Piper Palin gives one-finger salute

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.



Photos Politics

Posted on Mon Oct 06, 2008



Comments

"home schooled" I thought you knew.
Posted by LG  on  Fri Oct 10, 2008  at  06:59 PM
In the one-finger picture, part of the hideous floral pattern from Gov. Palin's coat <a >is distorted</a> right around where the second finger is in the other picture. Some of the little gray leaves are missing, and the flower is missing one petal. The picture with just one finger raised is the fake, with the second finger and part of the background behind it removed.

As for the pixels on the second finger all being in a straight line: <a >they're not</a>.
Posted by Accipiter  on  Sat Oct 11, 2008  at  12:03 PM
Check out the woman behind the guy in the blue hat who is behind the smiling, senile old lady. She's either mortified or bored out of her mind.
Posted by Madd Maxx  on  Sat Oct 11, 2008  at  06:48 PM
Showing my nerdiness here, but I just ran a software (JPGq) scan which can detect JPG image quality. (simple explain is that jpg's lose quality every time they are photoshopped and re-saved) Result was that the 1-finger salute has a higher (better) quality distortion factor than the "original." Translated, that means there is a high probability that the 1-finger salute is in fact the original. In fact, It makes it nearly conclusive.
Posted by pazooter in WA  on  Sat Oct 11, 2008  at  09:28 PM
I don't know why anyone would take the trouble to PhotoShop that picture and add the second finger.

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/
Posted by CNBC Sucks  on  Sun Oct 12, 2008  at  01:00 AM
"Check out the woman behind the guy in the blue hat who is behind the smiling, senile old lady. She's either mortified or bored out of her mind."

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?
Posted by Accipiter  on  Sun Oct 12, 2008  at  01:05 AM
You don't need fancy computer analysis and things like that to see that there's a lot of the background missing from the one-fingered picture.

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.
Posted by Accipiter  on  Sun Oct 12, 2008  at  01:54 AM
The picture with the the 2 fingers is likely to be the photoshopped one. Check the clarity of the two pictures. The one with one finger is much sharper, better color, etc.

Who took the picture? Surely the photographer knows which one is original. :coolsmirk:
Posted by Bookworm  on  Wed Oct 15, 2008  at  01:25 AM
Re. the 'two-fingered salute':

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.
Posted by outeast  on  Wed Oct 15, 2008  at  05:17 AM
Oh, and Accipiter's analysis looks pretty good to me. Sad that 'Bookworm' just ignored it eh.
Posted by outeast  on  Wed Oct 15, 2008  at  05:21 AM
why do the top picture looks darker then the bottom, the bottom pic looks faded, must be photoshopped. if they had common scense they would have fixed piper's face when fixing her fake finger.
Posted by chris  on  Wed Oct 15, 2008  at  02:01 PM
I took both pictures to my Paint Shop Pro 7 and, altho I am not an expert, by any name, it appears that the two finger picture is the one that has been modified. The pixels appear to be splotchy and not as precise as the other. That's just me, though. If that IS true, then why, if it's such a tiny thing, did it get airbrushed in the first place? 🙄
Posted by MsTakenAgain  on  Wed Oct 15, 2008  at  02:48 PM
:long:

The two fingered one is fake! Sweet Jebus, let it go!
Posted by Dily  on  Wed Oct 15, 2008  at  05:58 PM
". . . it appears that the two finger picture is the one that has been modified. The pixels appear to be splotchy and not as precise as the other." -- Posted by MsTakenAgain



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.
Posted by Accipiter  on  Wed Oct 15, 2008  at  06:30 PM
I'm sorry, typo. The ONE fingered one is fake. Jebus, get over it people! And Dily, proofread my post, dammit!
Posted by Dily  on  Wed Oct 15, 2008  at  07:41 PM
Rethinking my computer analysis, I stand by the unalterable fact that the two-finger photo in this post is the most photo-shopped. However, that technically does not mean that the one-finger version was not altered. Just why the 2-finger version was more photo-shopped remains a mystery. Do we really need to know?
Posted by pazooter in WA  on  Wed Oct 15, 2008  at  10:10 PM
Never mind all this tosh about Palin's sprog and what she does with her fingers . . . Why did someone cut bits off the lovely Miss Atherton?!?!
Posted by D F Stuckey  on  Thu Oct 16, 2008  at  01:18 AM
If you look at larger version of this picture in the second picture her pointer is still down with an additional pointer giving the piece sign, therefore she has six fingers on that hand
Posted by RONNIE  on  Thu Oct 16, 2008  at  11:17 AM
"If you look at larger version of this picture in the second picture her pointer is still down with an additional pointer giving the piece sign, therefore she has six fingers on that hand"

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.
Posted by Accipiter  on  Thu Oct 16, 2008  at  11:35 AM
she looks very evil for somebody giving the peace sign. it was the look on her face that did it for me. it looks like she is ready to kill the little boy
Posted by tupto  on  Thu Oct 16, 2008  at  05:21 PM
Accipter you are not comparing the same flowers. The ones on the first set of pictures are near the edge of the coat, the ones in the subsequent ones near the middle.

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.
Posted by Sadie Baker  on  Fri Oct 17, 2008  at  08:26 AM
I think the first picture is the real picture. The second appears to be the fake.
Posted by Brenda  on  Fri Oct 17, 2008  at  11:36 AM
"Accipter you are not comparing the same flowers." -- Posted by Sadie Baker

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.
Posted by Accipiter  on  Fri Oct 17, 2008  at  12:45 PM
from urbanlegends.about.com = "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."

get a grip, people!
Posted by EthanMeyers  on  Fri Oct 17, 2008  at  03:03 PM
I think everyone is missing the point, what is Palin putting in her pocket??

I say secret documents from Russia...
Posted by Dr. Hoo  on  Fri Oct 17, 2008  at  05:49 PM
Aaaugh! I'm famous! :ahhh:

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?
Posted by Accipiter  on  Fri Oct 17, 2008  at  06:00 PM
You can get an Exif Reader here for free 40 day evaluation: http://www.snapfiles.com/download/dlexifreader.html

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?!?
Posted by EthanMeyers  on  Fri Oct 17, 2008  at  06:36 PM
Photoshopped totally. Anyone who does 1 minute of searching on google can find the originally. so cheap.
Posted by Gloria  on  Mon Oct 20, 2008  at  07:53 PM
Sorry folks.. Piper was flipping the bird.. Six year olds facial expressions don`t lie..If it was a peace sign.. or she was telling the young lad something which would be a descriptive of the number ``2`` , her facial expression would not be one of disgust.and.. The same person who so brilliantly tried to show us ``in this article ,how easy it is to doctor a photo..``a.k.a. moron.. just show us how to doctor a photo...piper gigged this young man.. .The picture says it.The woman on the right is smiling.. like we all to in public to diguise the bad behavior of our kids when we are not in a position to correct them.And the woman on the left is showing that she is un-amused by Piper`s bad habits.. This is Sarah Palin`s daughter .Should we not expect this..
Posted by Nathan Pilson  on  Wed Oct 22, 2008  at  06:29 AM
Exacly my point, Nathan. You have disregarded the facts for your own preconceived agenda. Awesome, man! Your open-mindedness is far too shallow! I hope your choice of a candidate will be all you imagine he might be. You do have a very active imagination! I believe they have medication for it, though... Maybe socialized medicine would do the trick, huh?
Posted by EthanMeyers  on  Wed Oct 22, 2008  at  02:23 PM
Nathan Pilson wrote --

"Sorry folks.. Piper was flipping the bird.. Six year olds facial expressions don`t lie.."


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?

"If it was a peace sign.. or she was telling the young lad something which would be a descriptive of the number ``2`` , her facial expression would not be one of disgust.and."


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.
Posted by Accipiter  on  Wed Oct 22, 2008  at  10:14 PM
"piper gigged this young man.. .The picture says it."


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.

"The woman on the right is smiling.. like we all to in public to diguise the bad behavior of our kids when we are not in a position to correct them.And the woman on the left is showing that she is un-amused by Piper`s bad habits.."


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 Sarah Palin`s daughter .Should we not expect this.."


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?
Posted by Accipiter  on  Wed Oct 22, 2008  at  10:18 PM
I think Nathan may be dyslexic.
Posted by EthanMeyers  on  Wed Oct 22, 2008  at  10:52 PM
...beside the fact... Piper doesn't have the experience to be Vice President! She's too short! Too young and too cute, for sure!
Posted by EthanMeyers  on  Wed Oct 22, 2008  at  10:54 PM
Ok, so here's what I think you guys...
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?!
Posted by Liz  on  Thu Oct 23, 2008  at  09:11 AM
Either way is is just indicating her moms IQ.
Posted by Rich  on  Thu Oct 23, 2008  at  11:38 AM
Idiot
Posted by EthanMeyers  on  Thu Oct 23, 2008  at  11:43 AM
A commentary on Rich's "IQ" quote.
Posted by EthanMeyers  on  Thu Oct 23, 2008  at  11:44 AM
You want to know what I think?
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.
Posted by Liz  on  Thu Oct 23, 2008  at  02:01 PM
Actually, even with two fingers, the gesture she's making would, in many countries, be considered obscene. In fact, in the UK and several other Commonwealth countries, the two-fingered salute is functionally identical to the one-fingered salute in the U.S. Maybe she's just an obscene-gesture prodigy...
Posted by Ratso  on  Thu Oct 23, 2008  at  03:34 PM
Photoshopping an obscene gesture onto a child, christ... And the same libtard who did it will probably have no qualms about continuing to congratulate himself for being so much more compassionate than those eeeevil conservatives.
Posted by The Sanity Inspector  on  Fri Oct 24, 2008  at  02:00 PM
My, my . . . If the energy used in this debate had been applied to some of the economic problmes facing the US, we would be all much better off 😊

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.
Posted by D F Stuckey  on  Fri Oct 24, 2008  at  02:34 PM
<<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>>

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.
Posted by EthanMeyers  on  Fri Oct 24, 2008  at  03:46 PM
Ah, EthanMeyers, either you are an example of Thomas Edison's comment about the American sense of humour or an example of the argument for having English taught in American schools. I said exactly the opposite - We as a democratic country have multiple parties, the USA as a non-democratic country does not.

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. 😊
Posted by D F Stuckey  on  Fri Oct 24, 2008  at  05:20 PM
I am so happy for an intellegent dialogue. And greatful that this blog has moved away from one or two fingers of an elemntary child.

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.
Posted by EthanMeyers  on  Fri Oct 24, 2008  at  05:44 PM
From the New Zealand government website: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/HowPWorks/OurSystem/1/8/e/18e21b6e2651428bb64fab273c1c4d86.htm

"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"
Posted by EthanMeyers  on  Fri Oct 24, 2008  at  07:17 PM
8-/
one finger... two fingers... she still has that LOOK on her face as if she'd rather just pop that poor boy.
Posted by ANA  on  Tue Oct 28, 2008  at  11:23 AM
Her face does not go with the peace sign but we are showing our ages....either flipping someone off or the peace sign are ancient for Piper. She's doing the "I'm watching you" sign of which it's likely she's been on the recieving end at age 6-7.
Posted by drc  on  Fri Oct 31, 2008  at  06:50 PM
websites for sale 😊
Posted by Kristin Sundberg  on  Sat Nov 01, 2008  at  10:33 AM
And if you did it in Japan, Locutus, she'd have wondered how much money you were offering her and for what purpose . . . Because the "universal" sign there symbolises cash as it is a circle which is part of the meaning of Yen.
Posted by D F Stuckey  on  Sat Nov 01, 2008  at  05:37 PM
Comments: Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.