Bush goes deep, DEEP undercover.

Valiant, I remember that picture, that old guy looks just like him!

It is him- done by the Photoshop geniuses at peoplescube.com.

Valiant, I remember that picture, that old guy looks just like him!

is there something controversial about that?

Oh irony, thy name is jummy.

Do I really need to spell it out for you? Okay, that was a bit rhetorical, it’s obvious that I do.

You rail on your blog concerning “anti-speech censors” and then attempt to silence the viewpoints of others who might hold a viewpoint on a given issue that differs from your own.

Get it now?

…i have to know what really happened on nine eleven…

Brilliant! My questioning this photograph is exactly the same thing as questioning the wealth of photographic, video, and scientific evidence (as well as the evidence of my own eyes) that points towards nineteen Allah-addled jihadis as the cause of 9/11!

You’re quite the sleuth, I must admit, jummy!

But to bitch and moan about the post itself…
RightWinged on November 28, 2006 at 2:16 AM

whatever. i’m over it. the damage is done. next time anyone tries to talk about adnan hajj they can expect to be met with a bunch of evasive wisecracks about the “librul media” photoshopping bush into a burkah.

what are comments for then?

jummy on November 28, 2006 at 1:03 AM

First of all jummy, you should specify who you’re quoting with each quote.

But what are comments for? I just explained it. You can come say “it’s obviously real” or even “you guys are nuts, it’s not photoshop, it’s real”. But to bitch and moan about the post itself (which is what you’ve been doing) is retarded. People have blogs to talk about what they want to talk about. You can come comment on your differing opinion about the subject matter, but to come to a blog and bitch about the topic? Just ignore it and go read a different post. You get what I’m saying now?

Why not? Aristotle said something along the lines of the mark of an educated mind being the ability “to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it.”

The photo looks fishy to me, so I not only entertained the thought that it might be fauxtography, I went ahead and commented on the specific points I found to be anomalous.

“is it wrong for me to ask questions?
is it wrong to seek the truth?
i can’t blindly accept their version
i can’t base my logic on proof
like charlie sheen and gloria estephan
i have to know what really happened on nine eleven…”

it’s one thing to say “I think it’s real”, it’s another thing for you to bitch about what they post here. It’s their blog.

what are comments for then?

progressives are anti-speech censors

Take a guess whose blog that’s from…

is there something controversial about that?

progressives are anti-speech censors

Take a guess whose blog that’s from…

Need a hint? Their handle on hot air rhymes with “dummy”

…stupid questions.

jummy on November 27, 2006 at 10:55 PM

…stupid people.

I don’t really care, and I’m not sure one way or another on this, but you came in to this thread with a stick up your ass for some reason. I don’t even know if Ian is asking seriously, whether it’s PS or a Bush look-alike, it’s still worth a post. I mean, it’s one thing to say “I think it’s real”, it’s another thing for you to bitch about what they post here. It’s their blog.

citizen duck, why? honestly, why?

Why not? Aristotle said something along the lines of the mark of an educated mind being the ability “to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it.”

The photo looks fishy to me, so I not only entertained the thought that it might be fauxtography, I went ahead and commented on the specific points I found to be anomalous.

So please, insert your right hand into the general area of your sphincter and kindly unwad your panties.

RightWinged said it nicely, so I’ll quote him here:

they’re asking a question… not jumping up and down shouting “we gotcha!”

Not so hard, is it?

stop it.

Such histrionics. You made me lolirl.

By the way folks, perhaps the person in question is just the offspring of this meeting we all remember.

leaving aside that the photo is clearly not doctored, why? what would be the editorial point?

i’ll grant that there’s an editorial point in something as petty as giving condi “demon eyes”. or photographing a peepee note. but what would the supposed photomanipulator possibly be trying to convey by hiding bush’s face amongst some burkah-clad mourners?

there’s no sense to it at all and your senseless straining to identify fauxtography in this (and, for instance the “missing mic chord” bs of a while back) only leaves an opening for dickheads like john to dismiss the real journalistic abuses uncovered this summer.

stop it.

Allah–MAKE IT HAPPEN!

Also, usually a hijab doesn’t cover the mouth and niqab would cover the entire face. Looks like fauxtography to me.

Also, the face and the raised hand appear a bit “brighter” and sharper than the rest of the shot.

And what’s with the dark jagged areas on the top right (woman’s left) area of the veil/burqa/whatever?

In photoshop at 500% zoom that whole area appears darker, especially after desaturating the image and playing with the contrast.

Pretty damned fishy, I’d say.