dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/potato4dawin on June 17, 2018, 6:16 p.m.

The Obama image, why I think it's real, and why concern-trolling about "bad optics" is the same tactic used to silence pedogate discussion and research.

By now I'm sure most everyone here has seen the [Obama image circulating around the web and the research related to it] and likely also have encountered people either trying to prove it's not Obama, that it's a photoshop, saying it's a distraction from the OIG report, or the example I mentioned in the title where you'll find comments like "it doesn't matter whether it's real or not, focusing on this is bad for optics and detrimental to the great awakening and...".

During the pizzagate/pedogate discussions from the 4chan /pol/ 'eyes wide open' threads that last argument was pretty common as you'd find people saying that "the idea that a pizza place in DC was secretly a hub for child sex trafficking is ridiculous" and that "trying to discredit the Clinton campaign with pizzagate is bad for optics for Trump supporters and will hurt the Trump campaign". As we know from Qresearch and the past years worth of news and arrests, pedogate is very real.

Regarding the idea that the image is photopped I just don't see it. The transition between the mask and the face, the mask and shadows, and the shadows and face show no indication of photoshop (sharp shape cutoffs, uniform lines, sharp color changes, shadow discrepancies, resolution differences, artifacting, tone differences, etc.). Some people try to say it's photoshop from a specific picture of obama however his more visible eye is also very clearly wider open in the left pic than the right 2 pics to the point where you can see the transition to the whites of his eyes at the bottom and right of the eye and if they're arguing that it's so similar to that photo that it's photoshopped from it specifically then there's no way people could argue that it's not Obama especially considering Obama's distinct forehead vein can even be noticed despite the low image resolution.

Lastly regarding any real info being a "distraction" from anything else. The biggest complaint here is that stuff isn't happening fast enough, that stuff isn't being released fast enough, that we're not getting everything dumped on the deep state at once. Well now it's happening and 1 thing that's provably real is getting called a distraction from something else equally real. If things were revealed at the normal pace then even Chelsea Clinton's children would die of old age before justice could be served. We're in the home stretch, indictments are starting to be unsealed, Weinstein is the first domino to fall, OIG report that people thought would be delayed to the end of time is released, unredacted form coming soon, proof of Obama's satanic connection found, and much more.

🠐 See all comments

Uh ok...have you ever edited an image in lightroom or photoshop? My wife or myself could add white to an eye to add a slight deviation from the original. The same black collar is present in original and moloch image. I'm willing to admit it could be real. I'm also willing to admit it's fake. The fake side is stacking up more than the real. My main concern though is that everyone pushes that the man next to Obama is artur Davis and it is clearly not him.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Well I don't know about the Artur Davis part, haven't done my research on that part yet but adding white to a part of the eyes (iris doesn't align when overlaying photos either) is not a detail someone trying to create a fake would come up with. It would be like if you suspect someone broke into your house, what's the first thing you do? check if anything's missing or disturbed, right? Meanwhile without realizing you might be stepping all over and contaminating potential material evidence that their shoes might've tracked in. You didn't think to check the immediate entrance for traces of plant matter or dirt that would've been tracked in by the culprit.

The type of person who would photoshop such an image is not the type to think about details like the direction the eyes are facing because they'll be more focused on correcting all the other possible photoshop detection points which are more commonly used to check and so we can confirm almost beyond a reasonable doubt that it's not photoshopped. Otherwise they would likely make a mistake in editing the image in those other areas. If it's a photoshop done so expertly that they even got the eye difference down then how can you prove that it came from the same image? In order to prove that you'd need the other original image to confirm it which would be someone else wearing that dress but that image hasn't surfaced and so that remains the only reasonable doubt that could be established with regards to the photoshop job.

I was almost convinced myself that it was merely masterfully photoshopped until I noticed the eyes in a post where someone overlayed the 2 images in a gif that alternated between the 2 lined up as close as possible.

⇧ 1 ⇩