Monday, October 27, 2008

Naked Pictures Of The Obama Mama Here







My college minor was photography and I know most, if not all of the tricks. It ain't photoshop. Is it really The Obamamama? Very likely. Look at the nose, the mouth, the jawline, not to mention the eys and ears. I wasn't there for the photoshoot, but outside of being an actual witness to the happy-funtime photo shoot, I could safely assume that The Obamamama was not shy in front of the camera.




Discussion at The Happy Extremist

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dude.

Can you imagine going up to Obama and saying,

"Hey Obama, got any pictures of your mom naked?

Obama: I uhh umm don't think uhh ummm that it would uhh be ummm appropriate..

"Thats OK dude. You wanna buy some?"

Anonymous said...

Just a little FYI- I know men are, shall we say, slower, but the shoes aren't vintage, they are Fredericks of Hollywood heels. And the photoshop isn't bad, but it is still obviously fake. Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

So, men are slower, eh? Is that why the computer used to post your idiotic drivel was created by a man, not to mention almost every other invention you use to lead your "liberated" life? But I digress. More to the point, what proof do you have the shoes aren't vintage or the images were photoshopped? Where are the original headshots? Who's the model? It looks like Dunham. So if it's not Dunham, who is it?

Anonymous said...

Dude.... In 1959, I was 13; the background of the photos appears to be genuine.
And, the shoes also appear to be genuine.... especially like the ones viewed in True Confessions magazine types of the period.

Smiley...

Ronbo said...

The real Obamamama or not?

Well, there ain't no 100% way of telling as we say in the former Confederate state of Florida...however, the late Obamamama was a Leftist rebel of some minor note, and doing the nude picture thing as a slap on the face of 1950s/60s white middle class America would be just the thing to do, although she did top herself by allowing stud service from a black African simply to proof her "Progressive" (Communist) orientation.

Also, interesting was dumping the little boy on her white mother and father to be raised. How Progressive! A lilly white commie babe has her fun with an old black ram and dumps the finished product on the old folks.

Anonymous said...

Yea... any chick that is banging unmarried black dudes in Hawaii could very well be posing nude. I believe it and I am sure that Obamas Pappy was not the last one that put it to her. It was ME!! HA!

Ronbo said...

Only two things we know for sure about Obama: (1) He was born in Kenya and (2) His mother posed for nude photographs.

bIll said...

Photoshopped. Take a look at the neckline. In all three photos.

Anonymous said...

a zaftig woman like that with such a sharp jawline? Aren't there any mildly talented repubs who might do a better job?

Anonymous said...

Well, ummm. Liberal?

blutto said...

I've used Photoshop since it was PhotoKiosk, but not before it was PhotoGumBallMachine... those photos are not photoshopped, or kiosked, or GBM'd. They are genuine. On the serious side look at the neck muscles, the shadows match all other sharp shadows such as her legs and butt. And a rail thin gal like that has no hangover on her neck. My ex-maniac wife was that thin and she had NO spillage of the neck where a man has his adam's apple area. Libtards you are idiots.

Anonymous said...

FAKE, FAKE, FAKE

Whoever thinks they know photography and cannot see the problems with this photo - don't know Jack.

I have dissected every photo of Stanley Ann Dunham there is and they are all bogus composites.

That is why I had to jump in here and straighten you folks out.

On what planet do you live where light does not travel in straight lines and shadows do not follow the laws of physics?

And sundials that won't work!

The shadows are all painted in with a darken tool (like Photoshop's Burn tool).

The only way that the shadows produced by the model - and especially her arms - can be equidistant (aka, parallel) to her body is for her to be lying flat on the floor with the camera held directly above it (aka, perpendicular).

Ah, but the model is not flat on the floor but sitting up and propped in that position by her left arm.

And, the dumb forger could not even get the shadow to follow the contours of her torso right.

Starting from the back of her left hand and running up to her elbow, the shadow should run diagonally to the right and be over the Xmas gifts.

Look at that hand and her wrist - there is no shadow from her wrist and hand and there is a big gap in the shadow BECAUSE the forger started his shadow line at her wrist and went upwards.

There is a shadow between her ring finger and pinky, but none from the othe fingers!.

There is a painted in shadow on the inside of her left arm.

There are NO SHADOWS from the earrings, the necklace, or even from her nose!

WHERE ARE THE SHADOWS FOR EVERYTHING IN THE BACKGROUND???

Ever hear of a thing called DEPTH-OF-FIELD?

Look right behind her left shoulder - she's got a bicep like Mark McGuire!

Amateurs....

blutto said...

Fake? Anonymous has OBVIOUSLY never been at a photo shoot, or used camera lighting with multiple light sources to evenly light a model for shooting. Any 1/2 way decent amateur photographer wanting good shots in the old days of photography would take the time to set up lights that would all make shadows appear to come from different directions. Her body is very light white and with camera film the film chemistry responds to light, the back ground would appear dark, and shadows on a light object (her body) will change based on that chemistry. Depth of field has nothing to do with how you perceive shadows.DOF is about the range in distance from the film plane that is in focus to through the lens and as I said has nothing to do with shadows. Even if only single point lighting was used there is the phenomena of bounce, light bounces (reflects) variously off different objects so some shadows would be darker than others.

Danny Vice said...

Sorry to say, it looks like a fake to me.

I've done lots of high resolution photoshop editing. When you zoom these images up to about 500x, you can see lots of places where someone has tampered with the image.

Don't focus on the lighting or shadows. Photoshop can do a pretty good job of adding those in.

Look at the striation of the dot pixels around the neckline.

There are cutoff points in some orders of pixels, while in others you can definitely see the smudge tool at work - trying to blend the area where the head meets the body.

Images do have pixel cutoff points. That's where you have a string of pixels that seem to come to an abrupt change along a common line.

But in this image there's too many of them next to areas that appear to be smudged.

The smudge tool is the big giveaway here. It's deliberate and not hard to spot.

At one point the smudge tool even blends out a large section of the necklace she's wearing.

I also think the head was enlarged just a little too much - do doubt so it would adequately cover the real head in the image.

Now trust me. I have no love for Obama and I think it would be cool if pix of Obama's mother went viral all over the Internet.

But these are not her.

Ronbo said...

Danny: Thanks to me and my blogger brothers, "The Naked Obama Mama Picture" HAS gone VIRAL all over the Internet! (grin)

Becky said...

I've been a designers for decades and have used Photoshop for over ten years and do precisely this type of work (not necessarily on nude modals) and I can tell you with near 100% accuracy that this is real. Every single argument people have tried to use to prove this a fake look spot on accurate real to me. The shadows of the woman match in every way with the shadows of the table and chair and seam to fall exactly where I would expect them to in the provided lighting. All I can say is that if these are fake (all three of them) they are amazingly good (all three of them) and are obviously real (all three of them) and are clearly the same woman (all three of them) and the neck shadows and lines are perfectly accurate and clean in all poses (all three of them) Man oh man, if these are fake my hat truly goes off to the artist. Mega props.

cdrq97@gmail.com said...

if it looks like a whore and acts like a whore, it must be obamadinaJihads WHORE mother

ewgrimmfamily said...

If these are photoshopped, they are one heck of a lot better than that phoney birth certificate that I picked off the WH website about 20 minutes after it was posted. Now THAT's a phoney! These, even at 500x, look too good to not be real.

J. Keen Holland said...

Re the comment that the shoes are Fredericks of Hollywood: FWIW, I just looked through their shoe catalog and didn't find anything close to those shoes, but they do look a lot like shoes in similar photos of the Betty Page era. If these were faked, the body (and shoes) are likely vintage because certain views (guess) ran afoul of postal authorities. If the heads are Ann Dunham - but cut and paste - someone should be able to locate the originals online (where else would the forger obtain them?).

William Simard said...

Why not get a copy of the magazines and see for yourself if these were photoshop.

William Simard said...

I don't think these are fake, get a copy of the original magazine and see if it is.