Topic: Can someone tell me if this is photoshopped? (Read 2906 times)

Now, the event that led to the photo from my end. In 06, we had an opportunity to do some work for a contractor as subcontractors, which required two of us to head down under for pressing the flesh and drying the ink on paper. The photo in question was one I took of a female, approximately 6'2" dressed in a very white dress draped over one shoulder - in other words, the female in the photo in question. The photo was taken at exactly 41 degrees inclination to the plane on which she was (i.e., the ground floor of a large building/structure that housed a research center of sorts at an underground facility). The picture was taken with an old SLR and developed on site by people from the installation. Four shots were taken of her, two of which were overexposed with one of those somewhat blurry. All upstairs pictures of her were taken with a tele lens. The other one is one taken at the same level and there are people around her. The occasion was a party/reception in our honor, and there were four of them, three males and this female. We were not allowed to take any pictures of the males, but I was told that I could take no more than five pictures of her, but that all of the background images of the setting in which the subject was had to be changed. This was done subsequently, in digitized form, putting a blank background, which it is visible and evident on the picture. Her eyes were red at close range, but even the clearest augmentation of the digitized original did not show her eyes clearly, so color was augmented manually. That was the only touch given to the original.

[...]

The other three almost immediately joined us. I know she had called them over via mind-on-mind communication, and asked her if she had done so. She acknowledged she had, and this surprised her even more. On that occasion, in fact that evening, my party and I learned these four were members of the ground group and that their homesite was in Puerto Rico. The one clear picture of her was retouched and background-changed, leaving her form intact but with the eye color accentuated in red. I did not make the changes but I can say that the picture of the female I met is the likeness of the individual depicted on the photograph in question. My question, given the likeness between Anja and this female, is whether there is a biological connection between them I raise that question because it is known that pure SAM [Ša.A.M.i., Wes' comment] and SAM hybrid females are known to engage in intercourse with human males and to conceive children who are then 2nd and 3rd generation hybrids. Same with SAM males of the ground group.

This photo was not release [sic] to anyone by us, according to agreement with the contractor of record. We believe we were invited to come as a way of establishing bona fides that the contractor was indeed in direct contact and had access to SAMs. We were satisfied that this was indeed the case, and the case was closed. We then proceeded to perform the work for the contractor, were paid for our work, and that was the end of it. Except for the RWG affair [Roy W. Gordon, Wes's note], which began to unravel shortly after our return from down under. Things got quite nasty with the man who had been planted in our midst, and who had gone down with us. We are certain in hindsight that the man who returned back was not the same man who went down. I am also aware of the Casbolt case, as James came to us for possible deprogramming. Nothing came of it, and contact with him was broken.

Now, in appearance, those who are from the home planet are taller than those who belong to the ground group here. The three male individuals we ran across were 7 feet in height or over, but not as tall as those whom we met during Link sessions, nor like those who picked me and my dad up in 1956 in South America during a fishing trip on a River between Brazil and Paraguay.

All of this happened about 4 years ago.

In the aftermath of the RWG affair, we did a thorough housecleaning of the disaster he brought to our doors. We have a working relationship with many people and used every contact known to us in finding out who and what was this man doing and representing. Among the things he left behind was a clean picture of this female without the poorly done description of her on the lower left hand corner. I have no doubt this picture you showed me has been doctored and that we were not the only ones in possession of the digitized form now circulating. However, I was the one taking the picture and the picture is not taken at same level and it is not a frontal picture of her. She is gazing slightly to one side of the camera, as Ed argues in his video study of the photo.

There were four, not five viable pictures. I remember taking five, which is why I said five. Again, the pictures of her I took with an SLR in color from about 80 feet distance, a little less than 30 meters. I was on a first or second mezzanine up, which made for the angle of view, which in the first picture I took (she had just come through a door that was to her right in the photo you sent. Again, all photos were developed on site and given to us before departure. The fifth I was told did not come out. I did not pursue it.

Her eyes were, well, have you ever seen someone who was suffering of pink eyes, conjunctivitis, it is something of a pinkish-red from a distance, and the color remained pinkish on closer view - about 6 feet. We were never allowed to touch or be closed [sic] to them. Yes, there are pictures of her, one overexposed, the other with spots on her. These pictures were not "sanitized" (i.e., background removed). There was an additional photo taken the angle of which made her be at profile from me. These photos are in the possession of the contractor, all of them were retrieved when R.W.'s thing began to unravel. However, I am not going back to them to ask for these pictures. That's one dog I am going to let stay sleep. What really happen is a black mark on the contractor and on us, and revisiting the R.W. affair just ain't going to happen. Some of your and Ed's suppositions about Gordon are not farfetched at all and are closer to what happened. But that's all I will say about it.

Obviously, there are problems with this photo. We had no reasons to distrust the product given to us at the time. Only one was photoshoped; none of the others were changed in any way.

One of the things I would suggest is to not use that photo at all. There are better ones out there. When meeting the informants for the information XXXX [name excluded] and I reported in essay, pictures surfaced corroborating their likeness, although some at simple viewing of the photo told us the objects of the photo were hybrids. There are also photos taken by a fellow I know, who is photographically pursuing them around the world, and there are some taken by him or by one of his collaborators from either Argentina or Chile showing SAMs up in the mountains of the Andes [my emphasis]. I have not seen them, but I trust his word, since he's provided images of the skeletons of giants that are not in the public domain which we've been able to verify with LPG-C members from Russia that these were indeed viable (real) photos. Then there are photos of SAMs living in northern Wisconsin [my emphasis] we know about, photos of which are harder to come by, so XXXXXXX (my friend) has been making personal attempts at getting one or more. There is also a retired master sargeant [sic] who was stationed in San Antonio, TX [my emphais], who had taken distance photos of two of them in military uniform without insignias. So there are photos. With patience we will get to them.

[...]

Witness what is happening in South America. I'm staying in touch with a Chilean, an Argentinian and a Paraguayan, all of them working with video as the medium of capture. There are technical problems with video - they never worked for us in person with any of them. Digital photography is best. It does not lie and it does not change the subject.

Now, let me address something that, once either or both of you come in ftf [face-to-face, editor's note] contact with any one of them, and become familiar with these folks, the last thing you think about is photographing them. There are too many other things on focuses on while this is happening. There is also the issue that some will not allow you to take pictures of them. Then there are some whose body electrostatic and electromagnetic fields is so high that it distorts even a digital picture. Or, better said, the digital photo comes out distorted, like as if the space around the body is broken up. And, Ed, wordy as this may be, until YOU have been in front of any one of these people, that's all I have to explain the experience.

[...]

...Please hear this as well: this is NOT about disclosure; this IS about connecting.

How does it taste?

It's her. Your picture is a well known photoshop of that girl (Anja Rubik) bandied about in conspiracy theorist forums as an albino annunaki.

Thank you and good night.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p6CtJY6Z2MM/S8ZO39y-xoI/AAAAAAAADn0/Ku_piIlq-W8/s1600/anja-rubik3.jpg