«

"Bob Larter" <> wrote

> Look at it closely, it's obviously the shadow of a branch.

Can't see a tree there on any aerial views of the White house I've found so
far. More likely it is the shadow of a Secret Service guy *disguised* as a
tree!

Actually, I haven't yet found a view that includes a putting green - they
all just show one neatly-mown lawn, although the WH has had a putting green
since the Johnson days. Maybe they didn't maintain it as one until Obama
took over? Unlikely they ever let Bush loose with a dangerous weapon like a
golf club...

Paul

On Apr 30, 10:58*pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > And poorly done at that. *Is this change we can believe in?
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454
>
> Perhaps, but it sure is change we are paying for.......

Can you name one government, any time, anywhere, that has operated
without cost?

Taxes have been a reality of life ever since Og figured out that since
he was the biggest guy in the cave community he could collect a
healthy percentage of his neighbor's property by simply threatening to
crush the skull of anyone who objected.

The main difference between then and now is that we get F-22s -and
some other stuff- for our money instead of watching Og take our
property *and* our women with no recompense whatsoever

On Apr 30, 10:11*pm, "Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR
lizzy.com.au> wrote:
>
> Actually, I haven't yet found a view that includes a putting green - they
> all just show one neatly-mown lawn, although the WH has had a putting green
> since the Johnson days.

Google Earth shows one clearly, and located right where the picture
was taken too. However, it also shows a tree bordering/overhanging the
golf green that is apparently no longer there.

This should be no great surprise, as the Google Earth pics of *my*
house were apparently taken clear back in 2006 and there's no reasion
to suspect that the White House pics were taken any more recently.

~Pete

On Apr 30, 10:57*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESP...@me.com>
wrote:
>
> Google Earth shows it as 2009 imagery, but who knows?

I do. And 2009 is the copyright date. But if you look down about
halfway to the right on the lower edge of the Google Earth screen you
will find the photo's titular date: 2002.

This is not surprising, as a lot of Google Earth's shots are several
years out of date (the pic featuring my house is dated 2003) and there
may well be security reasons for not keeping everything right up to
date on the White House photos anyway.

Matter of fact, I'd be a little surprised if a few of the White
House's less-publicised security features have not been either erased
or carefully distorted to mislead potential troublemakers.

~Pete

> "Twibil" <> wrote

> Google Earth shows one clearly, and located right where the picture
was taken too. However, it also shows a tree bordering/overhanging the
golf green that is apparently no longer there.

Ah, now I see it. (I didn't use GE at first, it takes forever to load on
dialup!) The green is further away from the building than I thought, the
picture we're talking about makes it look a lot closer.

Paul

Paul Bartram wrote:
> "Bob Larter" <> wrote
>
>> Look at it closely, it's obviously the shadow of a branch.
>
> Can't see a tree there on any aerial views of the White house I've found so
> far. More likely it is the shadow of a Secret Service guy *disguised* as a
> tree!

Of course! *cough*

> Actually, I haven't yet found a view that includes a putting green - they
> all just show one neatly-mown lawn, although the WH has had a putting green
> since the Johnson days. Maybe they didn't maintain it as one until Obama
> took over? Unlikely they ever let Bush loose with a dangerous weapon like a
> golf club...

Indeed.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:58:52 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
> <> wrote:
>
>> This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
>> stitched.
>> And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454
>
> And if you look long enough you'll also see a UFO and Damien staring
> out the window.

Well, I'm sure that Brett can see them. ;^)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
news:0d85c26b-f2b5-4318-a38e-...
On Apr 30, 12:12 pm, "Hans Kruse" <hans.kr...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:

> Where is the stitching done? Maybe it is so obvious that I don't see it.

First look at the Large size photo.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiteho...68454/sizes/l/

Notice the line down the tree in the background where the tree changes
colors. This line continues down into the grass.

Now look at the photo at it's original size.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiteho...68454/sizes/o/

You can clearly see where the photos have been joined.

My guess is that either Obama and Biden weren't there at the same
moment or somebody else was there that was taken out. And who's
shadow is that to the right?
And what is Obama putting to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a painting of the signing of the Declaration of Indenpendence which
also appears on the back of the $2 bill. There are about a half dozen people
in that painting who weren't at the signing. Additionally, there are about a
half dozen people who were at the signing who aren't in the painting.
My point? Who cares! It's the spirit or intent of the picture that counts.

On May 1, 1:57*am, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESP...@me.com> wrote:
> On 2009-04-30 22:11:16 -0700, "Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR
> lizzy.com.au> said:
>
>
>
> > "Bob Larter" <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> Look at it closely, it's obviously the shadow of a branch.
>
> > Can't see a tree there on any aerial views of the White house I've found so
> > far. More likely it is the shadow of a Secret Service guy *disguised* as a
> > tree!
>
> I have to agree.
> That is a South Lawn view, confirmed by the South facing of the WH and
> the awning extending out of the building. There is no tree anywhere
> near that area on the lawn. So the shadow is certainly a third party.

You win the award for stating the obvious. Anyone who ever thought it
was a tree or Secret Service agent or anything like that doesn't know
enough about photo analysis to comment on the picture. Not all photo
analysis involves analyzing photos. Sometimes you just have to use a
bit of old-fashioned common sense. It is completely obvious what the
shadow is ... dramatic pause ... it is the person who owns the third
golf ball !!! That is the obvious thing in the photo.

The only thing I thought there were only two unusual elements to the
picture, which you-all missed: first, the President of the United
States is using a Nike golf club. Second, no one put a piece of tape
over the logo so he isn't seen as endorsing Nike.

>
>
>
> > Actually, I haven't yet found a view that includes a putting green - they
> > all just show one neatly-mown lawn, although the WH has had a putting green
> > since the Johnson days. Maybe they didn't maintain it as one until Obama
> > took over? Unlikely they ever let Bush loose with a dangerous weapon like a
> > golf club...
>
> Google Earth shows it as 2009 imagery, but who knows?
> The line of the building visible between the trees, appears to be part
> of the East Wing.
>
>
>
> > Paul
>
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck

On Fri, 01 May 2009 14:45:41 -0400, Alan Browne
<> wrote:

>> And what is Obama putting to?
>
>Multiple holes on a putting practice green is not unusual.

It is, in fact, the usual configuration.

>I'm sure the White House has better things to risk a "photo manipulation
>scandal" on.

Let's say for a minute that it *is* Photoshopped, stitched, and
manipulated seven ways from the middle. What would be scandalous
about it?

Now if the Republicans came up with a similar photo with Chavez
Photoshopped in as Obama's putting partner, *that* would be
scandalous.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida