Post: #51

(05-31-2014 08:08 PM)assman Wrote:  From above link:

Recently, the editors of xoJane informed me that a group of, ahem…people who shall remain nameless, declared it National Fat Shaming Week on Twitter.

In processing my response I sat back and imagined a line of straight, fit bodied, white men holding a disappointed fatherly stance, their collective pointer fingers pulsing in 4/4 time at my friends and me as if to say, “Tsk, tsk you lovers of life, damn you for experiencing joy in the present. I curse the day you were born into a belief invested in living a life of equality and access that is rooted in a practice of love, passion and kindness. Stop being a beacon, a leader out of the dark, and climb back into the shadows we are all held in.”

. . .

Damn, we foxy fierce fatties must be doing a great job being exactly who we are and the best thing we can do is keep stepping into our light, keep renaming our bodies as what we really are: impeccable survivors, seekers of joy, lovers of life and beautiful works of art.

She may be obese and horrifically out of shape, but her hamster is a beast.

Haha! Have you noticed that only young fat girls are saying this? They failed to realize that they have maximum of 15 years left until they're in a casket. It is depressing how delusional they are.

Post: #52

Please do not post their pics.

Post: #53

(06-01-2014 12:35 PM)ddjembe mutombo Wrote:  keep renaming our bodies as what we really are: impeccable survivors

Can you really be a noble hero when you're your own abuser?

Post: #54

(05-31-2014 02:35 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

It's 'shopped. I didn't pay too close attention when I first saw it, but it's obviously shopped. There's no way this fat whale has enough gall to go outside naked with that disfigured body.

There are no shadows on the ground, considering the angle of light hitting her body, there should be a shadow. A massive, walrus like, shadow.

Post: #55

Good point. Yeah, that is a complete photoshop. Just a fat woman wanting attention from the internet.

Post: #56

(06-01-2014 11:12 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  I went out to a club last night and there was like a crew of 5-7 fat girls in there. I'm not talking chubby butts and a little bit of arm fat (typical American) no I'm talking BIG, like 80 lb. or more too big, at least.

This is funny because it's true.

I went to a happy hour with some old workmates Friday. It was in a building that formerly housed a Red Robin, where I worked briefly when I was in college.

Back when I was 21-22, there were so many nice-looking women running in and out of that place that I'd end even the longest work days more horny than tired. This weekend, I found my biggest problem was trying to keep out of the way of the morbidly obese women and men waddling around. I could barely find a hot woman. The kicker? It's now an upscale ale house so there should have been more, not less, hotties. What a difference a generation or two makes.

Post: #57

(05-31-2014 06:21 PM)soup Wrote:  One thing we can say about Madonna- at least she was never fat.

No kidding.

Her body looked great in that one (don't care for the early 90s hair though).

Post: #58

(05-31-2014 08:52 PM)Jukes Wrote:  Can she even find her vagina?

Rolls in flour and looks for the wet spot.


Also the top voted comment is bullshit fat acceptance that makes me want to throw up.

Quote:Penny White (pennywhite)
Super User · 179 Fans
Thank You so much. I am a small-bodied 51 year old white woman, and the interchangeable image of Madonna's body made me cringe. Nothing on me, except maybe for the collar bones, looks like that. But when I saw you, I felt a rush of familiar warmth. Your body is not being used as a weapon to beat women down (as most images of female nudity are in this culture). Your body is a lush welcome. Your body invites me to accept my wild soft organic nature. Your body invites me to sensuality and self-love. Now tell me, by whose standards do we decide which body is more beautiful? And whom or what does that decision serve? Thank You so much for sharing your glorious body with the world.

Part of me has the attitude of "fuck them they'll die early and a virgin" but they're also showing other women they can get fat thereby diluting my pool of bangable chicks.

Post: #59

Im no fan of this fat women movement but its at least one thing if a woman is a little over ideal weight but healthy and just doesnt care to be smaller. This women in the pic however is clearly unhealthily obese and trying to make that accepted or cool just isnt.

Post: #60

Disgusting. I never looked at the full other half of the picture, but man Madonna looked great back then!

Post: #61

Someone please call her out on the PhotoShop in the comments. I tried, but it's trying to get me to verify my Facebook account. No thanks.

Post: #62

(06-02-2014 04:54 PM)Mormon Nailer Wrote:  Someone please call her out on the PhotoShop in the comments. I tried, but it's trying to get me to verify my Facebook account. No thanks.

It's so obvious a shop when you look at it for more than a second, that it just proves no-one actually is being honest about what they're saying. Everyone supporting her was too disgusted by her body to give the picture anything more than a fleeting glance.

Post: #63

(06-02-2014 05:14 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 04:54 PM)Mormon Nailer Wrote:  Someone please call her out on the PhotoShop in the comments. I tried, but it's trying to get me to verify my Facebook account. No thanks.

It's so obvious a shop when you look at it for more than a second, that it just proves no-one actually is being honest about what they're saying. Everyone supporting her was too disgusted by her body to give the picture anything more than a fleeting glance.

I moonlight as a Photo Retoucher. I've done some pretty sophisticated stuff and I didn't even notice it initially. I think it's because I was so grossed out and shocked by her gelatinous, low-hanging skin that I didn't notice the lack of a shadow.

Post: #64

I'm not entirely sure that's a photoshop. It looks like HDR combined with a cloudy day in NYC.

And I fully believe she has more than enough gall to stand around outside looking like that. The woman is completely shameless about her body and her self promotion.

Post: #65

(06-02-2014 06:01 PM)dog Wrote:  I'm not entirely sure that's a photoshop. It looks like HDR combined with a cloudy day in NYC.

And I fully believe she has more than enough gall to stand around outside looking like that. The woman is completely shameless about her body and her self promotion.

I see your point, but something looks really *off* to me. It's more than the shadow. The angle of her body vs the angle of the road seems wrong. Mentally transposing the car behind her next to her seems to result in a woman who is nine feet tall to me to my mind.

Someone went overboard on the burn tool on the left of the photo. And what's with her upper right thigh, believing straight lines exist in nature?

Post: #66

There is a shadow near her foot, its quite small which could be due to time of day. Its possible its also photoshopped, but I just can't look at that picture for long without wanting to gag. What's strange about the picture is that she is backlit, but nothing else is.

Post: #67

God damn why did I enter this thread

Post: #68

(06-02-2014 11:41 PM)username Wrote:  God damn why did I enter this thread

Because rejection > regret

Post: #69

The light on her right leg looks off

The scale of the car looks off

Somebody in the NYC should be familiar with that spot? It's near the river, to me it looks Iike the industrial parts near Williamsburg

The last thing is that NYC dosn't paint their streets like that.

The photo is mocked to mimic the Madonna one. Everything in that photo was faked. I don't even believe the backdrop is real because I can't think of where that would be in Brooklyn just glancing quickly on Google Maps.

Post: #70

When did going out naked stop being some sort of offence against civil codes?

Post: #71

(06-03-2014 06:40 AM)kosko Wrote:  The light on her right leg looks off

The scale of the car looks off

Somebody in the NYC should be familiar with that spot? It's near the river, to me it looks Iike the industrial parts near Williamsburg

The last thing is that NYC dosn't paint their streets like that.

The photo is mocked to mimic the Madonna one. Everything in that photo was faked. I don't even believe the backdrop is real because I can't think of where that would be in Brooklyn just glancing quickly on Google Maps.

Even the angle of the kerb near her foot looks wrong to me.

The dead giveaway she's lying:

In the article, she describes how she quickly throws off her coat and they take the photo, praying they've 'got the shot', before she gets her coat back on.

When have you ever heard of any kind of photo shoot by a professional photographer where the photographer only took one photo? Particularly when it looks like she's got some kind of artificial lighting on her - the shadow on the bottom of her right arm and the brightened highlights on her left arm suggest a light source coming from behind her and to the left - whatever it is isn't evident in the finished shot.

Post: #72

Yes, it's photoshopped. The high contrast of her image nowhere compares to the contrast of the background, plus not shadow, etc.

Technicalities aside, it undermines their own bullshit point of how "proud" they are, if they're not really doing it.

And even that aside, listen to the Hamster:

Quote:The Full Body Project invited me to look at my entire body for the first time. Jukie Sunshine and Alotta Boutté invited me to see my body as beautiful not by telling me but by showing me how beautiful they are.

Laziness and attention-whoring for them trump self-improvement every time.
This isn't just a physical flaw, but a character flaw as well.

Post: #73

Okay this shit was bugging me so I looked on Google maps.

There is no way to get that angle she did unless they jumped the fence into some electrical looking shit:

GOOGLE ANGLE

BING ANGLE


The only building on the street that looks close is on John Street in Brooklyn:

The Building in the corner of street from Fatty


I was wrong in thinking this was the Williamsburg Bridge. Its actually the Manhattan Bridge:




Pay close attention as the Manhattan Bridge only has two support arms. This is important as you see how the bridge is angled this was how I was able to navigate the general area as to wear the photo was supposedly taken.

The Bridge is on a angle and thus with only one of the two support arms in the photo it was either on its inbound into Manhattan, or its Inbound into Brooklyn:



This pic was taken in Dumbo as seen by the arrow as the Manhattan side was the FDR Freeway which isn't close to where this shit is. This was the only two places to get even close to a angle that gets both the support arm AND the World Trade Center II in one shot, plus without getting the Brooklyn Bridge in any of that shot also. The Manhattan bridge sits right in the middle of the two:


^^ You can see clearly with the middle bridge, on the Brooklyn side how tight of a angle you would have to be in on Brooklyn to get a shot with the support Arm and the WTC/Lower Manhattan clean in the shot (Original photo size).


The Building in question is about 9 storys tall, maybe 10, and isolated on the block:

Bing Angle of fatty building

This building is the "Closest" thing to the one in the picture. I assume this picture is newer then Bing and Google so it should still be in some sort of shot. But it isn't.

Also look under her arm with the purse and you see some random brick wall that does not creep up behind her.

Also as I noted the street markings on the road don't follow how NYC paints its street.

This shot was likley taken in-front of a brick wall in seclusion and then super imposed on a bunch of layers. That specific angle of the bridge and WTC II is so hard to get, it all easily looks pasted on and fake.


VERDICT:

FATTY IS FAKING IT

Post: #74

Damn kosko, excellent work!

That bridge is certainly the Manhattan bridge as the Brooklyn and Williamsburg bridges supports look quite different.

Some other strange things:

1. I can't find that wall topped by fence that is to her right on the inland side of John St., but found a similar wall on the river side of John St: https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.704279,-7...afH0BQ!2e0

2. Back to the short brick wall under her left arm - note the horizontal metal rods that extend from in front of the brick wall out to a metal pylon that appears to be installed in the street, just outside the sidewalk - seems that would be easy to find if it exists in the area this pic is purported to have been taken. This pylon is topped by nothing - perhaps it had something topping it like a streetlight, but once inserted into the scene they wanted, it was obstructing the base of the bridge support, so they chopped it?



3. Compared to the Madonna pic, the sky looks very cloudy, so that might explain the lack of shadow cast by her, but that doesn't seem to jive with the backlight from above her, to her left - you can see it on her hair on her left side and the upward facing portion of her right forearm, as well as the shadow under her right arm and right nipple.

4. The angle of the street relative to the bridge looks odd. The angle between the street and bridge looks like it might be 90* or even less than that. But if you look at the streets directly north of the Manhattan bridge, they are at an angle of > 90* to the bridge. http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=qshmd88...orm=LMLTCC

5. Look at where the actual bridge support sits: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=qshmd88...orm=LMLTCC (may have to zoom in to see it underneath the roadway visual). There doesn't seem to be a street in the area that allows for the bridge support (there are only 2 supports as kosko pointed out) to appear as far in as it does on the pic. It looks like they may have taken a photo of the bridge and superimposed it onto the photo of the street.