I noticed something odd about the notorious crotch photo: Everyone is displaying it upside down. The table legs visible in the photo reveal the proper orientation.Here, I have displayed the photograph correctly. Click to enlarge.
The original version was (intentionally?) cropped to make it appear that the subject of the photo was standing. In this version, it is clear that subject is sitting. (The cropped and reversed version -- the one you've all seen -- is below.) Once the image is oriented correctly, it becomes pretty clear that someone else might have snapped it from behind the left shoulder.
It's also pretty clear that the subject is not Weiner. The guy in this shot is massive -- incredibly huge -- and he's not even erect. In fact, he seems flaccid. The universe of possible candidates is actually pretty small. Judging from other photos of Weiner, the congressman is not in that universe.
Incidentally: Those of you who have said that "he hasn't denied" are guilty of selective quotation. Weiner has denied. He has made clear that he isn't built like this. (His words to Rachel Maddow: "I wish.")
I don't think that this image has been Photoshopped. For one thing, enlarging the penis to cartoonish proportions hardly helped the framer make his case. If anything, enlargement of that area would have been a supremely foolish move. The smear job would have been more persuasive if a the photo depicted a normal-sized man. Besides, I can see no "tells" indicating image manipulation, and I have some experience with Photoshop.
35 comments:
where's jeff gannon these days?
Well that shot answers one question I had. I thought one of the republican pranksters might have used a photo of their own junk. The size is a give-a-way and also the reason most republicans are so mean.
Actually, look at where in the briefs the supposed phallus starts. Kind of east of the Y. Unless his dick starts on his hip bone, I'm not sure this is even an actual penis.
It is obvious that's not a real "weiner" but rather someone stock a New York sausage inside their briefs, must likely done by DW.
You nailed it, Mike. LMAO!
Considering the co-conspirator Mike Stack (@goatsred) was a porn site moderator and is a current member of a number of porn sites I'm guessing this picture came from his likely extensive porn library.
This thorough debunking of Weinergate is one reason I love the internet. The Tea Party harassment of the young girls is one reason I hate it. Makes the stalking of teen girls even creepier when you see what a perv goatsred is.
It's me. I confess.
I may be too innocent (or ignorant)to understand why, but the bulge seems to be two-sided in a somewhat odd way.
I believe that most of whatever is in that underwear is not real, the tip doesn't taper. It looks like rolled paper to me.
That penis is not Anthony's and not real. Weiner stuffed a dildo in his drawers and faked his size to the internet. I demand Wolf Blitzer get to the bottom of this.
@alix, that's exactly what I thought when I saw the whole pic. The placement is wrong and the outline is wholly incorrect. It looks more like a pair of socks than a penis
Looks fake! Faker than the fakest birth certificate, almost as fake as evidence of Iraqi WMD.
Of course, if you never intend to meet the person then faking it is not big deal.
I'm not sure if the guy is "flaccid". I wonder if he's had penis enlargement surgery where the ligaments at the base of the penis have been cut.
Unless his dick starts on his hip bone, I'm not sure this is even an actual penis."
Yeah, I see that too...
You're right, Alix. It starts the wrong place, and it's too big to be true. Some adolescent has stuck a salami down his knickers and had his photo taken.
I don't imagine it would be difficult for Weiner to prove that whatever's causing that bulge can't be his knob.
The photo could have been made with something else stuck in the underpants. But that "something else" must have an appropriately-shaped head.
Was Photoshop used to create something that wasn't there? It's possible. But whoever did that would have been immensely skilled. Look carefully at the texture of the underwear: That sort of thing makes a job like this really, really difficult, to the point of being nightmarish. You can't just use the clone tool, because the texture is wrapped in a curved pattern which is actually somewhat complex. If I were asked to create something like this, I'd have to paint an underlying picture in grey tones and then overlay a pattern taken from a real pair of undies. The pattern could be shaped using the liquify command. But even THEN the results might look crummy.
And then there's the problem of masking. Look closely, and you'll see wispy fuzz along the edge of the linen against the background. Now, you could DO that -- you could painstakingly outline each little wisp of fuzz using the quickmask tool. But lemme tell ya, 99% of the Photoshop artists out there would not bother with that detail -- even when they are paid big bucks, as when they do up a movie poster.
No, I would tend to rule out Photoshop. We can't rule it out completely, but it's not the way to bet. Either this is a guy who stuck a fake penis in his shorts as a joke, or this is a really, really well-hung guy.
I should here mention another point which very few have noted, even though it is pretty damned obvious. If you use twitter to send a photo, that photo shows up in YOUR Yfrog account as well! And it is thus available to anyone.
I discovered that after one night of experimentally using Twitter. Any seasoned twitter user would know this.
It just does not make sense that Weiner would make a picture like this public.
You just know that once it's out there that the junk shot is an anatomical impossibility and not Rep. Weiner's own they'll be accusing him of false advertising.
How is this porn? A two-headed penis belongs in Ripley's Believe It or Not. Of course, something was stuck in the underwear. That's why one head was cropped out of the first picture. That's why there has to be a pair of panties hiding the goods. And that's why the picture was taking with the person reclining (so the fake penis didn't fall out). No?
Did I miss something? Where did this original photo come from?
Also, any reason to believe "Dan Wolfe" is not, in fact, an alias used by Mike Stack (his denials notwithstanding)?
The pictures don't look the same i.e. the one that's right side up has a table leg in it and the one being mediashopped doesn't.
Why?
The picture looks like someone with their arm in their pants.
Two sided: the hand.
Seriously guys? Have any of you even checked yourselves? This looks perfectly normal size. If none of your penises make it halfway across your thigh like on the picture, I feel sorry for you...
This is the only comment by Seivo that I'm going to allow. Because it is really, really funny.
Oops! I meant to say Seixon. Sorry; I'm double-tasking here.
And even with all the evidence that this was a fake up from the get go, the morons commenting over at breitbart.com are still at it....
http://www.breitbart.tv/mark-shields-what-the-hell-is-a-member-of-congress-having-portraits-of-his-crotch-available-for-distribution/
Heaven forbid reality get in the way of a partisan rant.
"The guy in this shot is massive -- incredibly huge -- and he's not even erect. In fact, he seems flaccid."
All anyone ever needs to read in order to vote GOP for the rest of one's life....
This is the first time I've seen the un-cropped photo... you see a table-leg or chair-leg AND a distinctive wooden floor pattern... FORGET taking sides, does anyone know if Weiner has been asked if that's the flooring from his residence or office? If it is, game-over, right?!
I agree about the size and the two headed comment. It's just way too thick and round, and I agree that it looks to start way too far off center. The angle of the lens (whether the guy was sitting or not) on a skinny guy, like Weiner, would probably produce a thinner looking leg, possibly more tan looking as well. I don't see any leg hair, I would think he'd have dark leg hair showing.
As for the size and where it starts....I normally don't wear boxer briefs like this, but wore some last night to bed and did a comparison to this famous photo with my morning wood.
The boxer briefs create an illusion of the shaft starting beyond the point of origin at the center of your netherregions. The knit fabric tents beyond the point of origin because it's pulled up by the firm shaft and tip. So the tenting adds a few inches of rod illusion toward the hip opposite where the glans points.
I proved it myself this morning in bed.
Silly me. I posted @ 12:30 wondering where the pics came from; I now know that one (the cropped one) came from Breitbart, and the other one came from Dan Wolfe's screen cap: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/05/982416/-The-Photo-Is-Upside-Down-%28NSFW%29?via=siderec
Two words: Al Bundy.
This is a person sitting Al Bundy style, with his arm down his BVDs. That is a FOREARM, not a wang.
Much ado about nothing. Call it not-a-weiner gate.
I knew I wasn't totally insane!
I posted about the strange angle of the photo last Wednesday.
It's his hand. Surely? His right hand. And as for why it's upside down - if your right hand is in your pants, you need to take the picture with the left. Try and do that and you'll find the shutter release is on the wrong side of the camera, so you need to hold the camera upside down and use your thumb. Which then gives you with an upside-down image (the one that was circulated previously). Am I right?
No one seems to be asking WHY the photo was changed before Breitbart released it.
Altering the photo encouraged Weiner to lie. It gave him the out of being able to say he couldn't tell "with certitude" if it was him. It gave him the TRUTH that the photo had been manipulated. It probably also gave him the internal question of HOW did Breitbart get the photo, since it maybe wasn't the one he had actually tweeted.
I sure hope the Congressional investigation is very, very thorough.
Post a Comment