Extraordinary claims. Ordinary investigations.

Where is her leg?

2011012405_7529701833

Hint: look at the shoe, is that a right or left foot? [via pya.cc]

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

Popularity: 2% [?]

Posted in Miscelaneous | 11 comments

11 Comments so far

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rafael Madeira and The Incredulous Mr G, Jose Teixeira. Jose Teixeira said: RT @abossal: http://forgetomori.com/2011/miscelaneous/where-is-her-leg/ me lembrou a empregada dos jetsons […]

  2. Jason January 27th, 2011 5:36 am

    This is obviously right foot.

  3. Frank January 29th, 2011 2:29 am

    This particular photo, though I hate to admit it, has certain signs of being ‘shopped. The most obvious is the blur in the grass-line next to her leg, where it is obvious her other leg would have been (it is the only point in the grass-line which is ‘not in focus’). Other tell-tales are the blur on her calf (coinciding with the blur in the grass) and a few apparent (if looked at long enough) anomalies with the track itself where her leg should be. If you follow the lines of her left leg, you will see that there is no way her right leg should be disguising the full length of her left. Methinks that an investigation with photoshop would yield some other interesting anomalies.

  4. Frank January 29th, 2011 2:40 am

    …upon a further investigation of the source photo, there is a rather obvious blur on the track (and her calf) where her left foot would be – obvious by the fact that the pixelization does not match the rest of the track. Also, the middle track line (between the grass and the top of her shoe) seems to end right before the leg, whereas in the rest of the photo, the track lines go up to the legs properly. There is an unnatural ‘bump’ in the track line next to her shoe which is not smooth as the rest of the track line (which it should be, as the track line is not in focus). And finally, and it may just be me, the pixelization next to the rear of her right calf does not seem to match the pixelization of any other part of the photo. I am 95% sure, in my opinion, that this is a ‘shopped photo.

  5. Mori January 29th, 2011 8:47 am

    Nice finds, Frank! Too bad, it would surely have been better if it wasn’t ‘shopped.

  6. Mr Simnock February 2nd, 2011 10:30 pm

    I don’t think this image has been altered using a computer, I think its just a chance image of a someone walking. Her whole right leg is show, just on its way backward while her left leg, coming forward in the step, is thin and hidden by the right leg. Once again, just a freak chance the camera shut at the moment it did.

  7. Tuco February 6th, 2011 7:48 pm
  8. tomatosoup February 8th, 2011 11:41 am

    There’s very little bokeh in the background around the knee. Suspicious.

  9. Ste February 14th, 2011 7:48 am

    It actually IS photoshopped, sure 100% ๐Ÿ˜‰
    You can see that the right leg is somehow blurred (wrong pixelization) in its left side, but the most obvious thing is the background: there’s a green/acqua trackline that separates the track and the grass before and after the two girls, but not in between.

  10. Jason March 11th, 2011 3:11 am

    that green line doesn’t have to mean anything. it may be whatever. if shopped, i dont see any reason, why the line must be only “outside” of girls, not also between them. if you plant girls on background and the result is the “green line”, then that line should be also between girls. if you plant girls on green grass background together with the road, the line would be better explained but still it should be also between girls.

  11. Jason October 17th, 2011 5:58 pm

    i just solved the problem.

    here is the original photo: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt62nzaRGh1qz4c38o1_500.jpg

    i think, the webmaster just fooled around with us.

Leave a reply

Live Comment Preview