Snapped Shot

I didn't have time to put it together when this post was originally written, but now, thanks to a few spare minutes in Photoshop, I am proud to present you with:

A Field Guide to Identifying Republican Women

If any of you have seen the photograph of Sarah Palin in a bikini floating around, be aware that it's a total fabrication.

Details here. (h/t Jay@STACLU)

Update: Could all of these smears be an orchestrated effort by the Obama campaign? Jim H. over at Gateway Pundit lays out some convincing evidence about some of them, at least.

SNObama 2008: Start the smears!

The Toledo Blade has responded. I won't quote verbatim, but if I may summarize their findings:

1. I'm a reckless boob. [Ed:—No argument there!]
2. The Director of Photography was involved in selecting photos on the day of the shoot, and didn't see anything unusual at the time.
3. They have internally done a frame-by-frame analysis, and the photo in question is in line with the rest of the shots from on-scene.
4. No alterations were visible in any of the shots.
5. Mr. Wadsworth used: Canon 5D 16-35mm zoom f/2.8 lens.
6. Image originally recorded in RAW format, resulting in 30mb file per-frame.
7. Oddities in photo related to high field-of-view. [Ed.:—combined with absolutely awful image resizing software. Might want to upgrade that, Luann!]
8. We were caught in the past, so we'll admit it if we get caught again. [Ed.:—Not sure about the logic on that one]
9. And, last but not least:
   We're gonna sue you! [Ed.:—Sigh. Never heard that one before...]

I'm satisfied by their technical answer, and as I had said from the beginning, this was nothing that was a "sure" thing. As such, I do offer my deepest apologies to Jeremy Wadsworth for this, and trust that his reputation will not be affected in the least by someone as insignificant as myself. (Besides which, judging by his bio photo, he'd beat me up right quick on any given day!)

My hat's off to the Blade's editorial staff for their quick (if not intellectually violent) response. And, should their Counsel come calling, please notice that my current net worth can be summarized thusly (see illustration).

Update: From the "You Ever See A Story Come Apart Like That?" department:—Rhonda Shearer of the Art Science Research Laboratory has been in touch with the Steele family regarding this photo. The verdict?

Yeah, you guessed it:—It is completely genuine, and it depicts exactly what they saw when they were in hospital.

It doesn't make me feel any better, but my thanks are due to Ms. Shearer for getting that cleared up with a bit of that old-fashioned "investigative" journalism.

(Maybe I'll have to try that out one of these days.) Continue reading »

Wow, who would've guessed that fearmongering global warming advocates would have to stoop to using Photoshopped flood images in order to provide "evidence" to support their cause?



As Anthony Watts points out, this photo is available for licensing from iStockPhoto (and for the record, I did pay for the photo you see above), complete with the following disclaimer:

Photo of house under several feet of graphically-rendered flood waters.

Why bother investigating things "scientifically," when you can just whip the public into a fear-induced green frenzy?

I'll echo what Mr. Watts said (emphasis and links mine):

But the real question is, with so many different photos of real flooded houses available, why did they choose one that was not real? Surely they know such a report will be highly scrutinized?

...if principal National Climatic Data Center authors Dr.’s Thomas Karl and Peterson can’t even bother to check if the photos they use are real or not, or even spot such obvious fakes, it makes one wonder just how much fact checking went into the other parts of the report.

Cool—Greetings again, fellow Michelle Malkin fans! Be sure to click here for the latest updates and dictatorial hilarity!

Who would've thunk it, but many of the pictures released by the Iranian government have now been proven to be complete forgeries. Like this one, for example:



As Arash Kamangir points out, the photographic evidence presented by at least some reports is years old. Suitably Flip commenter Jono points out that there are only three missiles present in the original picture, and now that you mention it, the middle two missiles appear to be clones of each other, with pretty amateurish cloning to create the launch signature of the third from the left.

An Iranian dictatorship... lying? Impossible.

Many thanks to Charles Johnson for pointing this latest fauxtography out. Even though there's a "Curses, Foiled Again!" thrown in because he beat me to it yet again.

Update: Moved all of the irrelevant data below the fold. Here's what really matters:—Agence France-Presse has retracted the image, and has posted this combo illustrating exactly how the image was modified, which I'm very gladly posting here under license:



Digitally altered, indeed. In fact, one could say that this is a photoshop... disaster.

Nothing says it like a Patented LGF Throbbing GIF, no?



The Obama campaign just called. Apparently, they'll be announcing that Obama supports opening a channel of diplomacy with the airbrushed rocket, immediately, so we can "better understand" how our Western understanding of ideas like "Truth" and "Accuracy" have hurt its feelings and caused it immense anger towards America.



Update: In a move that will surprise nobody, we discover the the New York Times is claiming full credit for this discovery. Heh, I'm sure that's ethical, right?

(And sorry for filling up your mailbox, Ace. It's what I do the bestest! )

See-Also:

EU Referendum, Pat Dollard, Blackfive, Pirate's Cove, Confederate Yankee, Geenstijl, Ace of Spades, Gateway Pundit, A Blog For All 2, Sweetness & Light, GOP and College, Jihad Watch, CAMERA Snapshots (No relation), Prairie Pundit, What the Crap?, In from the Cold

Continue reading »

I found this photoshopped gem at Common Sense Against Islam:

I'm going to post this picture directly for two reasons: One, I think the image has been manipulated, and would love to hear from the rest of you as to whether or not you concur. Two, as I mentioned previously, I do not acknowledge the copyright claims of terrorists.

So, with that disclaimer in mind, I'd like for you to consider the following picture. Pay particular attention to the woman on the left—Anyone else think that the lighting on her outfit is all wrong?



The pattern looks "off" to me, too. It's either a really modern design, and thusly quite camera-surly, or Ah-maddy-jab has been following in CAIR's footsteps with one of his female relatives.

As always, feel free to sound off in the comments, whether you agree or not.

(h/t Gateway Pundit for the picture)

What happens when one terrorist group accuses another terrorist group of manipulating a photograph?

If you guessed "A Patented Little Green Footballs Throbbing gif," pat yourself on the back immediately:



The nefarious Elder has the rest of the story.