Piper Palin gives one-finger salute

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.

I think the first picture is the real picture. The second appears to be the fake.

"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.

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!

I think everyone is missing the point, what is Palin putting in her pocket??

I say secret documents from Russia...

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?

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?!?

Photoshopped totally. Anyone who does 1 minute of searching on google can find the originally. so cheap.

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..

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?

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.

"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?

I think Nathan may be dyslexic.

...beside the fact... Piper doesn't have the experience to be Vice President! She's too short! Too young and too cute, for sure!

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?!

Either way is is just indicating her moms IQ.

Idiot

A commentary on Rich's "IQ" quote.

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.

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...

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.

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.

<<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.

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. 😊

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.

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"

8-/
one finger... two fingers... she still has that LOOK on her face as if she'd rather just pop that poor boy.

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.

websites for sale 😊

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.

And don't forget that photographs sometimes give a false impression where video wouldn't. If you snap a picture at just the right instant when a person is lifting his hand to scratch his nose, you can have it look like he's making some weird gesture at people. Or take a picture of somebody in mid-word, and you can have them look as though they are making some sort of a horrid expression at the audience.

Her little girl sticking her fingers up is the least of her problems...& ours.

So glad Accipiter persisted in presenting the evidence that the two-finger photo of Piper Palin was the original. As a physician who is aware of anatomy, I recognized the one-finger photo as being photoshopped because it is almost impossible (anatomically)to get the middle finger coming up so straight off the back of the hand while the other fingers are so tightly folded. The only way that angle could be so straight is if the index finger (or the ring and little finger)were released. Try it with your own hand...

Piper Palin is giving the middle finger. The one where she is giving the peace symbol is fake. The so called doctored images were also doctored to look doctored. Why would the Republican allow the people to see what they actually teach their kids behind closed doors lol. YOu can clearly see the woman in the upper right look down at Piper with disapproval. Also, why would Piper give a peace symboy with an angry look on her face. Seems to me that the middle finger and angry look go hand in hand. Piper was probably letting the little boy know what her mommy thought of the American people.