A picture (top) has been
doing the
rounds showing Piper Palin, Gov. Palin's six-year-old daughter, apparently giving a boy the finger. Yes, it's a hoax. In the original (bottom), which can be found on the
Alaska state website, it's clear that Piper has two fingers raised.
Comments
As for the pixels on the second finger all being in a straight line: <a >they're not</a>.
It's just like when that chick Elizabeth PhotoShopped her head onto the photo of Sarah Palin in a bikini: http://cnbcsucks.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/some-chick-named-elizabeth-photoshopped-her-head-onto-sarah-palins-bikini-photo/
It looks as though <a >she just glowers a lot</a>. From the numbering of the pictures, it looks as though she might have been looking at Piper with that expression for a while. Maybe she doesn't like kids?
Here, I <a >put together comparisons</a> of pairs of close-ups from three different images.
The first pair is <a >from a completely different picture</a>.
It shows the part of the pattern on Palin's coat (hmm, nice alliteration there) that Piper's hand obscures in the later pictures. You can see the area in question, where that one flower is in the corner of the coat. It has two greyish leaves sticking up from it, almost reaching to the next flower up. The petals also make a sort of zig-zag pattern going back and forth between the edge of the coat and the leaves.
The second pair is from the two-finger version of the Piper photo.
Though her hand is over the flower from the coat pattern, you can still see the two greyish leaves and the petals of the flower fitting into the same proper shape.
Then there is the final pair, from the one-finger version of the photo.
All except for one small edge of the greyish leaves magically vanish. The petal pattern suddenly changes from in the first pair of pictures, cutting inwards where it should be angling back outwards. What it should look like is something like this:
Amazingly enough, all of these changes just coincidentally happen right where the picture would be changed if somebody cut out Piper's second finger.
So either Sarah Palin has a magical coat on which small portions of the pattern suddenly change, or else somebody edited out one of Piper's fingers and forgot to edit back in the background.
And as you can see, all the stuff about the one-finger picture being of "better quality" is nonsense, since it is nowhere near the same resolution as the picture it is being compared to.
Really, it just sort of annoys me that some people feel the need to try to make children look bad just so as to embarrass their politically-active parents. All the photo-op kissing of babies is bad enough without the need to take it to negative extremes.
Who took the picture? Surely the photographer knows which one is original. :coolsmirk:
The "two-fingers salute" is certainly older than Agincourt. It appears in the Macclesfield Psalter MS 1-2005 Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, believed to be produced in about 1330, Folio 130 Recto, CDROM p261, being made by a glove on the extended nose of a marginalia depicting a human headed hybrid beast, ridden by a person playing the pipe and tabor. The Psalter marginalia have many absurdities and obscenities so the traditional meaning of this gesture would not be out of place here. As the gesture is made by a disembodied glove accidental positioning of the hand may be ruled out.
The two fingered one is fake! Sweet Jebus, let it go!
Ummmm. . .yeaaaaah. . .
Looking at those two close-ups, though, I just noticed more sign that the one-fingered picture was tampered with. Both pictures have a sort of halo of lighter pixels around the fingers where they are superimposed over the dark fabric background. On the one-finger picture, though, the halo around the finger abruptly stops. . .right where the second finger would be starting if it were there. The rest of the finger beyond that point lacks the halo, having only the dark fabric.
It's hard to tell what with the quality of the one-finger image being so much poorer, but it sort of looks as though some of the halo from the missing second finger was actually left in the picture. Especially towards the tip of the missing finger, and in the stretch between the two flowers. Where the actual finger was removed is a sort of strange blotchiness that doesn't match the rest of the dark fabric around that area.
Ah, hold on: I just put the pictures into my photo-editing software to see what would happen if I changed the contrast and the hues. And here is what I got:
In those pictures you can clearly see the halo I was talking about, as a sort of green colour (unless you're colourblind, in which case I have no idea what you can clearly see). You can see where some of the halo of the second finger was indeed left behind, near the tip of where the finger had been and between the two flowers. You can also see a sort of vague shape where the second finger had been, before it was cut out.
That "extra finger" is the pink swirly center of the flower pattern. You can tell from where it is, the odd angle it would be at if it were a finger, and from it being a different shade of pink than is her hand.
You can tell by the seam, which does not appear in your first set of pictures.
Furthermore, a close examination reveals that not all flowers have two gray petals on them, some have none. From the first picture, it' s impossible to tell exactly where that two-petalled flower appears on the pattern.
Yes I am.
<a >Coat 1</a>
<a >Coat 2</a>
It is the same flower.
The one-finger picture is missing part of the background.
The one-finger picture is of lesser quality.
The one-finger picture still shows the outline of where the second finger used to be.
The one-finger picture is faked.
get a grip, people!
I say secret documents from Russia...
Anyway, from <a >that website</a>:
"In addition, the official photograph contains readable EXIF data (absent in the one-finger version) listing the date the image was snapped along with camera make, model, and settings, but shows no record of subsequent editing in Photoshop or any other software program."
I can't figure out any way to view that data on my own computer. I can tell just from the name of the photo that it is taken on a Fuji digital camera, and that the picture with Piper making faces and gestures is apparently taken six pictures after the other one on the government website. Other than that, the only data I get is file and picture size.
Can anybody verify what the Urban Legends site says? And perhaps provide something like a screen capture of it?
Pulling the double finger photo from the Alaska Gov't website, you find:
Filename : dscf1254.jpg
JFIF_APP1 : Exif
Main Information
Make : FUJIFILM
Model : FinePix S5200
Pulling the single finger photo from this website, you find several entries prior to the above data:
Filename : piperpalin.jpg
JFIF_APP1 : Exif
JFIF_APP1 : http
JFIF_APP14 : Photoshop 3.0
AdobeResource
IPTC-NAA : 24Byte
IPTC
Character-code definition : 1B2547
Record version : 0002
Copyright Info :
Main Information
Make : FUJIFILM
Model : FinePix S5200
I should think "Photoshop 3.0" is a dead give-away; but let's not let facts infringe on our deeply held paranoia, shall we?!?
Of course they do. Especially when all you have to go by is a still image of whatever motion she is making, you have no clue as to the context, the interpretation of expressions is often mostly subjunctive. . .oh, yeah, and then there's the little minor detail of the photo that you say is real clearly showing visual signs of being changed and literally advertising the photo-editting software used to do it.
For some reason, the unsupported opinion of an obviously politically-biased random person claiming that a photo is not edited doesn't seem to hold the same weight to me as does the actual clear visual proof all over that same photo showing obvious signs of it being tampered with, as well as the basic absurdity and unlikeliness of the Alaska government going through all the trouble of editing in a finger in one photo and changing the dress pattern on two photos rather than doing something a bit more sensible such as, oh, not putting that particular picture on their official website and using one of the others from the event instead.
Especially when that person making those claims simply brushes aside that evidence and ignores it, rather than even making the slightest attempt to show how it is wrong. What, did that person somehow not notice several pages of evidence that the one-fingered photo was faked? And we're supposed to take this person's word based on his keen observational skills alone?
First off, you're assuming that it's an expression of disgust. It could easily be annoyance, or confusion, or something else altogether. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason why she couldn't make an expression of disgust about something having to do with the number two. "Two" and "disgust" are not mutually exclusive.
Only if you don't really bother to look at the picture, and if you completely ignore the clear signs of the one finger being edited out in that particular picture. But heck, we don't need things such as the ability to critically analyse and consider things when we're judging Presidential candidates, right? It's so much better to just close your eyes and accept whatever you're told without looking into it yourself.
I'll assume that for some weird reason you're referring to "right" and "left" in relation to the point of view of people in the picture and not to that of the viewer of the picture (otherwise I have no clue who you're talking about). Too bad you didn't bother to look at <a >the other picture in the series</a> that was linked to earlier, the one that shows those women having the same expressions on their faces several moments before Piper was making whatever gesture she's making.
This is the final lap of the Presidential elections. Should we not expect people like you to cheerfully try to support a clear and blatant lie that attempts to cast a six-year-old child in bad light so as to gratify your needs to smear her politically-active family members rather than to try swaying people to your political viewpoint by discussing real issues? Apparently we should. Why should people who are against the Republican candidates do things such as bring up McCain's history of reckless actions that had bad results, or Palin's policies as governor that didn't work, when instead they can simply use trickery and deceit to make up totally fictitious issues?
Why can't peoplel just leave kids the hell alone? This is exactly why we have so many screwed-up celebs...when they're young and innocent, people do crap like this and put them in a negative light. When they get older, they start putting the pieces together. "If I do nothing and still get shown in a negative spotlight, just to get at my parents...then who cares what I do...positive or negative actions will both be morphed into negative."
Really, why can't we let good actions and people remain good, and bring justice to those that suck?!
You dorks are WAAAAAAAY to into this...Accept one or the other, whatever you believe, and go get a life!
If the 1-finger pic is fake, who cares...whoever did that was retarded and in need of a life.
If the 2 finger pic is faked, WHO CARES. Kids do things every day that embarrass their parents. Wanna know why? THEY'RE KIDS.
Problem solved, now the mystery is unwound.
Seriously. This shows why democratic countries need to have more than one colour to the political spectrum rather than have laws restricting them to two parties only; The divisions are far too deep in bipartisan situations to allow compromise.
What law does New Zealand have for such a restriction? There is no restriction in a free democracy like the USA.
Witness: > Democratic National Committee - (DNC)> Republican National Committee - (RNC)> America First Party> American Heritage Party> American Independent Party> American Reform Party> Constitution Party> Green Party > Independence Party> Libertarian Party> Moderate Party> Natural Law Party> Reform Party> Socialist Party USA> Communist Party USA> The Republic of Texas Party (actually looking to prove Texas remains an independent nation under occupation).
Not to mention all the Independent voters and elected officials.
I'm sorry New Zealand doesn't have this freedom.
I once answered a question on Yahoo questions on a similar topic and was informed that America has only two political parties Republicans and Democrats; While there are others it was said and I quote " Nobdoy votes for them really; it's a waste of time since they would never be legally allowed to take power in Congress."
I also was lead to believe that you have to be legally labelled at the time of voting as to your political alignment in the States: Have I been misinformed?
Anyway, though we can vote for anyone in this country, we always choose to vote for one party since it's the natural leadership for this country. They tell us this all the time and we are free to believe it. 😊
Yes, you are misinformed. Anyone legally able to vote can "register" with no party affiliation. The moniker is "Independent." As an independent and as any other registration, you can vote for any candidate (or write-in) from one or multiple parties as you wish.
Currently our Congress and Senate are represented by three parties, Democrat, Republican and Independent (yes, the Dem and Rep vastly outnumber the Independent).
A statistical sampling of one Yahoo post is not a valid quantity to make an informed observation.
You are correct in your observation that the USA is not a democracy. We are a republic.
I found the following description online:
A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.
"New Zealand has no single written constitution or any form of law that is higher than laws passed in Parliament. The rules about how our system of government works are contained in a number of Acts of Parliament, documents issued under the authority of the Queen, relevant English and United Kingdom Acts of Parliament, decisions of the court, and unwritten constitutional conventions"
one finger... two fingers... she still has that LOOK on her face as if she'd rather just pop that poor boy.