Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope, don't agree that those two little girls are the same. the girl in the family photo has thicker hair, it is darker than the girl with Obama,and look closely at the family photo smile on that little girl. DIFFERENT. They look similiar, and since they are wearing the same color clothes, I think you've been deceived. Look closely at the clothes in the family photo. That girl is wearing a different dress. The girl with obama has a "print" in the red skirt or bottom of her dress. However, the most obvious difference is in the faces, the color and thickness of hair. The girl with Obama has MUCH THINNER HAIR than the girl in the family photo.
Ahem ... why am I not shocked that you'd disagree? You seem to have a predisposed urge to do so on virtually every topic so far that I can recall. But this time, you expose yourself, and you should have just left it alone.
The little girl in the photo with Obama is one of the Parker girls, because there is another photo of the Parker mother holding her, at the same venue with Obama, wearing the same dress. So, that isolates the child as being one of the three. The family photo of the whole family shows the youngest one in the middle, which is ABSOLUTELY NOT the girl in black and red dress with Obama. The other sister, to the left side of the family portrait appears to have a chubbier face and less pronounced chin, though they do look very similar, but the the natural part in her hair is on the left side, the opposite side of Emily's. That's a key element ... and the key distinction, because Emily's hair parts on the right side, just as does the little girl with Obama. The child with Obama is Emily, if Emily is the child on the right side of the family portrait, which I assume the parents should know, and that is the girl identified as Emily. That she's wearing the SAME dress is also rather interesting but not the key, because the parents could have dressed the living girl in her dead sister's dress, but that would be freaky, don't you think? As for this "pattern" nonsense, you cannot see the lower skirt portion in the family portrait, therefore your "pattern" claim is bogus. It's the same dress.
As for the hair ... thicker/thinner -- lighter/darker? Come on now, who do you think you're going to BS with that load of nonsense? I'm a guy and I know that hair can be lighter and fluffier and fuller looking if it's freshly washed and brushed, rather than a little greasy and a bit unkept, which flattens it out. And I've had (not that I'm bragging) my fair share of experiences with a number of natural blondes over the years, and the hair is much finer and subject to variation in that regard in very little time. One old HS sweetheart had white blonde hair, and she'd fuss with her hair endlessly to make it look fuller and thicker .. and her efforts would last for maybe an hour or two ... boom, then straight back to lying flat. The family photo appears that the little girl's hair was freshly brushed (such that one might naturally do just before a family portrait is taken).
As for the lightness and darkness comparison of the hair between the two photos ... I don't know any way of saying this without sounding insulting, because it truly is an idiotic thing for you to say. It's called "exposure" ... and slight variation in exposure accounts for such differences, and anyone who has ever taken a photograph knows that. Hell, anyone who has more than one photo of themselves, knows this.
But I know how doggedly determined and stubborn you can be, so I wasted 5 seconds of my time to illustrate this for you, to satisfy any legitimate doubts you might have falsely created in the malleable minds that might be following the discussion:
Is that better, Fancy? With a similar exposure, the hair is magically not darker anymore. AMAZING, huh?
Now, we can reverse the order, and make the hair on the little girl with Obama as being darker than the family photo ..... are you going to say I switched the girls? Bwuhahahahahaha ... thanks for the laugh, fancyfeast ... you really are too much sometimes.
And the magic of photography easily corrects such exposure issues, and now, the little girl with Obama has much darker hair than the family photo:
I will grant you one concession though ... both of the "sisters" ... the one on the left side with her hair "up" and parted on the left, looks very similar to Emily, with the major difference being that her hair is down, and parted on the right. Hmmm .. fancy ... you might be onto something. Emily is just kinda hanging out on the side in that family portrait ... therefore it's not out of the realm of possibility that Emily was actually the other sister with her hair done differently, and that family portrait ... Emily is just added on in there .. and both are the same little girl. That would sure take care of a lot of issues ... if Emily never really existed.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 12-28-2012 at 09:29 PM..
This thread is proof that many zealot gun owners have mental illness for which they themselves do not acknowledge and/or seek help. Or, if help was sought, it hasn't worked.
But if your doctors have prescribed meds, please take them! It might make some of the paranoid/conspiracy delusions go away...
Well, thanks for the advice. I'll pass. Those type of meds tend to cause people to commit mass shootings.
I'd offer you advice in return, but the technology for brain transplants hasn't been developed yet.
Ahem ... why am I not shocked that you'd disagree? You seem to have a predisposed urge to do so on virtually every topic so far that I can recall. But this time, you expose yourself, and you should have just left it alone.
The little girl in the photo with Obama is one of the Parker girls, because there is another photo of the Parker mother holding her, at the same venue with Obama, wearing the same dress. So, that isolates the child as being one of the three. The family photo of the whole family shows the youngest one in the middle, which is ABSOLUTELY NOT the girl in black and red dress with Obama. The other sister, to the left side of the family portrait appears to have a chubbier face and less pronounced chin, though they do look very similar, but the the natural part in her hair is on the left side, the opposite side of Emily's. That's a key element ... and the key distinction, because Emily's hair parts on the right side, just as does the little girl with Obama. The child with Obama is Emily, if Emily is the child on the right side of the family portrait, which I assume the parents should know, and that is the girl identified as Emily. That she's wearing the SAME dress is also rather interesting but not the key, because the parents could have dressed the living girl in her dead sister's dress, but that would be freaky, don't you think? As for this "pattern" nonsense, you cannot see the lower skirt portion in the family portrait, therefore your "pattern" claim is bogus. It's the same dress.
As for the hair ... thicker/thinner -- lighter/darker? Come on now, who do you think you're going to BS with that load of nonsense? I'm a guy and I know that hair can be lighter and fluffier and fuller looking if it's freshly washed and brushed, rather than a little greasy and a bit unkept, which flattens it out. And I've had (not that I'm bragging) my fair share of experiences with a number of natural blondes over the years, and the hair is much finer and subject to variation in that regard in very little time. One old HS sweetheart had white blonde hair, and she'd fuss with her hair endlessly to make it look fuller and thicker .. and her efforts would last for maybe an hour or two ... boom, then straight back to lying flat. The family photo appears that the little girl's hair was freshly brushed (such that one might naturally do just before a family portrait is taken).
As for the lightness and darkness comparison of the hair between the two photos ... I don't know any way of saying this without sounding insulting, because it truly is an idiotic thing for you to say. It's called "exposure" ... and slight variation in exposure accounts for such differences, and anyone who has ever taken a photograph knows that. Hell, anyone who has more than one photo of themselves, knows this.
But I know how doggedly determined and stubborn you can be, so I wasted 5 seconds of my time to illustrate this for you, to satisfy any legitimate doubts you might have falsely created in the malleable minds that might be following the discussion:
Is that better, Fancy? With a similar exposure, the hair is magically not darker anymore. AMAZING, huh?
Now, we can reverse the order, and make the hair on the little girl with Obama as being darker than the family photo ..... are you going to say I switched the girls? Bwuhahahahahaha ... thanks for the laugh, fancyfeast ... you really are too much sometimes.
And the magic of photography easily corrects such exposure issues, and now, the little girl with Obama has much darker hair than the family photo:
I will grant you one concession though ... both of the "sisters" ... the one on the left side with her hair "up" and parted on the left, looks very similar to Emily, with the major difference being that her hair is down, and parted on the right. Hmmm .. fancy ... you might be onto something. Emily is just kinda hanging out on the side in that family portrait ... therefore it's not out of the realm of possibility that Emily was actually the other sister with her hair done differently, and that family portrait ... Emily is just added on in there .. and both are the same little girl. That would sure take care of a lot of issues ... if Emily never really existed.
Oh sweet Jesus. Dude, you have gone off the deep end over fear of losing your guns. Which we all know is not going to happen.
Why is it that righties are so enamored with conspiracy?
Oh sweet Jesus. Dude, you have gone off the deep end over fear of losing your guns. Which we all know is not going to happen.
Why is it that righties are so enamored with conspiracy?
The better question is why are you lefties so easily duped, and what makes you people so trusting of proven liars, even in the face of inconsistency after another after another?
Probably because what I jabber about on City-Data .. as popular and far reaching as CD may be, is not considered a grave threat to the mass media empire of the New World Order But it's just a guess. Besides, what would you do for a living if you had no one to debunk on message boards? The job market for propagandists is rather isolated in it's opportunities, as I understand.
Two empty metal tubes were turned in. The LAW turned in is a one time use throw-a-way. Like a mortar tube, they are useless without the explosive projectile.
I'm going to lapse into hopeless pedantry here and split another hair. The M14 and M16 are detachable magazine fed, the M1 garand is clip fed. I'm only mentioning this because the news people and legislators are getting the terminology wrong all the time.
Ahem ... why am I not shocked that you'd disagree? You seem to have a predisposed urge to do so on virtually every topic so far that I can recall. But this time, you expose yourself, and you should have just left it alone.
The little girl in the photo with Obama is one of the Parker girls, because there is another photo of the Parker mother holding her, at the same venue with Obama, wearing the same dress. So, that isolates the child as being one of the three. The family photo of the whole family shows the youngest one in the middle, which is ABSOLUTELY NOT the girl in black and red dress with Obama. The other sister, to the left side of the family portrait appears to have a chubbier face and less pronounced chin, though they do look very similar, but the the natural part in her hair is on the left side, the opposite side of Emily's. That's a key element ... and the key distinction, because Emily's hair parts on the right side, just as does the little girl with Obama. The child with Obama is Emily, if Emily is the child on the right side of the family portrait, which I assume the parents should know, and that is the girl identified as Emily. That she's wearing the SAME dress is also rather interesting but not the key, because the parents could have dressed the living girl in her dead sister's dress, but that would be freaky, don't you think? As for this "pattern" nonsense, you cannot see the lower skirt portion in the family portrait, therefore your "pattern" claim is bogus. It's the same dress.
As for the hair ... thicker/thinner -- lighter/darker? Come on now, who do you think you're going to BS with that load of nonsense? I'm a guy and I know that hair can be lighter and fluffier and fuller looking if it's freshly washed and brushed, rather than a little greasy and a bit unkept, which flattens it out. And I've had (not that I'm bragging) my fair share of experiences with a number of natural blondes over the years, and the hair is much finer and subject to variation in that regard in very little time. One old HS sweetheart had white blonde hair, and she'd fuss with her hair endlessly to make it look fuller and thicker .. and her efforts would last for maybe an hour or two ... boom, then straight back to lying flat. The family photo appears that the little girl's hair was freshly brushed (such that one might naturally do just before a family portrait is taken).
As for the lightness and darkness comparison of the hair between the two photos ... I don't know any way of saying this without sounding insulting, because it truly is an idiotic thing for you to say. It's called "exposure" ... and slight variation in exposure accounts for such differences, and anyone who has ever taken a photograph knows that. Hell, anyone who has more than one photo of themselves, knows this.
But I know how doggedly determined and stubborn you can be, so I wasted 5 seconds of my time to illustrate this for you, to satisfy any legitimate doubts you might have falsely created in the malleable minds that might be following the discussion:
Is that better, Fancy? With a similar exposure, the hair is magically not darker anymore. AMAZING, huh?
Now, we can reverse the order, and make the hair on the little girl with Obama as being darker than the family photo ..... are you going to say I switched the girls? Bwuhahahahahaha ... thanks for the laugh, fancyfeast ... you really are too much sometimes.
And the magic of photography easily corrects such exposure issues, and now, the little girl with Obama has much darker hair than the family photo:
I will grant you one concession though ... both of the "sisters" ... the one on the left side with her hair "up" and parted on the left, looks very similar to Emily, with the major difference being that her hair is down, and parted on the right. Hmmm .. fancy ... you might be onto something. Emily is just kinda hanging out on the side in that family portrait ... therefore it's not out of the realm of possibility that Emily was actually the other sister with her hair done differently, and that family portrait ... Emily is just added on in there .. and both are the same little girl. That would sure take care of a lot of issues ... if Emily never really existed.
I've seen some analysis of the "family photo" and one thing is that "little" Emily's head is as big as Mom's head. The other is that the photo, which seems a professional effort more than a candid shot, is not symmetrically posed by the photographer and even an amateur would probably have had them posed as more of a unit. That is to say "Emily" is 'outside the box'- likely shopped in.
It then occurred to me to wonder at the age of the 'original' family photo. Could the girl in the red jumper be Emily (or whoever- but the same person as "Emily") and the shopped in "Emily"? That is: black and red dress girl from a recent photo (shopped in) is the same girl as red jumper girl from a photo 1-2 years old or so. Therefore there is only ONE girl and she is not dead. OR the shopped in "Emily" is an age-progressed morph photo of the girl in the red jumper and, again, there is only one girl and she is not dead. OR does this "family" consist of actors/agents posing for a cover-up photo to present an emotional side to the story. In other words, these people may exist separately but not as a real family.
I post the above speculation because people tend to believe photos and videos without question- even though they see an elephant parked by a lady's desk in a TV commercial (how plausible it looks!) and films with every imaginable special effect that can look very real, they beeeleeeve every photo and vid put out by the OWNED MSM. Can it not be seen that the same audio-visual techniques can be used to sell us a bill of goods on the "news" that hits us where our Constitutional rights reside rather than just in the pocketbook as ads do, or to provide fantasy and further mind programming as movies and TV do?
Still, even after we can see how "Emily" may never have existed, the question arises, but- but- but what happened to the girl if she is not dead? Were the kids all kidnapped into slavery? Doubtful as kids are widely available to sickos. No, the probability is that NOTHING happened to her because she is one and the same as her sister and never existed at all except as a "photo", a weak back story, and a very bad actor for a "father". There may only be two girls- not three.
Further, the first R.I.P. Victoria Soto Facebook memorial page appeared on Dec. 10, 2012 and the "shootings" occurred on Dec. 14, 2012. This has been replaced at facebook, of course, but there are screen shots and youtube vids from several sources about the one from Dec. 10. I provide one reference but there are many to look at:
I'm going to lapse into hopeless pedantry here and split another hair. The M14 and M16 are detachable magazine fed, the M1 garand is clip fed. I'm only mentioning this because the news people and legislators are getting the terminology wrong all the time.
Yess, the Garand - have several including an M1D proof-fired only. ONce bought a barrel of those clips and sold them 25 at a time,
Also, fired several full-auto submachine guns, or machine pistols. They're a kick.
My point, despite my technical errors, is that there is a universe of difference between semi-auto and either full or burst-auto.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But it's just a guess. Besides, what would you do for a living if you had no one to debunk on message boards? The job market for propagandists is rather isolated in it's opportunities, as I understand. 
