White House using stitched photos?
Annika1980
stitched.
And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?
Hans Kruse
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2c2b8ca1-204a-4284...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Where is the stitching done? Maybe it is so obvious that I don't see it.
--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com
Dave Cohen
> "Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:2c2b8ca1-204a-4284...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
>> stitched.
>> And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454
>
> Where is the stitching done? Maybe it is so obvious that I don't see it.
>
Stitching was done on the op's head. They didn't do a very good job and
every now and then a little bit of garbage oozes out and contaminates
the ng.
Dave Cohen
Hans Kruse
"Dave Cohen" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:gtcn9d$do2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Stitching was done on the op's head. They didn't do a very good job and
> every now and then a little bit of garbage oozes out and contaminates the
> ng.
Ah, what stitching software is used?
George Kerby
On 4/30/09 10:58 AM, in article
2c2b8ca1-204a-4284...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com,
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
You voted for the doofis. Did you believe?
Scott W
I can see where you might think there is a stitch line, but I really
don't think the image was stitched.
My only problem with the photo is that it was edited on a Mac (just
kidding, well mostly).
Xxxxx
hide the fact that Obama is a communist.
But, seriously... even if there is a stitch line... what's the point? Who
gives a shit?
The more serious problem with this photo is the fact that they're both
wearing long sleeve shirts and ties. That's unacceptable, IMO.
--
nadie
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2c2b8ca1-204a-4284...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Rich
> I do see an artifact that might be a stitch line. Clearly, this was done to
> hide the fact that Obama is a communist.
>
> But, seriously... even if there is a stitch line... what's the point? Who
> gives a shit?
>
> The more serious problem with this photo is the fact that they're both
> wearing long sleeve shirts and ties. That's unacceptable, IMO.
>
> --
>
> news:2c2b8ca1-204a-4284...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
> > stitched.
> > And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454
As one commenter said, Obama is breaking his wrists. Golf lessons...
Charles
"Xxxxx" <Not_gon...@all.com> wrote in message
news:_BpKl.3758$b11...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>I do see an artifact that might be a stitch line. Clearly, this was done to
>hide the fact that Obama is a communist.
>
> But, seriously... even if there is a stitch line... what's the point? Who
> gives a shit?
Not me.
> The more serious problem with this photo is the fact that they're both
> wearing long sleeve shirts and ties. That's unacceptable, IMO.
It's a dumb shot, but that's just me.
Annika1980
> Where is the stitching done? Maybe it is so obvious that I don't see it.
First look at the Large size photo.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454/sizes/l/
Notice the line down the tree in the background where the tree changes
colors. This line continues down into the grass.
Now look at the photo at it's original size.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454/sizes/o/
You can clearly see where the photos have been joined.
My guess is that either Obama and Biden weren't there at the same
moment or somebody else was there that was taken out. And who's
shadow is that to the right?
And what is Obama putting to?
Ron Hunter
I get the impression that they weren't on the green at the same time,
but the shadows indicate that they were there at nearly the same time.
It may be that someone, or something, was masked out as the stitching
seems to end at the edge of the greens grass. Could be more of an edit
than a stitch.
Savageduck
> On Apr 30, 12:12�pm, "Hans Kruse" <hans.kr...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>
>> Where is the stitching done? Maybe it is so obvious that I don't see it.
>
> First look at the Large size photo.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454/sizes/l/
OK!
>
> Notice the line down the tree in the background where the tree changes
> colors. This line continues down into the grass.
Now you are seeing thingss. There are two different trees. The nly
straight line is a building in the background , and the line does not
continue into the grass as much as you would have us accept.
>
> Now look at the photo at it's original size.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454/sizes/o/
OK1
>
> You can clearly see where the photos have been joined.
Not even here. It just confirms what I noted before. If you suggest you
see something and make enough people believe you then it becomes that
mythical "Madonna image od burnt toast."
>
> My guess is that either Obama and Biden weren't there at the same
> moment or somebody else was there that was taken out. And who's
> shadow is that to the right?
Aaah! to the right of the third ball. Over on the grassy knoll. My
guess is the mysterious third putter or more likely another tree.
A fine example of bad cropping
> And what is Obama putting to?
A dumb photo-op.
There was as much thought put into this as the NYC fly-by photo shoot.
It was probably planned by the same PR idiot who should be looking for
a job right now. Just a stupid posed scene. It is stupid on so many
levels, probably not in anyway conspiratorial, but undeniably stupid.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bob Larter
> On Apr 30, 12:12 pm, "Hans Kruse" <hans.kr...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>
>> Where is the stitching done? Maybe it is so obvious that I don't see it.
>
> First look at the Large size photo.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454/sizes/l/
>
> Notice the line down the tree in the background where the tree changes
> colors. This line continues down into the grass.
I can't see a "line" at all, let alone one in the grass.
> Now look at the photo at it's original size.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454/sizes/o/
>
> You can clearly see where the photos have been joined.
>
> My guess is that either Obama and Biden weren't there at the same
> moment or somebody else was there that was taken out. And who's
> shadow is that to the right?
Look at it closely, it's obviously the shadow of a branch.
> And what is Obama putting to?
A hole in the ground, presumably, out of shot.
I think you're imagining things.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartram
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote
> Look at it closely, it's obviously the shadow of a branch.
Can't see a tree there on any aerial views of the White house I've found so
far. More likely it is the shadow of a Secret Service guy *disguised* as a
tree!
Actually, I haven't yet found a view that includes a putting green - they
all just show one neatly-mown lawn, although the WH has had a putting green
since the Johnson days. Maybe they didn't maintain it as one until Obama
took over? Unlikely they ever let Bush loose with a dangerous weapon like a
golf club...
Paul
Savageduck
lizzy.com.au> said:
>
> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Look at it closely, it's obviously the shadow of a branch.
>
> Can't see a tree there on any aerial views of the White house I've found so
> far. More likely it is the shadow of a Secret Service guy *disguised* as a
> tree!
I have to agree.
That is a South Lawn view, confirmed by the South facing of the WH and
the awning extending out of the building. There is no tree anywhere
near that area on the lawn. So the shadow is certainly a third party.
>
> Actually, I haven't yet found a view that includes a putting green - they
> all just show one neatly-mown lawn, although the WH has had a putting green
> since the Johnson days. Maybe they didn't maintain it as one until Obama
> took over? Unlikely they ever let Bush loose with a dangerous weapon like a
> golf club...
Google Earth shows it as 2009 imagery, but who knows?
The line of the building visible between the trees, appears to be part
of the East Wing.
>
> Paul
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bill Graham
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2c2b8ca1-204a-4284...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps, but it sure is change we are paying for.......
Twibil
>
> > And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454
>
> Perhaps, but it sure is change we are paying for.......
Can you name one government, any time, anywhere, that has operated
without cost?
Taxes have been a reality of life ever since Og figured out that since
he was the biggest guy in the cave community he could collect a
healthy percentage of his neighbor's property by simply threatening to
crush the skull of anyone who objected.
The main difference between then and now is that we get F-22s -and
some other stuff- for our money instead of watching Og take our
property *and* our women with no recompense whatsoever
Twibil
lizzy.com.au> wrote:
>
> Actually, I haven't yet found a view that includes a putting green - they
> all just show one neatly-mown lawn, although the WH has had a putting green
> since the Johnson days.
Google Earth shows one clearly, and located right where the picture
was taken too. However, it also shows a tree bordering/overhanging the
golf green that is apparently no longer there.
This should be no great surprise, as the Google Earth pics of *my*
house were apparently taken clear back in 2006 and there's no reasion
to suspect that the White House pics were taken any more recently.
~Pete
Twibil
wrote:
>
> Google Earth shows it as 2009 imagery, but who knows?
I do. And 2009 is the copyright date. But if you look down about
halfway to the right on the lower edge of the Google Earth screen you
will find the photo's titular date: 2002.
This is not surprising, as a lot of Google Earth's shots are several
years out of date (the pic featuring my house is dated 2003) and there
may well be security reasons for not keeping everything right up to
date on the White House photos anyway.
Matter of fact, I'd be a little surprised if a few of the White
House's less-publicised security features have not been either erased
or carefully distorted to mislead potential troublemakers.
~Pete
tn...@mucks.net
And if you look long enough you'll also see a UFO and Damien staring
out the window.
Paul Bartram
> "Twibil" <noway...@gmail.com> wrote
> Google Earth shows one clearly, and located right where the picture
was taken too. However, it also shows a tree bordering/overhanging the
golf green that is apparently no longer there.
Ah, now I see it. (I didn't use GE at first, it takes forever to load on
dialup!) The green is further away from the building than I thought, the
picture we're talking about makes it look a lot closer.
Paul
Bob Larter
> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Look at it closely, it's obviously the shadow of a branch.
>
> Can't see a tree there on any aerial views of the White house I've found so
> far. More likely it is the shadow of a Secret Service guy *disguised* as a
> tree!
Of course! *cough*
> Actually, I haven't yet found a view that includes a putting green - they
> all just show one neatly-mown lawn, although the WH has had a putting green
> since the Johnson days. Maybe they didn't maintain it as one until Obama
> took over? Unlikely they ever let Bush loose with a dangerous weapon like a
> golf club...
Indeed.
Bob Larter
Well, I'm sure that Brett can see them. ;^)
K W Hart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a painting of the signing of the Declaration of Indenpendence which
also appears on the back of the $2 bill. There are about a half dozen people
in that painting who weren't at the signing. Additionally, there are about a
half dozen people who were at the signing who aren't in the painting.
My point? Who cares! It's the spirit or intent of the picture that counts.
Pat
> On 2009-04-30 22:11:16 -0700, "Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR
> lizzy.com.au> said:
>
>
>
>
> >> Look at it closely, it's obviously the shadow of a branch.
>
> > Can't see a tree there on any aerial views of the White house I've found so
> > far. More likely it is the shadow of a Secret Service guy *disguised* as a
> > tree!
>
> I have to agree.
> That is a South Lawn view, confirmed by the South facing of the WH and
> the awning extending out of the building. There is no tree anywhere
> near that area on the lawn. So the shadow is certainly a third party.
You win the award for stating the obvious. Anyone who ever thought it
was a tree or Secret Service agent or anything like that doesn't know
enough about photo analysis to comment on the picture. Not all photo
analysis involves analyzing photos. Sometimes you just have to use a
bit of old-fashioned common sense. It is completely obvious what the
shadow is ... dramatic pause ... it is the person who owns the third
golf ball !!! That is the obvious thing in the photo.
The only thing I thought there were only two unusual elements to the
picture, which you-all missed: first, the President of the United
States is using a Nike golf club. Second, no one put a piece of tape
over the logo so he isn't seen as endorsing Nike.
Alan Browne
> On Apr 30, 12:12 pm, "Hans Kruse" <hans.kr...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>
>> Where is the stitching done? Maybe it is so obvious that I don't see it.
>
> First look at the Large size photo.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454/sizes/l/
>
> Notice the line down the tree in the background where the tree changes
> colors.
Seems to be the contrast of the corner of a building in the BG.
> This line continues down into the grass.
Coincidence in where a flaw in the grass occurs.
>
> Now look at the photo at it's original size.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454/sizes/o/
>
> You can clearly see where the photos have been joined.
Really? I see the contrast of the corner of a building in the far BG
and a bit of hedge and grass than needs some TLC.
>
> My guess is that either Obama and Biden weren't there at the same
> moment or somebody else was there that was taken out. And who's
> shadow is that to the right?
That! That! That? It's the following: "a shadow to the right." A
tree or photographer or Republican who's not allowed to be in the photo.
> And what is Obama putting to?
Multiple holes on a putting practice green is not unusual.
I'm sure the White House has better things to risk a "photo manipulation
scandal" on.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Alan Browne
> There is a painting of the signing of the Declaration of Indenpendence which
> also appears on the back of the $2 bill. There are about a half dozen people
> in that painting who weren't at the signing. Additionally, there are about a
> half dozen people who were at the signing who aren't in the painting.
There was no such signing at all. The DoI as a legal instrument was
published in newspapers. THAT is the DoI.
The "famous document" and signing was an afterthought that occurred over
a month later for posterity's sake.
Could you get a newsreader that inserts proper quote/attribution marks?
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> And what is Obama putting to?
>
>Multiple holes on a putting practice green is not unusual.
It is, in fact, the usual configuration.
>I'm sure the White House has better things to risk a "photo manipulation
>scandal" on.
Let's say for a minute that it *is* Photoshopped, stitched, and
manipulated seven ways from the middle. What would be scandalous
about it?
Now if the Republicans came up with a similar photo with Chavez
Photoshopped in as Obama's putting partner, *that* would be
scandalous.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Twibil
>
> Now if the Republicans came up with a similar photo with Chavez
> Photoshopped in as Obama's putting partner, *that* would be
> scandalous.
You mean they haven't yet?
Someone's falling down on the job at Faux News.
~Pete
Bill Graham
"Twibil" <noway...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1bbc4b75-86a3-45e2...@q33g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Ten to the 12th divided by 300 million is 33,333. That's how much every
person in the USA will have to pay for what the democrats have spent in just
the first 100 days......I think I'll go with Og.
jaf
The aerial view clearly shows a large tree at both corners of the White House's south side.
The putting green is below & left of the center of the building, about even with the pool. As someone else mentioned a tree at the
top of the green has been removed since the aerial shot was taken.
I tried to get a birds eye view at maps.live.com but the Homeland Excuses Dept. has pixilated it to spread paranoia.
Here is a digital model view http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/model/white-house-overview_big.jpg
You can see the trees but they don't appear to be scale in this view.
In this one http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/model/presidents-park.htm the trees are obvious.
More obvious here. http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/grounds.htm
John
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message news:2c2b8ca1-204a-4284...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
> stitched.
tony cooper
wrote:
That is such bullshit logic. That's like saying you're spending
$30,000 a month on automobile expenses because you purchased a new
automobile that month.
J�rgen Exner
>This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
>stitched.
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454
So, let me understand this right:
People are yelling because the White House did _NOT_ photoshop Air Force
One over New York and people are yelling because the White House _DID_
(supposedly) photoshop another photo?
jue
Savageduck
> Personally I think you're all on drugs.
>
> The aerial view clearly shows a large tree at both corners of the White
> House's south side.
>
> The putting green is below & left of the center of the building, about
> even with the pool. As someone else mentioned a tree at the top of the
> green has been removed since the aerial shot was taken.
>
> I tried to get a birds eye view at maps.live.com but the Homeland
> Excuses Dept. has pixilated it to spread paranoia.
>
> Here is a digital model view
> http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/model/white-house-overview_big.jpg
> You can see the trees but they don't appear to be scale in this view.
>
> In this one http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/model/presidents-park.htm
> the trees are obvious.
>
> More obvious here. http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/grounds.htm
>
>
> John
On closer Google Earth inspection of the 2002b image this is what I
have coe up with:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/WH_Southlawn.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
Not "people". Annika. And he's not even yelling.
Bill Graham
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0dtmv4ldd1lv5a45b...@4ax.com...
Demos add another trillion in the first 100 days, then just how do you want
me to figure it out? Anyway you look at it, someone, sometime, is going to
have to pay that debt off. And, in the meantime, we are going to have to pay
the interest on that debt off every year until it gets paid off. The
question one has to ask, is just what percentage of one's annual income does
one want to pay in interest every month, in order to keep up with ones
debt......IOW, is it OK to spend 10% of your paycheck out in interest on
your outstanding debt? And if so, how about 30%.......How about 50%. At some
point, you will spend most of your time working for the people who loaned
you money in the past. I don't think worrying about this is, "faulty logic".
Sure, some of the trillion we just spent will be of some long term benefit,
and I don't expect us to be spending a trillion every 100 days. But the debt
is still there, and it cuts into our monthly living expenses, just as your
outstanding credit card debt cuts into your monthly expenses. And the less
we pay off today, the more our children will have to pay tomorrow. Right
now, every child born in the USA is born with an original debt of well over
$30,000. By the time he/she spends 40 years working here, he will have spent
more than ten times that in interest alone on what he owes. My father would
be horrified were he alive today. I am horrified myself. I was taught to pay
off my credit cards every month. I wish someone would teach that to my
government.
David Nebenzahl
> "Dave Cohen" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:gtcn9d$do2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> Stitching was done on the op's head. They didn't do a very good job and
>> every now and then a little bit of garbage oozes out and contaminates the
>> ng.
>
> Ah, what stitching software is used?
NumbSkull 2.1.
--
Save the Planet
Kill Yourself
- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)
Twibil
>
> Ten to the 12th divided by 300 million is 33,333. That's how much every
> person in the USA will have to pay for what the democrats have spent in just
> the first 100 days......
Odd how you left out the part about all the Republican deficit
spending that took place before the Democrats came to power.
No doubt an unitentional oversight on your part.
> I think I'll go with Og.
There's your problem: you think you've got a choice.
Twibil
>
> So, let me understand this right:
>
> People are yelling because the White House did _NOT_ photoshop Air Force
> One over New York and people are yelling because the White House _DID_
> (supposedly) photoshop another photo?
Yup. Pegged it in one.
You didn't *really* expect logic to prevail in a political discussion,
did you?
~Pete
Bill Graham
Actually, I figured it wrong. The democrats only added around a trillion to
a debt that was already around ten trillion. So the new debt is around 11
trillion. This works out to around 30 thousand for every person in the US.
And, of course it is an accumulated debt from both Republican as well as
democratic administrations. But the Democrats have added a trillion in just
the last 100 days, which is a fantastic amount in a very short time. they
have used the real estate bubble burst as an excuse to add another trillion
to the national debt. And, the real estate bubble was their fault to begin
with, since they are the ones who insisted that Fannie may and Freddie Mac
underwrite loans to people who couldn't afford to buy houses to begin with.
Don't forget that the Democrats have controlled both houses of congress for
the last two years. Bush warned congress about the real estate bubble over
two years ago. They paid no attention to, "Bubba" because he didn't speak
with the polished smoothness of a Clintononian democrat. So, nothing he said
was worth listening to by people whose mission in life is to give the ball
park away to the visiting team. Now, people like me, who spent our lives
working and saving for our retirement are suffering for it. - Thanks,
guys........maybe I can figure out some way to return the favor in another
life...........
C J Campbell
> This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
> stitched.
> And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454
This is all part of the conspiracy to cover up the fact that Obama does
not actually exist. He is just a digital construct. Public appearances
are paid actors.
This is nothing new. The country has been run by 14 foot tall alien
reptiles ever since they replaced Jimmy Carter with a computer image
during the last two years of his term. Every President since then, as
well as almost all Presidential candidates, members of Congress, and
most governors have been nothing but digital images.
This also explains why we have had such crap politicians for the last
25 years or so. The aliens tried digitizing politicians who were not
totally ignorant on every subject, but found that the American public
would not elect them.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Savageduck
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> said:
...but just who was on the grassy knoll?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Question Quigley
"Hans Kruse" <hans....@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:49fa0ef9$0$90262$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> "Dave Cohen" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:gtcn9d$do2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> Stitching was done on the op's head. They didn't do a very good job and
>> every now and then a little bit of garbage oozes out and contaminates the
>> ng.
>
> Ah, what stitching software is used?
>
> --
> Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
> Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com
>
>
>
>
Frank ess
Heh.
Bill Graham
"C J Campbell" <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009050206385750073-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
But what kind of alien would be intelligent enough to build a spaceship that
was capable of traveling all those light years through space to get here,
and then be dumb enough to want to be a US President?
charles
wrote:
>
It wasn't by choice, it was punishment given out for a violation of
alien's ethics.