Say, I wonder who tipped them off to the details of Hunter’s “vacation”?

The pilot could be a conservative in liberal clothing.

Just when you thought he couldn’t sink any lower, we get this report on classy Democrat John Edwards. John Edwards assured his mistress that they’d be together after his cancer-stricken wife died, according to a new bombshell report. Just before……

Her sister said it looks like Edwards. Judge for yourself.

I can’t tell about the baby’s face. But her hair cut wasn’t a penny over $100, so maybe she isn’t Edwards kid after all.

If the photos weren’t real, Edwards would have explicitly said they weren’t rather than using weasel-words when he was asked.

Then I say…let it ride. At the very least it once again points out the hypocrisy in the MSM.

Rielle told her friend that she was hired to shoot behind-the-scenes video for the Presidential campaign because Edwards wanted them to be together.

“A friend kidded her she was actually shooting ‘between-the-sheets’ videos!”

Ew.

Just. Ew.

The list of things I never want to see just incremented up by one.

All babies look like babies -I dont see a resemblance to anyone in that photo

Not true! The all look like Dwight Eisenhower.

Blake on August 20, 2008 at 11:27 AM

Did you catch the second headline down about Edwards urging her not to get an abortion? I wonder if McCain knows that there is an experienced VP candidate out there who is pro-life! They’ve both cheated on their spouses. They both are liberals on the social issues. Dare I say it?

McCain/Edwards ’08!!!!!!

It wouldn’t be trivial but given enough time I could produce such an image myself.

Maybe so, Gilda.

*Chuckling*

But I could spot it if you did.

Where are you Jeremiah? Can there be any doubts now that that the Wright speech at the Press Club was OKd by Obama?

I want to know more about Morgan Freeman’s affair!

Look what you are putting your family through, Lawboy.

Allah, you underestimate the serious commitment of the NE to this case.

Love that blurb: “He begged her NOT to abort the baby.” Seems Edwards is a closet pro-lifer. Who knew? …

Not, that is, unless you’ve actually used Photoshop and know its capabilities. Which do not include altering light and shadow or rotating images. In order for the baby to have been “Photoshopped” into that image, you’d have to have an image of the baby and an image of Edwards both with just the right light and in just the right angles and poses to fit together.

Typhoon on August 20, 2008 at 10:31 AM

This is true but only as far as working with actual photographs goes. Hand editing – “digital painting” – could have produced the blurry low-res Edwards/baby image. It wouldn’t be trivial but given enough time I could produce such an image myself. Additional source photos, even if improperly lit or angled, would make it easier.

If it is a fake though I would lean more towards a staged shot with lookalikes. Although that would involve more people in the “conspiracy” it would be a lot less likely to be exposed by close examination of the image.

To me the issue isn’t a technological one, it’s a behavioral one. The photo furthered the Enquirer’s story but its lack wouldn’t have killed it. So I doubt they’d take the risk – they really didn’t have to.

The ENQUIRER has discovered that a team of six more lawyers have been involved in the coverup

Coverups involving legal teams are rarely successful. It appears as if Edwards is dragging his entire rolodex into this mess.