Original photo for Michelle bikini photoshop located

posted at 10:30 am on October 4, 2006 by Allahpundit

Look familiar?

Let’s see if we get a retraction out of Wonkette now.

Thanks to Sean Gleeson for finding this.

Update: How did Sean do it?

I set up a Facebook account, and followed the trail, from Ashley Herzog, to Megan Del Corral, to Meredith Chan, to “Princess Nina” (whoever that is). I had to do a lot of e-mailing private messaging and stuff.

Update: Let’s just get this posted before it mysteriously disappears from Webshots.

nina.jpg

You can see the photoshopped version on Michelle’s site. Same shot, although it looks like they didn’t ‘shop in a whole new head, just Michelle’s face.

They also ‘shopped out the navel jewelry. I guess they figured that was a bit too outre to be plausible for a photo of MM.

Update: Reader Michael P. went ahead and put together a patented LGF/Rathergate image overlay for us.

mm.gif

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It does look familiar, could be the same young woman, but not the same shot.

E L Frederick on October 4, 2006 at 10:36 AM

nevermind, I’m wrong… they just flipped the picture.

E L Frederick on October 4, 2006 at 10:38 AM

Is it not also obvious that Wonkette knew full well ahead of time the photo was a fake, and posted in just for spite?

Of course they/she/it did.

They’re sitting back laughing because Michelle has to spend time debunking this nonsense. And this is just mean.

They may have been trying to embarrase Michelle, but all they have really accomplishe is shaming themselves.

Why do liberals have to be so spitefully mean?

Lawrence on October 4, 2006 at 10:46 AM

The day wankette retracts that, is the day democrats petition the supreme court to end abortions.

These low-lifes have only one agenda. To smear and defame people who disagree with their utopian, non-judgmental pathetic lives.

rightside on October 4, 2006 at 10:47 AM

Retraction? (the sound of crickets from the other side of the blogosphere)

Mallard T. Drake on October 4, 2006 at 10:50 AM

Lawrence, to answer your question, they hate becuase they cannot win in the arena of ideas. You see, the majority of Americans do NOT want abortion on demand, do NOT want gay marriages, do NOT want the govt. to be in charge of health care, etc.

But, since that’s what they want, and cannot get at the ballot box, they resort to name calling, smearing, defamation, and just pure hatred.

Karma does have a way of getting even for people like those. When you hate that long, something is bound to happen.

rightside on October 4, 2006 at 10:51 AM

It looks like they:

1) Flipped the photo horizontally.
2) Removed the belly button jewelry.
3) Added the bogus time stamp.
4) Added a large amount of grain to the photo make it look older than it is.
5) And of course, switched heads.

From the look of it, I’d say they raised this gals IQ by at least 50 points by putting Michelle’s head on her.

E L Frederick on October 4, 2006 at 10:52 AM

This might be funny if it wasn’t so smarmy.

SouthernGent on October 4, 2006 at 11:00 AM

They couldn’t have used the one where the 3 girls are in bed together?

Editor on October 4, 2006 at 11:04 AM

Navel piercing wasn’t really “in” in 1992.

It’s a wonder they didn’t try to Photoshop this picture of “Michelle” in bed with two other women. Scandal!

Mark Jaquith on October 4, 2006 at 11:05 AM

princessnina56 apparently has a myspace account

“Me love you LONG time”

Why would the Left victimize an Ohio State undergrad?

Terp Mole on October 4, 2006 at 11:17 AM

Allah,

Why the “?” in the title? Seems pretty definitive.

Greg Tinti on October 4, 2006 at 11:23 AM

Those Reuters photo-stringers are now doing night classes for libtard bloggers.

auspatriotman on October 4, 2006 at 11:33 AM

Good Detective work! Webhound!

Drtuddle on October 4, 2006 at 11:54 AM

ALLAH COLUMBO PUNDIT,

Nice work. Columbo could find the same picture alterations to catch murderers back in 70′s.

Don’t know the technical term for flipping a photo horizontally but … it exists.

ar_basin on October 4, 2006 at 12:03 PM

its called, “flip-horizontal” :)

johnnyU on October 4, 2006 at 12:14 PM

The ‘flip’ has been around a long time too. The only picture ever taken of Billy the Kid was accidentally ‘flipped’ at printing and people thought he was left handed because of this error.

shooter on October 4, 2006 at 12:18 PM

johnnyU, you must be a Graphic Designer like me…been using Photochop since 1996.

BirdEye on October 4, 2006 at 12:30 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A Democrat admit they lied?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*wipes tears from eyes*

HAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Mortis on October 4, 2006 at 1:07 PM

The beauty of being a “progressive” is your completely free from the bonds of truth and honesty. Likewise logic and hypocrisy.

irishsquid on October 4, 2006 at 1:25 PM

Although it was obvious the first time around that it was a photoshop, I have to note that some of us were incorrect about one thing, the head size.

I read a lot of comments that said, “the photoshop head is obviously too small on that body” but it looks like they only replaced the face, so the head is the same size as the original.

Feel sorry for this formerly anonymous gal in the original photo.

realVerse on October 4, 2006 at 1:42 PM

I’m having a DKos moment here. With the maelstrom of anti-Republican MSM activity, I suddenly feel like there is a multi-media campaign that is being orchestrated by Karl Rove to highlight the differences between Republicans and Democrats for all to see, and the list of stories grows every day.

- “The World Can’t Wait” dog and pony shows,
- the MM – Skankette photononsense (Skankette is so completely a Dem phenomenon that if she didn’t already exist, they would have to create her…),
- FoleyGate (despite MM’s insistence that our outrage should be laser-focused on Foley, partisans might be excused if they can’t help but notice the difference between conservative outrage at this dirtball queer vs Democrats celebrating their freaks and re-electing them),
- and the blizzard of examples in national defense and the war on terror.

It’s almost funny to watch the FoleyGate story evolve, as people are finally asking “wait, where did this crap come from?” Can’t help but notice that the only people who seemed to realize what a scumbag Foley is, are leftists — who seemed to be quite comfortable with him in office.

Jaibones on October 4, 2006 at 1:44 PM

As far as the young lady in the real photograph, she is very attractive.

I can’t see anything wrong or inappropriate about that picture.

As a man, in fact, I see a whole lot right.

Now I mean that tongue in cheek, but also true. Not just because she is pretty, also because she is joyously (and joy is a major God given part of life as is her body) posing for a shot that, yes, does have her in a bikini and she is guilty of looking good, but damn. So what?

ChrisInCanadaOrAussy on October 4, 2006 at 1:55 PM

The left never apologizes. They just create another fraud and MoveOn.

JammieWearingFool on October 4, 2006 at 2:08 PM

Digital cameras barely even existed in 1992, either, except for the very low resolution Canon Xapshot and very early Sony Mavicas (376×240 resolution…that’s a whopping 0.09 megapixels.) And they were very pricey in spite of the low quality ($1000+). The Xapshot also required a separate digitizer device which put it over $1000.

Any photo taken in 1992 with a timestamp would have almost certainly been with film, would have been scanned, and would show grain if scanned from a negative ($1500+ for such a scanner at that time) or would otherwise look like a scan of a printed photo. This image shows no traces of either, as it was a digital image to begin with…ergo, even without the original being located, it could be shown not to be authentic. :)

digitalintrigue on October 4, 2006 at 2:10 PM

Although it was obvious the first time around that it was a photoshop, I have to note that some of us were incorrect about one thing, the head size.

I read a lot of comments that said, “the photoshop head is obviously too small on that body” but it looks like they only replaced the face, so the head is the same size as the original.

Actually, saying that the Michelle head was the wrong scale is correct.

If you look closely at the morph created by Michael P. above, you’ll see that the person who photoshopped the photo chopped a significant portion of the chin out of the girl in the original to get the Michelle face placed into it, and then had to recreate some extra neck for the fake michelle head to perch on top of in that space.

That might be nearly incomprehensible as written, but if you look specifically at the chin in the morph, you’ll see what I mean.

Bob Owens on October 4, 2006 at 2:17 PM

A girl in a bikini.

I can’t resist.

It’s now a screen saver.

Don’t judge me, I don’t get out much.

Kini on October 4, 2006 at 2:20 PM

I am glad you guys are on our side!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dallas94 on October 4, 2006 at 2:21 PM

First the Throbbing Memo, and now the Throbbing Malkin?

Heh. I said throbbing.

wordwarp on October 4, 2006 at 2:29 PM

Michelle should put up some real bikini shots as difinitive proof that this one was a fake. Maybe a calender?

Brian C on October 4, 2006 at 3:53 PM

No one should be surprised by this. See Michael Steele’s letter to Democrat “leaders” on PowerLine.

In my opinion, the Democrats/Looney Left (or is that redundant?) have proven beyond doubt that they have no shame, no ethics, no patriotism and damned little intelligence.

Rusty Bill on October 4, 2006 at 4:04 PM

But we already knew Wonkette is a stupid f-ck, didn’t we?

Kralizec on October 4, 2006 at 4:21 PM

The gig is up Liberals
Now its time for a lawsuit; from the woman whose pictures were taken.

Defector01 on October 4, 2006 at 4:37 PM

“Michelle should put up some real bikini shots as difinitive proof that this one was a fake. Maybe a calender?”

Brian C.

Something tells me it will be a big seller.

Christoph on October 4, 2006 at 6:07 PM

Cristoph
I’d buy three

Defector01 on October 4, 2006 at 6:08 PM

Kudos to Sean Gleeson for finding this. I, myself, spent countless hours looking through thousands of images of girls in bikinis and never spotted it. Well, that’s just me, a tireless worker bee.

Re: the three girls in a bed? I’ve yet to meet a really clever liberal but I’ve met many devious ones; I expect if MM hadn’t found proof of fraud on the first pictures, they would have been followed by more. “Oh look, we’ve found more spring break pictures…” And the second set would have had more credibility because of the first.

lumberjack on October 4, 2006 at 6:40 PM

Why do liberals have to be so spitefully mean?

Lawrence on October 4, 2006 at 10:46 AM

Why do dogs lick their chops?

Coronagold on October 4, 2006 at 6:46 PM

Please put Michelle’s face back on!!

Seriously, I think Michelle should at the very least speak to a lawyer. How much time did she have to spend on this? How much lying garbage did Wonkette and the other smear-”blogs” knowingly spread around as fact? The truth is that they will continue to do this as long as there are no repercussions for their actions. Michelle, do not let this go away.

zerodamage on October 4, 2006 at 7:32 PM

Yeah, if anyone superimposes my head on a male model or bodybuilder’s body I’ll sue your *ss off.

Don’t even think it.

Christoph on October 4, 2006 at 7:42 PM

This is what I don’t get. What is wrong with the picture? I mean I am very conservative, but heck, it’s a girl on vacation at the beach. She isn’t showing any private parts. Have you seen some of the MySpace pictures of the teens? Many make this one look like a nun.

Even if that had been Michelle from a few yrs ago, how does that make her hypocrite? It just makes her young.

What idiots the left are.

Rightwingsparkle on October 4, 2006 at 7:59 PM

Hear, hear, Rightwingsparkle.

Oh, and you’re a total hottie yourself. As I’ve said before.

Christoph on October 4, 2006 at 8:05 PM

What I am saying is that this should not go unchallenged. I am not saying sue them, I am saying talk to a lawyer and see what options there are if any. Cover all the bases.

zerodamage on October 4, 2006 at 8:29 PM

I agree wholeheartedly Rightwingsparkle. I kind of felt like the new gal that didn’t get the inside joke or something because the “evidence” being provided didn’t seem to support the accusation being made by this Wonkette person, I’m assuming of course that Wonkette is a person, as opposed to an Oompa Loompasonian.

Texas Gal on October 4, 2006 at 8:34 PM

realVerse, the Michelle-face makes the head look too small because the Michelle-face would require that the head be oriented more directly toward the camera, exposing more “surface area”… the area framed by the hair is simply not large enough to contain an appropriately-sized face in a straigh-on orientaion.

In the original, the head is oriented down slightly. Yeah… it’s subtle, but imagine that girl’s full face looking straight at the camera in the same area… I can’t imagine it fitting. SO I think the head critique is accurate.

DaveS on October 5, 2006 at 12:54 AM

pwned!

Anyways, she still has a nice body….face….not so much.

So when are we going to see Bethany in a bikini?

Tim Burton on October 5, 2006 at 1:26 AM

Nice detective work by Sean. Adrian Monk would be proud. :)
How’s that Wonkette retraction coming?….Hello,…Hello….is this mic on?

vcferlita on October 5, 2006 at 10:29 AM

RWS,

This is what I don’t get. What is wrong with the picture?

It isn’t the picture, per se. It’s that the picture was faked and then presented as evidence that Michelle is a hypocrite. I can’t explain the full Wankette broken logic behind this, but that’s the general gist of it. If it doesn’t make any sense to you, it’s because it doesn’t make any sense at all. But that doesn’t stop Ken Layne from rolling it out onto Wankette.

Remember when it was all Ana Marie and anal sex talk? Those were Wonkette’s halcyon days.

Pablo on October 5, 2006 at 10:49 AM

Can’t we get beyond the fact Michelle is a good looking young woman?

It’s her brain, her demeanor, and her apparent equanimity I find attractive.

As to the altered picture, I’m just grateful they didn’t stick Allah’s head on the body. Apologies, Allah, but “Ugh!”

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 5, 2006 at 11:08 AM

Can’t we get beyond the fact Michelle is a good looking young woman?

Dr. Charles G. Waugh

Are you insane, dude?

Anyway, Meredith Chan, the real woman in the photo, isn’t impressed that her likeness was equally stolen and I’m not surprised. And doew Wonkette give a damn about her feelings, her life? I don’t think so.

I think that Wonkette’s an evil leftist activist and couldn’t give a fuck who gets hurt along the way to bringing in her socialist workers paradise.

Or who gets hurt after as long as leftist control remains in force.

And for the person who said they didn’t like Meredith Chan’s face that much… get a clue!

She’s a hottie, upstairs and down.

Christoph on October 5, 2006 at 2:09 PM

Meredith Chan link corrected

Christoph on October 5, 2006 at 2:13 PM

A bikini shot of a willing young woman is no big deal. When you photo-shop it, claim it is someone else to intentionally cause hurt, it goes beyond vulgar. Ya, Wonkettes are patholigical liers, ya, most people take them for no more then the Democrats version of “Hustler”. So if they are going to put up fauxtography, they need a “Hustler” type of disclaimer.

Rode Werk on October 5, 2006 at 2:19 PM

Not even Hustler has the right to photoshop one person’s face on another’s nude body and claim that yes, the person squatting to pee while she’s being photographed is x celebrity.

Christoph on October 5, 2006 at 2:33 PM

HA HA! You gotta see the satire devoted to this subject over at the People’s Cube. A little late on the ball, as commies always are, but still funny as heck. A sampling;

To silence Michelle Malkin is an idea whose time has come. A nonstop depiction of her on mainstream websites as a rabid right-wing Neocon Zionist extremist and especially as the radical right’s Asian pitbull did stimulate certain neurons in progressive pleasure circuits, but did nil to propel this truth into the murky skulls of the brain-damaged general public. So when Ms. Malkin made another hurtful attempt to stop progress by writing a column about the “slutification of young girls,” progressive truth-seekers had no other choice but to photo-manipulate her face onto the body of a young, nubile lusciously delectable, sumptuous (ahem… excuse us) college co-ed, and to use the result to expose Ms. Malkin as the biggest hypocrite who has ever lived.

NTWR on October 6, 2006 at 4:58 PM

MM,

That which doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

MM’s credibility factor = up

MM haters credibility = zero

Keep it up you firecracker!

csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 8:57 AM

I think I’ll go out and get some photos to paste faces on. This could be a new hobby for me. Or maybe I can program a little puzzle game where I can swap em, print em, and share em with friends… Ok ok maybe Ill get volunteers for the switcharoo game, but the political bikini mashups I’ll keep to myself, or sell discreetly to a select few.

bigskinny on July 6, 2007 at 12:14 PM

The more crazy stuff they pull…, the more they divide the nation.

A half nation of Liberal half wits and a half nation of Conservative patriots.

Rugged Individual on July 6, 2007 at 1:32 PM