FedUpUSA

So THAT'S Who The Violent Protestors Are!

 

So THAT’S Who The Violent Protestors Are!

Posted by Karl Denninger

We keep hearing from the “useful idiots” in the media that the “Tea Partiers” are interested in violence.

Never mind that I’ve yet to meet a violent Tea Partier, or a bigoted one for that matter.  Having spoken now twice at Tea Parties in Niceville as well as in Tallahasse and Ft. Lauderdale, there has not only been no indication of violent tendencies (e.g. no threatening signs, nothing that could be called racist beliefs, etc) but in point of fact the speaker that drew the loudest applause in both Niceville and Ft. Lauderdale was a black American (and veteran, if it matters.)

But if you look at a different group of people who are protesting – hard-core lefties who are upset at the rule of law as passed in Arizona, you find this:

GIVE US FREE (insert the list) OR WE WILL SHOOT MORE POLICE?

If Janet Napolitano is looking for violent home-grown terrorism, the Tea Partiers aren’t the people she needs to be looking at.  It would seem to me that someone carrying a sign declaring clear intent to kill law enforcement officers would be on the top of the list, no?

Have you seen this reported in the mainstream media?

No, you have not.

Gee, I wonder why?

Update: There are reports that this photograph may have been tampered with.  I have as a consequence taken the time to examine the copy that I have under significant pixel magnification.  Here are my findings:

  1. The lower part of the sign DOES show what looks to be a staple attachment to the pole, which some have said isn’t evident.  The resolution is insufficient to be CERTAIN it’s a staple, but it’s in the right place.

  2. The anti-aliasing in the upper and lower signs looks to be a good match.  Also, the stylizing of the “W”s and “E”s match.  The anti-aliasing and edge noise, by the way, strongly implies that it was NOT digitally doctored.

  3. The anti-aliasing and noise profile in the sign reasonably matches that in the other elements of the image.  This also implies that the image is in fact a photograph and was not tampered with.

  4. The SIZE of the picture has been altered from the original.

Verdict: Inconclusive, but the sort of things that would immediately mark this as a doctored fake (e.g. someone inserting the lower panel onto someone else’s sign) are MISSING.

Attached are two snippets from some of the enhanced sections that I looked at; note the anti-aliasing is an exact match, implying strongly that either (1) the same device was responsible for ALL source images or (2) there is only one source image.  It’s not proof, but typically when someone tampers with an image using something like Photoshop the differences in anti-aliasing are instantly noticeable as the original pixel counts do not match and as such the anti-aliasing doesn’t either!

Share

Comments

comments