

    justlw: Are you sure it wasn’t Eddie?

    “That’s a rather tender subject.”

    Yeah. What DID ever happen to Saturday night?

  82. avatar
    Keith August 3, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    justlw: — right where a metal clasp might be

    …or a watch… but I agree, it could be a clutch bag.

  83. avatar
    Majority Will August 3, 2012 at 6:49 pm #

    Keith: …or a watch… but I agree, it could be a clutch bag.

    Or it could be a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl.

  84. avatar
    Rickey August 3, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    Keith: I’ve got all mine.

    Really? You must be a serious photographer!

  85. avatar
    Keith August 4, 2012 at 2:07 am #

    Rickey: Really? You must be a serious photographer!

    Nope. I just kept stashing them into a shoebox or something. I just don’t throw stuff like that out.

    Actually my pics are almost all from the 60’s when I was touring the country with the Tucson Boys Chorus. I actually have very few photos from the 70’s, I just didn’t take any. I often lament that I have no photos at all of when my hair was down past my waist, especially now that I don’t have hardly any hair at all.

  86. avatar
    nbc August 4, 2012 at 2:10 am #

    See some of my rebuttals here. Many of these ‘indicators of fraud are trivially explained. Funny that the CCP never considered them.

    Sloppy? Perhaps just irresponsible

  87. avatar
    foreigner August 4, 2012 at 11:02 am #

    the big white thing isn’t Ann’s bag ?
    Maybe flowers in her right hand ?

  88. avatar
    Fracus August 4, 2012 at 11:27 am #

    I think you should be focusing on the dust in the crack on the floor. Using fractal forensics, I believe you’ll discover some intriguing anomalies.

    foreigner:
    the big white thing isn’t Ann’s bag ?
    Maybe flowers in her right hand ?

  89. avatar
    JPotter August 5, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    HellT: Well, since they’re obsessed with the idea that Ann was replaced by a black man, and that black man is actually Barack’s REAL father, it’s obvious who belongs in that photo:

    Darth Vader.

    He may be Vader someday later ….
    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BwbVB7E55h6GRHRrUlRXYU1iMDg

  90. avatar
    misha August 5, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    JPotter: that black man is actually Barack’s REAL father, it’s obvious who belongs in that photo: Darth Vader.

    True story: Darth Vader was voiced by James Earl Jones, who was unaccredited. Jones ethnically is a black Indian.

    The plot thickens…

  91. avatar
    JPotter August 5, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

    misha: Jones ethnically is a black Indian.

    All we need is for someone to come along and corrupt that to “black indonesian” …