Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's wrong with this picture? TRIGGER WARNING: Christine Ford

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's wrong with this picture? TRIGGER WARNING: Christine Ford

    Hi all. I came across this picture the other day. This is a picture of her that was taken by someone in the MSM during her testimony. Can you tell what's wrong with it? I've noticed 2 legitimate problems with it. Perhaps you can come up with more.


    When a woman says to a man 'IF you really love me you would (INSERT VERB HERE)... 'IF you really love me you should buy/give/take/do X, Y, Z'... That's using...that's testing. And my answer to that is always; 'IF you loved me you wouldn't have asked that fucking question, now pack your shit and get the fuck out of my house.' - Maxx


    Asking a feminist about men's rights is like asking a cattle rancher about veganism.

  • #2
    The crocodile tears?

    Moments later:

    christineblaseyfordhearings-ap-1.jpg?quality=99&strip=all&w=447&h=335.jpg
    Last edited by Equity; 10-09-2018, 09:55 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      I can't recall who, but someone looked at Ford's research, (I know the excellent Janice Fiamengo has done a video on her, but don't think it was her who mentioned it) and said she looked into memory regression, but found that they didn't recover memories but create memories people believed were true. The suggestion was that Ford was acting so childish and certain because she'd done this to herself and planted memories of an event that never happened, or perhaps happened to someone else.

      If Ford regressed to recover memories we could assume she would attempt to realistically resemble in appearance, demeanour and manner herself when younger:



      The idea that Ford has memory implanted as a distraught child in order to believe / be convincing is interesting, and if we take her child's voice performance, and goofy hair under the glasses, we can see that Ford isn't attempting to be herself, neither as an adult, young woman or a child. The theory is entertaining, however I think it indicates something simpler, she's liar, performing for people easily fooled by her act as a vulnerable damaged woman.
      "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
      Originally posted by menrppl2
      Can't live with em, life is great without them.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Equity View Post
        The crocodile tears?
        That's definitely one of the things I noticed. In fact, what looks like they might be tears on her right lower eyelid are probably artifacts from her glasses. You'll see identical little spots at the top of her left eyelid as well as in the immediate centre of the bottom half of both lenses.

        Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
        The idea that Ford has memory implanted as a distraught child in order to believe / be convincing is interesting, and if we take her child's voice performance, and goofy hair under the glasses, we can see that Ford isn't attempting to be herself, neither as an adult, young woman or a child. The theory is entertaining, however I think it indicates something simpler, she's liar, performing for people easily fooled by her act as a vulnerable damaged woman.
        You are SO CLOSE to nailing it here! It definitely has something to do with her hair and her glasses. Can you tell what it is?
        When a woman says to a man 'IF you really love me you would (INSERT VERB HERE)... 'IF you really love me you should buy/give/take/do X, Y, Z'... That's using...that's testing. And my answer to that is always; 'IF you loved me you wouldn't have asked that fucking question, now pack your shit and get the fuck out of my house.' - Maxx


        Asking a feminist about men's rights is like asking a cattle rancher about veganism.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kosh67 View Post
          That's definitely one of the things I noticed. In fact, what looks like they might be tears on her right lower eyelid are probably artifacts from her glasses. You'll see identical little spots at the top of her left eyelid as well as in the immediate centre of the bottom half of both lenses.


          You are SO CLOSE to nailing it here! It definitely has something to do with her hair and her glasses. Can you tell what it is?
          Like ... why is her hair trapped BEHIND her glasses? It suggests she quickly put them on for the photo... does it not?

          ~~~ PEr aRDUa ad asTrA ~~~
          (through adversity to the stars)

          Comment


          • #6
            Not exactly, but her hair being behind her glasses helps to illustrate what's wrong. The mere fact of it being there could have simply happened at one of the times she flipped it up and down on her head, but there's something else there which speaks to her character. It's quite subtle at first glance, but once it's pointed out it'll be as obvious as Trump-Russia collusion being fake news. Do you see it yet? If not, I'll post the answer somewhere around 48 hours after my initial posting.
            When a woman says to a man 'IF you really love me you would (INSERT VERB HERE)... 'IF you really love me you should buy/give/take/do X, Y, Z'... That's using...that's testing. And my answer to that is always; 'IF you loved me you wouldn't have asked that fucking question, now pack your shit and get the fuck out of my house.' - Maxx


            Asking a feminist about men's rights is like asking a cattle rancher about veganism.

            Comment


            • #7
              Considering it's a Senate hearing, Ford's hair is uncharacteristically messy overall. Her appearance has been tousled, again to reinforce the woman in distress look. By far everyone, especially ladies, want to appear at their best in front of high status people and the nation. However lawyers have been using cheap tricks like this for ages, so might indicate that she just went along with them. If you look at the hair under the glasses it is slightly magnified. Her eyes are also slightly magnified by the glasses making them look larger, more child-like and thus more appealing to human instincts. Magnification is the effect of reading glasses, which would be appropriate to her age. However they might not be hers. Generally people using reading glasses, do not leave them on, they wear them whilst reading then take them off, they aren't comfortable to wear (ergo people use bifocals - hers are not bifocals) for looking around the room especially when you want to look at faces, and look people in the eye. This puts hair + glasses as part of a deliberate appearance ploy. Whether she's going along with what her lawyers want, or coming up with it herself, she isn't a honest character. Many body language experts also say that people will 'shield their eyes' as in cover them somehow to hide true intent, this ranges from sunglasses, to hands on their brow, looking down or away etc. In Ford's case those I think she was featuring her eyes, magnified by the glasses, part of the ploy to elicit sympathy, and appeal as a child to the Senators.
              "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
              Originally posted by menrppl2
              Can't live with em, life is great without them.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                Her eyes are also slightly magnified by the glasses making them look larger, more child-like and thus more appealing to human instincts.
                Are they? No matter how closely I look at it, I don't see any magnification at all, which was the second thing I noticed about the picture. If what you're saying is correct, I've never seen reading glasses anywhere near that huge before. Those frames I've only seen the context of near sightedness or astigmatism. Reading glasses are typically a lot skinnier, to focus the eye directly on what you're reading, while the wider glasses are used to allow you to focus on the environment as a whole. You're right that prescription lenses would cause distortion of what's behind them, either shrinking or magnifying depending on the prescription. I literally see none of that happening here, meaning that the "lenses" in her glasses aren't lenses at all, but just flat planes of glass, lucite, or whatever the hell it is. IF my suspicion is correct, then that means that Ford is so fraudulent that even her glasses are a lie.
                When a woman says to a man 'IF you really love me you would (INSERT VERB HERE)... 'IF you really love me you should buy/give/take/do X, Y, Z'... That's using...that's testing. And my answer to that is always; 'IF you loved me you wouldn't have asked that fucking question, now pack your shit and get the fuck out of my house.' - Maxx


                Asking a feminist about men's rights is like asking a cattle rancher about veganism.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Kosh67 View Post
                  Are they? No matter how closely I look at it, I don't see any magnification at all, which was the second thing I noticed about the picture. If what you're saying is correct, I've never seen reading glasses anywhere near that huge before. Those frames I've only seen the context of near sightedness or astigmatism. Reading glasses are typically a lot skinnier, to focus the eye directly on what you're reading, while the wider glasses are used to allow you to focus on the environment as a whole. You're right that prescription lenses would cause distortion of what's behind them, either shrinking or magnifying depending on the prescription. I literally see none of that happening here, meaning that the "lenses" in her glasses aren't lenses at all, but just flat planes of glass, lucite, or whatever the hell it is. IF my suspicion is correct, then that means that Ford is so fraudulent that even her glasses are a lie.
                  I agree that the glasses are part of the lie. They are not congruent, they stand out, they look like geeky school kid glasses or something, chosen for effect. It would be good if we could conclude a slam dunk and say it's plain glass, this is so fake that she is literally using fake glasses, as in plain glass. I did some tests with glasses with the distort when things are pressed closer to the lens. The hair being behind the lens isn't likely to show much distort, so follow from my experiments, I've gone with a a little likelier than not but.. the picture isn't high enough resolution, so I won't hold my position that it does, and would concede that I am seeing what I expect. The eyes though to look larger compared to other pictures:



                  It's hard to call, this image shows the cornea through the glass and outside, but the distort isn't enough to call, on that, though the lower eyelid does look larger to me. Effects could be due to something else like make up or even deliberately doing a wide eyed little girl look.


                  She is a glasses wearer, she probably does use reading glasses, I'd say on balance of probabilities, a slam dunk on those lenses being plain glass fake, and therefore proving they are worn for manipulative effect isn't demonstrated. But I've not found a picture that proves they are a reading glass prescription. The distort curvature on the reflections, to me supports that they are prescription lenses.

                  It'd be nice to have proof on the lenses, and let that unravel the rest, and I think we have lots showing they are for effect, and might not even be hers - or if they are hers she uses them for deliberately worked out psychological deception. Also not plain glass might not be proven but the fact that the distort is very hard to see very much supports your suspicion, they are weak reading glasses (if they are), and she did not need them. Ergo worn for effect. The only reservation I'd have is that I think they could be actual prescription lenses for someone.
                  Last edited by voidspawn; 10-10-2018, 07:34 PM.
                  "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
                  Originally posted by menrppl2
                  Can't live with em, life is great without them.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kosh67 View Post
                    That's definitely one of the things I noticed. In fact, what looks like they might be tears on her right lower eyelid are probably artifacts from her glasses. You'll see identical little spots at the top of her left eyelid as well as in the immediate centre of the bottom half of both lenses.


                    You are SO CLOSE to nailing it here! It definitely has something to do with her hair and her glasses. Can you tell what it is?
                    You are absolutely right. I didn't notice that. They are not tears. They are just a reflection. This just goes to show the lengths of distortion to which the media is willing to go in presenting this story in favour of the claimant.

                    This woman's story is a great example of the impact that feminism has had on society through its promotion of rape myths. Society is now taking accusations made by vindictive women with ulterior motives at face value and using these accusations to destroy the lives of men on an epidemic scale. This false rape claim culture has always been around but its become exponentially worse the past ten years.. Its gotten so bad now that a week does not go by without another powerful male being falsely accused of rape by thousands of women.
                    Last edited by Equity; 10-10-2018, 09:49 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                      I've gone with a a little likelier than not but.. the picture isn't high enough resolution, so I won't hold my position that it does, and would concede that I am seeing what I expect.
                      The original image can be seen here. It's twice the resolution I posted earlier. You should also be able to zoom in with Ctrl/Command-scrollwheel to get a better look if needed.

                      It's hard to call, this image shows the cornea through the glass and outside, but the distort isn't enough to call, on that, though the lower eyelid does look larger to me. Effects could be due to something else like make up or even deliberately doing a wide eyed little girl look.
                      Is that also a picture of Mrs. Ford? Part of the explanation of why her eyes would be narrower in that pic is because of her mood. Whenever someone has a Duchenne smile, the eyes automatically narrow. She probably is doing a wide eyed pose. Combined with the narrowing effect from her genuine smile in the other picture, it would overexaggerate the sense of largeness.

                      She is a glasses wearer, she probably does use reading glasses, I'd say on balance of probabilities, a slam dunk on those lenses being plain glass fake, and therefore proving they are worn for manipulative effect isn't demonstrated. But I've not found a picture that proves they are a reading glass prescription. The distort curvature on the reflections, to me supports that they are prescription lenses.
                      Strange. The only thing I can see which might be a reflection is what appears to be possibly an overhead fluorescent light in the top left corner of her left glass. I'll check it out in closeup once I've saved this message. I do see plenty of fogging, though, which would explain why the hair behind the glass isn't as clear as the rest of it which could add to the sense of distortion.
                      When a woman says to a man 'IF you really love me you would (INSERT VERB HERE)... 'IF you really love me you should buy/give/take/do X, Y, Z'... That's using...that's testing. And my answer to that is always; 'IF you loved me you wouldn't have asked that fucking question, now pack your shit and get the fuck out of my house.' - Maxx


                      Asking a feminist about men's rights is like asking a cattle rancher about veganism.

                      Comment


                      • #12

                        Her face bears a striking resemblance to Dana Carvey.

                        I would have pegged her for a transgender.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Kosh67 View Post
                          The original image can be seen here. It's twice the resolution I posted earlier. You should also be able to zoom in with Ctrl/Command-scrollwheel to get a better look if needed.
                          I took a good look and searched for some higher res, didn't find anything better available. Since the hair curves and is flattened by pressure under the frame, imo it's not plausible to definitively call a distortion due to prescription lenses. However I tested prescription lenses and when something is very close to the lens and it doesn't show much distortion anyway. So that's not a slam dunk, this is an easy test to do yourself.

                          Originally posted by Kosh67 View Post
                          Is that also a picture of Mrs. Ford? Part of the explanation of why her eyes would be narrower in that pic is because of her mood. Whenever someone has a Duchenne smile, the eyes automatically narrow. She probably is doing a wide eyed pose. Combined with the narrowing effect from her genuine smile in the other picture, it would overexaggerate the sense of largeness.
                          That would account for it I guess, can't find a better picture without any put on expression. But the image shows she's a glasses wearer, and her prior choice of frame in a relatively recent image. My suspicion is also that the glasses are fake, in that they are put on for effect to deliberately look geeky and childish. The picture of her and I believe her husband, shows a very different demeanour much like you'd expect from a high status career woman. The image shows her wearing short-sighted vision glasses, typical for outdoor use. This is significant because short sighted people do not want to wear reading glasses when not using them for reading, it makes short sightedness worse. Ergo many glasses wearers pay the expense for bifocals as they develop far-sightedness into the middle age. She left the reading glasses on when moving to the interview stage after reading her statement. Like you I suspect she did that for effect. The only suspicion I differ on is that rather than them being plain glass fake glasses, they are reading glasses, and additionally I would suggest she'd know that reading glasses would make her eyes look a bit bigger and more childlike. This I think would show a calculated and deliberate ploy from a smart psychological adept deceiver.

                          Originally posted by Kosh67 View Post
                          Strange. The only thing I can see which might be a reflection is what appears to be possibly an overhead fluorescent light in the top left corner of her left glass. I'll check it out in closeup once I've saved this message. I do see plenty of fogging, though, which would explain why the hair behind the glass isn't as clear as the rest of it which could add to the sense of distortion.
                          The fuzziness spots of light, the effect of the light going through the lens and landing on her skin, to me are consistent with prescription glasses. I am very familiar with glasses, however I have never touched a pair of plain glass fake glasses such as a theatre prop something. To me when I look at the surface of the glass by it's reflections etc, it's consistent with the curvature of the surface on prescription glasses but again I haven't looked at fake lenses so don't know what to expect for those.

                          To be honest I would imagine, for her and the effect she wanted to fake - being a child-like harmed woman - it would be easier to just borrow someone's reading glasses than it would to get fake lenses.
                          Last edited by voidspawn; 10-11-2018, 03:10 PM.
                          "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
                          Originally posted by menrppl2
                          Can't live with em, life is great without them.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            As much as I would live to endorse this theory, I decided to put it to the test.
                            Here are two pictures of my own left eye with prescription glasses.
                            the red frame is progressive lens. -2.5 to 0 and the white frame are reading glasses at +1.0 diopter. These are typical for people of my (and Ford's) generation.
                            You will see there is no discernible distortion or magnification.
                            DSC01724-crop.JPGDSC01725-crop.JPG
                            ~~~ PEr aRDUa ad asTrA ~~~
                            (through adversity to the stars)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              As a life long glasses wearer I can assure you that the distortion/magnification effect typically occurs when the object is about 3 - 5 inches, or more, from the lenses (variance is dependent upon the exact strength, of course). Her hair, being that close to the lens, would not perceptively distort or magnify.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X