1. The biggest and most glaring problem is that the girl is obviously sitting down. She is in a sitting position as much as anybody can possibly be. Yet, there is nothing for her to be sitting on. Do you think the mother has her arm stuck out and the girl is sitting on it? First, that is NOT the way children are held; not by anybody. Nobody does that. And second, it would take super-strength to do it, and that frail woman most certainly did not have such strength.
2. There is misalignment at the junction of the girl's arm and forearm. If you look at it closely you can see that the lines are jaded- they're slightly misaligned; off from one another. Here's what I think happened: First, note that this image was not published until 2013, which means that they had the opportunity to work on it digitally- which they did. In other words, they photoshopped it. And one of the things I believe they did was photoshop the color of the girl's dress and the mother's blouse. How likely is it that they would be the same color? When you consider all the colors and shades and patterns and designs of girls' and womens' clothing, doesn't it seem odd for them to be exactly the same? So, I am suggesting that they photoshopped that color in, and they got sloppy about it. They got some of the pink of her dress on her arm; they overlapped it some. And that's what creates the jagged appearance of her.
3. And they also photoshopped that rectangular shadow in front of her arm, and they got sloppy with that too. The shadow is covering up her arm some; it is overlapping it. And that is impossible because her arm is the thing casting the shadow; there shouldn't be any shadow over it. But again, they got sloppy.
4. And while they were busy pinkifying her dress, they apparently went over her hand once by mistake, making it lighter than it should be. Do you see how light her hand looks compared to her forearm? Compare it to your hand and forearm. I really think they went over it one time by mistake when they were doing their pink thing.
5. There is a weird geometric shadow supposedly being cast by her arm, and a smaller heart-shaped shadow supposedly being cast by her hand, but in-between, there is nothing; that is, her forearm isn't casting any shadow at all. But, that makes no sense. If her arm is casting a shadow, why shouldn't her forearm? At least a little?
6. The girl's facial shadow against the woman's chest and shoulder is way too big.
7. There is a weird object suspended from the woman's right side (our left), which is square at the bottom and crescent-shaped above. What is that supposed to be?
8.There is looping material in front of the girl, and the whole junction between the woman and the girl is quite indiscernible; it's just a pinkified mess.
9. What is that on the back of the girl's neck? I mean that pink sausage-shaped thing. To me, it looks like a neck pillow. If you think it's part of the dress, show me another one like it.
There is more that I could say, but I'll leave it at that. And remember that if I'm wrong about one or two, that is, if there is an innocent explanation for one or two, it doesn't change the fact that this is still a highly manipulated and false image. For some reason, they put that sitting girl into it, and I don't know what they were trying to cover up. Maybe it had something to do with the man standing behind them.
Why is this important? Well, JFK is in the image, and isn't any image with him in it important? But secondly, if they would go to this much trouble for this relatively inconsequential image, it shows you how manipulated the whole catalog of JFK assassination imagery is. I keep saying that the JFK assassination is very likely the most photographically altered event in the history of photography. This attests to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.