He's wearing his father's shoes ^^HonestlyNow wrote:Isn't the boy a bit too skinny (and his shoes a bit too large)?
It's like they stretched him.
Dont see an other explanation
He's wearing his father's shoes ^^HonestlyNow wrote:Isn't the boy a bit too skinny (and his shoes a bit too large)?
It's like they stretched him.
Agreed, all that's missing is the cartoon Bang!lux wrote:
It is the female child on the right who supposedly was the "victim." Note the highly suggestive (of gunshot wound) pattern on her clothing. And, she is posed to give us maximum view of it with her arm moved out of the way. She is also the only thing in the image with bright coloring while the rest of the image has drab or dark colors. [...]
This was a carefully composed image and, likely designed by a psychologist.
Deftly covered by none other than Anderson Cooper:My name is Natalie Barden and I wanted to tell the president that only police officers and the military should get guns. If people want to do it as a sport than they could go to a shooting range and the guns would not be able to leave there.
Oh my god.Farcevalue wrote:Sister of Newtown victim makes gun control plea in letter to Obama
From the grieving tyke's scrawled plea to the POTUS:
Deftly covered by none other than Anderson Cooper:My name is Natalie Barden and I wanted to tell the president that only police officers and the military should get guns. If people want to do it as a sport than they could go to a shooting range and the guns would not be able to leave there.
http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bes ... n.cnn.html
(Face plant) You've got to be friggin' kidding me.
You've got a funny 'logo' right here...CTGal1011 wrote: I know, I am probably stretching, but the lack of logos is really interesting to me.
lux wrote: This was a carefully composed image and, likely designed by a psychologist.
To me, that looks like it is simply supposed to be a hankercief tucked in to Mr. Greene's jacket pocket.simonshack wrote:
Of course, this is not a logo. It's some sort of 'stain'. So how would such a stain occur on a modern, digital picture? Well, back in the old days (one might argue) people used to print out their pictures on photographic paper. Some kid would then play around with the photo, scratching it with some sharp object - removing the photo's color emulsion and leaving a white stain on it. But is this the most likely explanation for that white blotch? Hardly.
A more likely hypothesis (which may be more reasonably argued) is that the Photoshop-Joe who played around with this image in Photoshop (inserting the girl on the right of this image) used the 'color picker tool' - and clicked on her white sweater - in order to use a retouching paintbrush-tool or the like. Joe then tested it on a dark area of the image - and simply forgot to undo it.
Yes! Odd that the rest of family is much more "dressed up" for the portrait, while her outfit is much less formal.simonshack wrote: I would also concur with Lux's interpretation of this image - which features this bright-&-colorful "shooting victim":lux wrote: This was a carefully composed image and, likely designed by a psychologist.
Hmm. I frankly cannot see the jacket pocket - and it must be a pretty moth-eaten handkerchief. But ok - I will consider this possibility too. What I will NOT consider, at this stage, is that this "NEWTOWN SHOOTING" actually took place as reported by the media. I am stating the obvious, of course - but the obvious is nowhere to be found in the media. We need to keep doing what we do - this planet deserves a better future. If you have kids, you'll surely appreciate this concept even more.Utah wrote: To me, that looks like it is simply supposed to be a hankercief tucked in to Mr. Greene's jacket pocket.