Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 Jon, I can imagine a worse scenario for ya'. How about RBG not being mentally fit anymore, like in a coma or after a stroke? The Progressives do not have a habit of hiding a deceased politician from the public, but there are cases of where they hid incapacitated ones. Think Woodrow Wilson. If RBG is dead, President Trump gets to choose her replacement. To the Progressives, this is the end of the world because he will definitely not choose one who thinks like her, but instead a conservative leaning constitutionalist. But imagine if she were incapacitated. I don't know what the procedure is for determining removal of office, but to the Progressives, this would be the supreme humiliation. Not only would their idol get replaced by someone they loathe, his administration would take her power away from her while she was still living and she would not be in a position to fight back. It would be like spitting on her grave to them, but worse. It would be like President Trump spitting in the hole where she is to be buried right before putting the body in. I don't know why that thought brings me pleasure--not the spitting part or even the disrespecting of RNG part, but instead the suffering of the Progressive soul from stewing in its own poison... That brings a smile to my lips. I guess I'm damaged goods... Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Jon, I can imagine a worse scenario for ya'. How about RBG not being mentally fit anymore, like in a coma or after a stroke? The Progressives do not have a habit of hiding a deceased politician from the public, but there are cases of where they hid incapacitated ones. Think Woodrow Wilson. If RBG is dead, President Trump gets to choose her replacement. To the Progressives, this is the end of the world because he will definitely not choose one who thinks like her, but instead a conservative leaning constitutionalist. But imagine if she were incapacitated. I don't know what the procedure is for determining removal of office, but to the Progressives, this would be the supreme humiliation. Not only would their idol get replaced by someone they loathe, his administration would take her power away from her while she was still living and she would not be in a position to fight back. It would be like spitting on her grave to them, but worse. It would be like President Trump spitting in the hole where she is to be buried right before putting the body in. I don't know why that thought brings me pleasure--not the spitting part or even the disrespecting of RNG part, but instead the suffering of the Progressive soul from stewing in its own poison... That brings a smile to my lips. I guess I'm damaged goods... Michael Teo Absolvo (thou are absolved). I fully understand your feelings. Schadenfreude is my third favorite hobby. It is well I do not know where the people I despise are buried. If I did, I would pee on their graves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 12 weeks ago it was “hospitalized with 3 broken ribs.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-hospitalized.html 6 weeks ago, surgery for cancer. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/21/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-85-reportedly-undergoes-lung-procedure-.html 4 weeks ago, she can’t be at her job, she misses oral arguments — a first for her in 25 years. She was still recovering from all of the above. So, you see, it is perfectly normal and explainable that she is not showing up for work or in public or at the SOTU address tonight. Perfectly understandable why there has been no proof of life for two months. https://apnews.com/b1d7eb8384ef44099d63fde057c4172c She really is recovering, right? (Not languishing? Not dead?) Absolutely! Why, her son himself assures that she “walks a mile a day.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/ruth-bader-ginsburg-makes-first-public-appearance-since-cancer-surgery/2019/02/04/251d59f4-28cf-11e9-b2fc-721718903bfc_story.html A concert about her life but no one in the audience notices she is in the audience, no mentioning to the small audience that she is in the audience, no comment from her, no pictures of her, no selfies with her. Just kinda, oh look, it’s Pedoburg, on the way out. Oh, that’s her right there, damn, who knew. She was kinda hiding in the back. She was there. She was there. And she walks a mile a day. And everything else above is also true and explains everything they need it to explain. And it’s also true that she goes out and attends concerts. And walks a mile a day. SuperRuth Butstillrecovering Pedoburg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 6, 2019 Author Share Posted February 6, 2019 18 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: She really is recovering, right? Jon, That's what WaPo says. They even post a photo: Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 “THE GINSBURG SIGHTING” Ruth Bader Ginsburg has become as elusive as the mysterious Sasquatch. Recently Democrats claimed RGB was spotted in public last week at a concert given by her daughter-in-law and other musicians. In this age of ubiquitous smart phone photo taking, no snaps–discreet or otherwise–were taken. The easy excuse proffered was, ‘Cameras were not allowed at the event.’ Nobody photographed her outside the event, either. Maybe the 85 year-old Supreme Court Justice was beamed directly into her chair. Get Politically Incorrect Cartoons Too Shocking To Publish On Our Site These cartoons have gotten us banned before. See the viral cartoons that 100% trigger liberals and snowflakes. See The Shocking Cartoons Join the Fight against Fake News! Support Cartoons that shred the Democrat Narrative! Click to Donate A Washington(com) Post reporter claimed a number of Democrats phoned him. Each swore she was there, “It’s true, RGB lives and looks fabulous!” The reporter is beyond reproach because the Post said he was. The old and now discredited fake news dinosaur media rag, now run by Dr. Evil himself, (Jeff Bezos), then proceeded to label doubters as ‘conspiracy theorists.’ Here’s a snippet of wisdom designed to convince us of Ginsburg’s presence: “. . . A falsehood has been spreading in dark corners of the Internet that Ginsburg is dead — and in the hours after Barnes published his report, conspiracy theorists pelted him with their doubt-mongering. Photos were not allowed at the event, so one of the doubters emailed Barnes 21 questions about Ginsburg’s appearance — the size of her security detail, what gender they were, for example — telling Barnes that if he did not answer every single one of them, it would be a sign his article was not to be believed. . . .” OOoooo! “Dark corners!” Doubters like me who aren’t ‘official’ or ‘reliable’ journalists get called ‘conspiracy theorists’ because we doubt the official narratives created by the CIA and other ‘authorities!’ In this case, that Ginsburg is not in a sick bed dying of cancer or already dead, but rather very much alive—kicking ass and taking names. She could have shown up at the SOTU address to remove all doubt, but she despises Trump. The Democrats applaud her for her ‘resistance.’ So brave! I began my newspaper career right after college and one constant I noticed in newsrooms was this: Cynicism. Some of the best editors and reporters I knew were skeptics and cynics, aka ‘doubt mongers’ who constantly questioned what they were told. They investigated. They verified. They double-checked. Not any more—a dozen people paid by Soros can call up a newspaper and confirm that what was handed to an editor by the CIA is double-plus true! We should all question whether or not the Deep State is planting stories and rounding up citizen actors to carry out their latest false flag bunk and now, outrageously, they also want to make sure we aren’t allowed to even question said bunk! They got away with whitewashing the Kennedy assassination and now they think they can foist endless lies upon the public as a result. As long as it comes from an ‘authority’ like the government, Walter Cronkite, or The Washington Post, it has to be believed, right? Wrong. GrrrGraphics is Now on SubscribeStar, A free speech supporting alternative to Patreon, Support us there! Click to Join As for my ‘dark corner,’ it’s currently a very cold, forested, and snowy section of Montana. It’s here that I maintain my right to question everything I hear from the Deep State mainstream propaganda media. Sure, Ginsburg may indeed be alive and doing cartwheels down Main Street, but I demand better evidence than what the Washington Post throws on lawns. After all, they once ran an article in which I was smeared as being a KKK member. They did retract it when I threatened to sue them, but it woke me up. I’m not all that hard to contact, but they didn’t even bother to verify such an outlandish accusation. Instead, it was easier for them to print a blatant lie in order to attack conservatives. It’s what passes for journalism these days in the dark corners of the biggest blue cities. —Ben Garrison https://grrrgraphics.com/the-ginsburg-sighting/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 https://mobile.twitter.com/2runtherace New York Times uses old photo of RBG in article about her returning to SC on Friday!! Anon notable!! #QAnon #RBG @realDonaldTrump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 Today they yet again gaslight us about the condition of RB Pedoburg, this time using video from April 2018 hoping no one notices. Meanwhile every US citizen is scammed as they fraudulently cast Supreme Court votes in her name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 I withdraw my previous comments asserting her death. Ruth is back at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 19, 2019 Author Share Posted February 19, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 On 2/19/2019 at 6:36 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: " ???. I wonder who Der Trumpster will pick for his next Supreme? It will certainly be someone who enjoys and advocates "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Wolf! So far, the critics who called for censure about declaring an emergency over the wall, have not gained an audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 On 2/18/2019 at 8:50 PM, Jon Letendre said: Today they yet again gaslight us about the condition of RB Pedoburg, this time using video from April 2018 hoping no one notices. Meanwhile every US citizen is scammed as they fraudulently cast Supreme Court votes in her name. The Ruth Bader Pedoburg scam continues. Sloppily faked video of her at Stevens’ funeral ... Link to the analysed video: https://mobile.twitter.com/paulmuaddib61/status/1153432787308994560 https://mobile.twitter.com/paulmuaddib61 #JusticeStevensMemorial #DeepFakeVideo #RBGIsDead The video showing "proof of life" for RBG at Justice Stevens memorial is a deep fake. Three people out walk through two security guards, the velvet robe and in the one foot space between the coffin and the justices. 2:17 156.4K views 4:33 PM · Jul 22, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 The SCOTUS has been mostly a scam since the late 1930s when FDR scared it with the packing attempt, which my grandfather testified before Congress in favor of. But lately It's starting to tilt the other way. --Brant next: Zombie Ruth? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 The reasons given for the video being fake aren't convincing. There's room between the coffin and the people standing behind it for people to walk through, and the rope barrier doesn't extend all the way back to prevent them from entering. As for where the people came from, the camera angle doesn't include the entire room so they could have come from off camera. Also, something that moves transversely to a camera that doesn't tilt to follow it always appears blurred in a single frame. It's worth pointing out these erroneous allegations of fakeness because there really are some fakes out there and we don't want the waters muddied by cranks. A certainly fake video is the one of the alleged New Zealand Christchurch mosque shooting, the video the government made it a crime to distribute. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 25, 2019 Author Share Posted July 25, 2019 Just my own 2 cents, I find something really odd about the picture. And this suggests it could have been Photoshopped. The red circles have shadows from the lighting. The green circle has none. From the angle of the red circle shadows, there had to be one in the green circle. It looks like a Photoshopper might have screwed up. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 You can see the shadows of the other people in the same parade, and the shadows move along with them. The shadows are lower than their height so a shadow is sometimes hidden by the torso. I can’t see what the point would be of adding extra people and consequently risking being exposed as a hoax. Ginsburg is in the picture, that would be enough to show that she’s alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 3 hours ago, Mark said: The reasons given for the video being fake aren't convincing. There's room between the coffin and the people standing behind it for people to walk through, and the rope barrier doesn't extend all the way back to prevent them from entering. As for where the people came from, the camera angle doesn't include the entire room so they could have come from off camera. Also, something that moves transversely to a camera that doesn't tilt to follow it always appears blurred in a single frame. It's worth pointing out these erroneous allegations of fakeness because there really are some fakes out there and we don't want the waters muddied by cranks. A certainly fake video is the one of the alleged New Zealand Christchurch mosque shooting, the video the government made it a crime to distribute. I have not had time to dig into this one fully. Good point about being careful. They have been caught faking Ruth sightings so many times, for so long. There is no doubt she is dead or incapacitated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 8 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: The SCOTUS has been mostly a scam since the late 1930s when FDR scared it with the packing attempt, which my grandfather testified before Congress in favor of. But lately It's starting to tilt the other way. --Brant next: Zombie Ruth? Yeah, that little shit FDR really did try that, didn’t he? Like when Caesar stuffed the Senate with paid pals. More democracy! (Who could object?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 Douglas MacArthur: "So Roosevelt is dead; a man who never told the truth when a lie would serve him just as well." --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 25, 2019 Author Share Posted July 25, 2019 14 hours ago, Mark said: I can’t see what the point would be of adding extra people and consequently risking being exposed as a hoax. Ginsburg is in the picture, that would be enough to show that she’s alive. Mark I don't know the point and I don't know about Ginsburg. I do know this photo was likely Photoshopped and the person who did it was sloppy. The missing shadow is a big tell. Here's another. The people walking in the background are out of focus and kind of weirdly pixelated or something. The people in front of them and the backs of the heads in the foreground are in focus. You know what else is in focus? The statue head in the background. The flags in the background. The plants in the background. Etc. If I keep looking at this damn thing longer, I know I will find other things. In the upcoming world of deep fakes, it's a good idea to start learning about this stuff. I know Jonathan could do a number on this picture with both hands tied behind his back. Just noticing that a photo has been altered (or likely been altered) is not the same thing as making a statement about why. btw - I don't find the "Ginsburg is dead" idea likely, but I don't discount it, either. In Brazil, the first elected President after the Military Dictatorship, Tancredo Neves, fell ill before being sworn in and, in the view of almost everybody, died. He was probably killed since his VP was a military puppet (José Sarney). The rumors that he was dead and his body was being kept on ice were so thick, the government released a few photos of him, posed with makeup and all, including the one below. There is one with him and his family where he practically looks like Frankenstein that has likely been scrubbed from the Internet since I can't find it anywhere. But it was in all the magazines and newspapers at the time in a press blitz. Neves conveniently and officially died on the biggest Brazilian national holiday devoted to freedom, O Tiradentes, which is celebrated in a manner similar to our Fourth of July. O Tiradentes, The Dentist, was a colonial era martyr for freedom. He was hung and his body was quartered and displayed and everything. He was from the very region Neves was. So the public story of the death of Neves received a ribbon and bow, neat and tidy, with the government being the beneficiary of a miraculous coincidence, thus blessed by God. (Yeah, right...) Now, Brazil can have a story like in the US where Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on the same Fourth of July and James Monroe on a later Fourth of July. The reason I mention this is that I have lived through this kind of crap where the authorities keep a famous government figure who is dead from public knowledge until the release of the news of the death fits their agenda. Back then during the time of Neves, they didn't have Photoshop (well, computer graphics were still in a primitive stage), but they did have people able to stage photos. In modern days, I'm still appalled at how sloppy these idiots are with computer resources, like the idiots who messed with that photograph of Ginsburg. Remember Dan Rather falsifying a document about George Bush on a document obviously made by Microsoft Word, which didn't exist on the date printed on the document? I think we are going to see some howlers of the same caliber coming with deep fakes. But some of them will "take" like the document Obama presented as his birth certificate. (I don't know why they did that, but I do know the document was altered. When you say that these days, you get drenched in snark and doublespeak. Still, people who know what to look for have eyes and no amount of snark or doublespeak will change that. And it's interesting that the people who see the fake can usually reproduce a similar document or photo in real time right in front of everybody. The people who snark and doubletalk generally cannot produce in real time a copy similar to the one they are covering for, at least not on the equipment they claim produced the document.) We are entering a time where photos and videos and documents will be weak evidence since altering them for falsification will be so easy. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 Hardly going to claim that photos aren't/can't be 'shopped for someone's nefarious - or creative purposes, however this one looks as natural as I can assess it to be. There IS a shadow, very faint, over her shoulder. A shadow's depth, or darkness, is dependent on how far the subject is from the background, the nearer to it, the darker. And those people are stacked at varying distances, with Ginsburg closer to camera than the others and her shadow lower, because of the floodlights' downward angles. "Focus" and sharpness depends on a few things: focal distance from camera to subjects and aperture, "depth of field" - and - in the case of TV flood-lighting - as this is, rather than a "freezing" flashlight - on subject motion, or (not in this case) - camera unsteadiness, any of which cause "blur". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Mark I don't know the point and I don't know about Ginsburg. I do know this photo was likely Photoshopped and the person who did it was sloppy. The missing shadow is a big tell. I don't agree. As far as I can judge there is no "missing shadow". There is just not enough information in the picture to predict where exactly shadows should be seen. As Mark said, a shadow can sometimes be hidden by a torso. 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Here's another. The people walking in the background are out of focus and kind of weirdly pixelated or something. The people in front of them and the backs of the heads in the foreground are in focus. You know what else is in focus? The statue head in the background. The flags in the background. The plants in the background. Etc. That the people walking in the background are somewhat fuzzy, can easily be explained by motion unsharpness. You need a fairly short shutter time (or a flash) to "freeze" people walking sideways. This is in fact something you'd expect. I see no difference in pixelation in foreground or background. What you see is the motion blur of the walking people. I can't prove that this photo has not been altered, but neither do I see that it has been altered (apart from normal adaptation of brightness, contrast, sharpness etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 25, 2019 Author Share Posted July 25, 2019 18 minutes ago, Max said: That the people walking in the background are somewhat fuzzy, can easily be explained by motion unsharpness. Max, OK. I'll play. Here's a very simple process. Take the picture as is, increase the size, then take a screenshot of part of it. All low res, obviously. And you are telling me that the difference in clarity between the guy in front and the guy in back is due to "motion unsharpness." Really? How come the the body contour fuzziness is the same on the guy in back in both directions? "Motion unsharpness" would make the contour of the front of the dude clearer than the back. I strongly suspect the two dudes came from two different pictures. I don't find the idea preposterous at all. In fact, I find the possibility that there are two pictures fitted and merged into one a lot easier to accept as a reason than "motion unsharpness." I know I could produce something like this in real time right in front of everyone using two different pictures. As you say, your mileage varies. Also, Tony says there is a shadow (where the green circle is in the other picture). I probably have "shadow blindness" because, after increasing the size, I still don't see one. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Max, OK. I'll play. Here's a very simple process. Take the picture as is, increase the size, then take a screenshot of part of it. All low res, obviously. And you are telling me that the difference in clarity between the guy in front and the guy in back is due to "motion unsharpness." Really? Yes, really! 2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: How come the the body contour fuzziness is the same on the guy in back in both directions? "Motion unsharpness" would make the contour of the front of the duded clearer than the back. Why would that be? The fuzziness is caused by the fact that during the exposure, on the photo the part in front of the man is partly the light background (first part of the exposure) and partly the dark suit of the man (latter part of the exposure), so you get a grey gradient there. In the back part you get the same, only is here the first part dark and the latter part light (background). So both sides are fuzzy. 2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I strongly suspect the two dudes came from two different pictures. I don't find the idea preposterous at all. Only if you have independent evidence for that supposition. If not, use Occam's razor: motion blur is a simple and effective explanation, no conspiracy or complex tampering needed. Why put those walking people in the picture anyway? Doesn't make sense to me! 2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: As you say, your mileage varies. For the record, I have no idea who all these people are, and I don't care either. But I can recognize a bad argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 25, 2019 Author Share Posted July 25, 2019 As long as I am going on about this, let's amplify the statue. The clarity of the double shadows from lights coming from different angles suggests closer overhead lighting, so I won't bitch about that, but what are those white holes in between the statue and shadow on the right (neck and base)? And what the hell happened to its mouth? What the hell is covering it? If that doesn't look like the effect of grafting on parts of an image and smoothing with a smudge tool (or whatever you call it in Photoshop), I don't know what is. That thing almost looks like a cut from the overcoat. I used to fart around doing this stuff in my bad days. Do you have a "good argument" against tampering that explains that thing? Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 25, 2019 Author Share Posted July 25, 2019 6 minutes ago, Max said: If not, use Occam's razor: motion blur is a simple and effective explanation, no conspiracy or complex tampering needed. Max, Complex tampering? LOL... If screwing up superimposing pictures is complex to you, what the hell is simple? btw - Here's a cute online Background Removal tool (based on AI) you might like. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now