I ran into one of their new conspiracy theories, following a link from a tweet to American Thinker (If yur lib'ral you ain't a real 'Merican Thinker is the implication, I guess).
Did you know the famous Obama, Biden, H. Clinton et al picture in the "situation room" (actually a small room near the main situation room) has Obama photoshopped in? The blogger has proof. Its all in a 216KB png on the page and Mara Zebest's "explanation". Look Look! Obama's too small!
A photo is blurred on the desk in front of Hillary (Yeah dudes probably containing details that the CIA or military doesn't want people seeing). But the blogger finds conspiracy theories all over.
Obama's too small, too! Well that got me. Yeah, he does look very small. Okay, time to save the photo and resize it. Which I did. Even enlarging the photo there was was problematic. It was pretty blurry when scaled up, so I went online again to find another, which was at Wikipedia, here. It was a jpeg. photo using less kbs, but scaled up nicely. I have it up on my desktop and will place with this article. You can go to Zebest's page for the one the blogger offered.
Scale the jpeg graphic up and notice that Obama is so far back that his chair puts a small shadow on the wall behind him. The lights are apparently mostly in the ceiling, probably like in the picture of a situation room in 2009. So the light from mostly above would tend to miss the wall if Obama's chair was not way back there right next to it. That is further back than your eye sees in the poor png graphic. Also in the png on the American Thinker the blurriness of the general photo tends to fuzz the size of Obama's head. When you see a lot of shadow under his head and with blurriness you are thrown into guessing the true size among all the shadow under his chin. Thirdly, Obama's chair is lower than Bidens and he's leaning forward.shortening his torso., Obama in his black jacket tends to blend in with the military guy with all the medals in the png. And my eye at first guessed that Obama was closer to the front that the officer (I can't figure out the rank or even the service, sorry military folk). Again proof that Obama is further back than he seems.
The blogger also trumpets that Obama's head is too small compared to the others near him. Again I say, he's behind those closest to him, and maybe he has a slightly smaller head. He is very thin, so the smaller size of his head may not be noticed in most speeches when he's up on the podium alone, and the extra blur on American Thinker's png may be responsible for the rest.
Notice here at the 2011 WHCD. Yes, Michelle is in front of him, closer to the camera, but the difference in size suggests his head is no larger than his wife's, and again at the 2012 WHCD next to another woman, the relative size of his closer head with the woman (sorry, I don't know her name) again suggests his head isn't much larger. Most men have larger heads than most women. Remember that Obama was the son of a woman who was essentially single, and relied on food stamps. Though he also lived with his grandparents at times, his growing years were spent mostly in tropical locales. I live in an area, though not tropic is hot a lot of the year. We didn't have aircondition which was a luxury when I was growing up and you don't feel like eating a lot when it's hot. I am sometimes amazed a t how much people desire to eat, but I remind myself that I consume more in winter than summer, and try to imagine what I would eat if leaving the house for a few months every year entailed making one's way through snow and freezing temperatures. I'm sure I'd eat more, an eating more as a child tends to make the bones grow larger. A challenging childhood, which I'm sure Obama had, and multicultural experiences can make a child grow into a brilliant adult, but it's possible that is not evidenced by a larger size head if he lived in tropical weather and therefore ate smaller meals than most mainlanders. Here's a whole speech video. Obama and the other men men of obvious African descent seem to have smaller more round heads, so maybe it's also a genetic factor, too.
Obama's further back than he seems especially in American Thinker's poor picture, he's leaning forward, shortening and foreshortening his torso, and he is in a shorter chair that is so far back it's throwing a visible shadow on the wall. If you are scrolling up the jpeg, you can see this. Zebest's picture fails the blogger, or maybe not, maybe he or she is in on the game.
He or she also has two pictures side by side. If you download those (It is one graphic) and scroll them up to a good size you will see things are not as the blogger describes. Yes Obama's head seems the same size in the left picture as Joe Biden's though Obama is behind the VP from the angle of the camera, but once the picture is downloaded and scrolled larger you can see some things you might miss as the picture is presented on the page. Biden is looking straight forward. Obama is looking slightly down. So you are seeing Obama's head from the chin to a point that includes half of the top of his head. Your eye on Biden goes from his hair line to his chin, not including the turkey wattle that older people can develop. Enlarged I notice that part of Obama's head is not his head, but that of someone behind him. You can see a slightly different color of the hair. That becomes more defined when the picture is enlarged, but the most difference may come from Obama's head being tilted so further back on his head becomes the top. The picture on the right side has Biden behind Obama and the heads being the same size shows that indeed Biden's head is bigger.
The next paragraph and picture declares that Obama is not looking at the same thing as Biden, but download it and scroll that better picture up. With more clarity you see they are looking at the same thing, though Obama's eyes are more deeply set. I'm guessing that's why Obama wears eye shadow in so many pictures. He has very deeply set peepers. (I'm sure that the president doesn't wear actual eye shadow though it looks like he's wearing purple or blue in many of his photos. It is possible there is some lightener applied to help him look like his forehead does not protrude so far over his eyes, but it comes off looking like shadow more garish than something a Dallas streetwalker would wear, and is ignored usually, but don't give the right any ideas. They may decide that it's proof that Obama is in drag or something.
More complaints from blogger, Mara Zebest. He or she complains that the eyes of the man in back in the light blue shirt under a light Tony Blinken, do not look where the eyes of the woman behind him, Audrey Tomason, look. Here is the link for the most HD version of the picture at Flickr.com. Zebest is right because as you can see in the most HD version, Tomason is looking at Blinken. Obviously Blinken is looking around Bill Daley Obama's chief of staff at the time. Something intense is going on and apparently he felt he needed to see it instead of being blocked by Daley's head. Tomason is looking at Blinken possibly because he moved into blocking her view towards the screen at the front of the room, or maybe his body nudged hers as he shifted to get a better view, or maybe she's in love (I doubt it). In Zebest's offering the picture is too compact to really see, but you can see it clearly in the largest version of the picture which either Zebest never looked up or didn't want you to know about.
The blogger also complains about the hands, apparently Tomason's, which also look fine in the fully expanded highest definition version of the picture at Flickr. The picture at Wikipedia is the highest definition, but is shrunk to fit within the page. Flickr lets it stretch and you can scroll around for the full HD effect. You can even see what appears to be a wedding ring on Tomason's right hand. Yes, I said right hand. Either the picture is flipped or possibly after losing weight she found she needed to put it on the right hand to keep it on. If she is right handed that would fit a pattern that the bones of the fingers of the best hand are thicker than the other.
But big conspiracy I don't see, not when you view the versions with better resolution.
Why didn't Mara Zebest think of that? Or maybe the blogger did.
When we were all listening to the tape and hearing George Zimmerman say "effing coons", right wingers were telling us we will hear what we are told is there. That happens in viewing pictures too. And obviously, some know that and some are too dumb to know it, but not going to the highest definition of a picture and trying to analyze it, is a mistake or subterfuge.
Zebest's analysis fails completely at viewing the highest definition photo on close up.
Either he or she knows it or is easily duped.
Some earlier news breakers were found to have put online information they received from shadowy people with fake names. Some suggest that the GOP funnels information to right wing bloggers to get it into mainstream news. Bloggers like Mara Zebest seem to be their natural prey.
