Someone took a PHOTO of Obama's Wad.

page: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
I would think he would have alot more money than that. It looks like around 30 20$s and a couple or maybe 10 or 20 5$s. Maybe some singles and maybe a hundred who knows. But 400-600 bucks is all the President of the United States carries around? Maybe even a credit card?

And if there IS an agenda here, then it has served it's purpose. Bunch of people making a conspiracy and arguing over the motive and legitimacy of a picture of Obama pulling out cash is a good way to keep those people from arguing over the motive and legitimacy of certain bills being debated on the floor currently.




posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Staged? I don't know.

It appears that they are in a Deli getting lunch judging from the bag that says, "deli". As far as the close up image, that can be done with even a cell phone camera zoomed in by someone standing to the side in line, however I must admit that is a very clear and steady shot. I will have to play around with my cell phone camera and see if I can get a shot that clear and steady while someone is making a payment transaction. I would imagine it would tough, who holds out money while paying for food? Usually people pull out money, pay, put it away.

I will discount that he is purposely posed for picture, but I agree the bigger question is why?

Another thing to note, that is a pretty good wad of cash. Considering the outside bill is $20.00 I find interesting. I used to carry a lot of cash on me and one of the things I did was leave the lowest $ bill on the outside of my wad of cash and the larger bills to the inside. In my case it would be $1.00 bills on the outside, that way anyone who saw my wad of cash would assume it was all $1.00 bills.

Scammers are known to do the same thing in reverse, you put a $20.00 bill on the outside and $1.00 bills on the inside to give the appearance that you have a wad of $20.00 bills and more money than you actually have.

In any event, it is an interesting photo. Plus one should take into account that people with money usually do not carry large sums of cash. They use bank cards, credit cards, debit cards, and carry very little cash on their person. It is really a basic security issue for people who do have money.
edit on 24-9-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)


edit to add: Looking at the pic some more, that watch, that ring, that wad of cash... in my younger days when I was homeless and desperate, I would have marked him and robbed him in a heartbeat. Just saying
edit on 24-9-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Rich folks hoax..







posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
I would think he would have alot more money than that. It looks like around 30 20$s and a couple or maybe 10 or 20 5$s. Maybe some singles and maybe a hundred who knows. But 400-600 bucks is all the President of the United States carries around? Maybe even a credit card?

And if there IS an agenda here, then it has served it's purpose. Bunch of people making a conspiracy and arguing over the motive and legitimacy of a picture of Obama pulling out cash is a good way to keep those people from arguing over the motive and legitimacy of certain bills being debated on the floor currently.


He does have more money. It's in BP Oil stock and growing bigger all the time. He can go to the ATM all day long if he wants.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by loam
 



For a bunch of members of a conspiracy website, some of you are pretty soft.


So everything is a conspiracy?


What is your theory about these pictures, loam?


Dont see the point in the Second picture especially if there isnt a second pgotograoger hanging over their shoulder. And how does it go from wallet full of money to money clip full of money?



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


"Someone took a PHOTO of Obama's Wad."

Horrible title.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
So the president has cash!? WOW!! Thats like sooo amazing and really smells like conspiracy...



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
{{{Saturn FX}}}

Then I will go the opposite way. Its a 20 dollar bill. Who is on a 20? Why, Andrew Jackson of course It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes. Andrew Jackson So at the top of his agenda is class warfare Held up by the 5 dollar bill, Abraham Lincoln, the person whom signed in the progressive tax rate.


Uhh....You can pick out any of the hundreds of quotes said by former presidents and apply them to any situation. I guess in this case it works to serve your tin foil GALORE remark. I'm all for conspiracy
But it isn't realistic to assume that this picture references something as deep and specific as that.... and why would Obama take the time to plan THAT...


{{{Saturn FX}}}

Note that his fingers cover all the words except "The UN"...after that, his fingers obscure the rest...clearly this is a symbol that he wants to bankrupt the economy and have the UN own our entire economic system.


Yeah, I'm sure that was the exact intention
, because you know he took the time out of his day to carefully plan and place his fingers over tiny letters on a bill, while managing to cover them up just right, and nonshalantly. He must have amazing robot hands too (Obama's a robot NO WAY
)because EVEN I WOULD have to concentrate for a 'noticeable amount of time' to get such a precise hand placement in the middle of public....... *rolls eyes* *sarcasm*

{{{Saturn FX}}}
Note the index finger right above the fingernails..the wrinkle is a near perfect pyramid. Mix that with the black nipple looking thing to the right and below the picture..the swoosh underneath with the same design, this symbol of the illuminati is all over the place, from nasa's emblem, to nike, etc...the ancient lords. Obama is stating he is a frontman of the annunaki, the illuminati..reptilian overlords.

...I need not say more.
-----------------------------------------------

It's people like this who are making a fool out of ATS and conspiracy theory. And if I thought about it for a while it might seem as if it's as though it's deliberate. I like a good conspiracy, and healthy skepticism as much as the next person here, but this is kinda WAY over the top, and not even in a good way. It looks like it's written by a highschool kid poking fun with his friends about conspiracy............................*sigh*
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


It's fun and ok to have fun and joke but this just looks bad for the site.

And Saturn FX got 4 stars for this post? It's sickening and i'm sorry.

edit on 24-9-2012 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by seabag
 


Look at the first photo. See who is there.

Now look at the second photo and try to imagine where you would need to be to have a photo shot at that angle.

Does it now make sense to you?


You do know that a camera has the ability to zoom, right?

I think you're putting way too much into it, he's the President, he's got a lot of money and it just so happens, he's one like many others, that likes to carry cash on them, instead of solely using their credit cards.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by detachedindividual
 



Originally posted by detachedindividual
But, ANYTHING to attack Obama, right?


I'm not a fan, far from it, but this whole Obama attack mentality is so pathetic it just embarrasses not only America in genera but the intelligence of ATS too.


Can you show me how I have attacked Obama in this thread?



Originally posted by detachedindividual
So people have now miraculously forgotten how cameras work?

...and you think this is staged?


You're right. This is a perfectly natural pose. Silly me for thinking otherwise...




It's also clear to me that you didn't really bother to read the reason I think the first one is staged in the first place.
edit on 23-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)


The point is that you are taking these images out of their context, and there is also the fact that picking a single image from a continuous roll of stills is common practice.

You think the paparazzi or average photographer just waits, and manages to time the "perfect shot"? They're not wedding photographers!

They take thousands of images, with no motion blur, like catching a freeze frame. You can pick a hundred images out of a single event like that and come to some wild conclusion about it. The fact is the subject is caught in a split second of time, and the frame of reference is completely lost.

Let me put it this way... if you're taking photos like this of a football game, and you capture one image amongst thousands where a player is leaping through the air, do you just assume that the guy can fly?

Man, this is so mind-numbingly idiotic words are beginning to fail me!



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Man, this is so mind-numbingly idiotic words are beginning to fail me!


It's pretty simple.

The first photo provides context for the second.

We disagree on the mechanics of the shots. The second photo could not be taken by the same photographer in the manner you suggest unless the Mayor were asked to move and the President asked to keep holding his wad. The same is also true if you assume a second photographer.

The SECOND money shot photo lends credence that these wad shots are NOT random, imo.

Since I believe they are staged, I simply asked why, with no solid opinion as to their objective.

What is "mind-numbingly idiotic" is the reaction by many in this thread, who rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing found it necessary to drive the point home with a degree of negativity and disparagement a pit bull would admire.


That's a big disappointment coming from the members of this site... This thread reads like the millions of vitriolic comments found in most articles posted to MSM websites.

No one has to agree with me on anything I've posted, but I'd expect such disagreement to be a little more civil from people who participate on the site-- apparently a dumb assumption.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Honestly, that doesn't look like a lot of cash. What is that? $300-$500 in cash? I used to do this until I started using my cards for everything and before gangs started to become more prominent around here. The problem with cash is that you have to bring a decent amount if you don't have a card if you want to buy groceries and a few other things. And no.. I'm not rich.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Obviously staged to give the potus that "every day folk" look without appearing too fake. Those pics humanize him, which is the desired outcome. Those who would love to drink beers with bush would surely like to split a sandwich bill with obama now, right? LOL
edit on 24-9-2012 by Snoopy1978 because: Autocorrect automistook.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Holy non-issue, Batman!




posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Man, this is so mind-numbingly idiotic words are beginning to fail me!


It's pretty simple.

The first photo provides context for the second.

We disagree on the mechanics of the shots. The second photo could not be taken by the same photographer in the manner you suggest unless the Mayor were asked to move and the President asked to keep holding his wad. The same is also true if you assume a second photographer.


How do you know the mayor didn't walk away or step behind the president for a few seconds? As a matter of fact, I think I saw a photo (I can't remember where now) where the mayor was on the other side of the president, and a few steps away, while they were still at the counter. If the mayor moved, could not a photographer have stepped into position to take the second shot? We know there were two photographers, because the photo credits are different for the different money shots. How do you know how long the president held his wallet in his hands? He may have been holding it while talking for a few minutes. Long enough to take several shots of him.


The SECOND money shot photo lends credence that these wad shots are NOT random, imo.


This is where it's getting silly. There is more than one shot of him eating. Random? There is more than one shot of him talking to the woman behind the counter. Random? There is more than one shot of everything he did at that deli. Why are you so focused on the multiple shots of him paying for his meal, as opposed to the multiple shots of him eating his meal?



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Man, this is so mind-numbingly idiotic words are beginning to fail me!


It's pretty simple.

The first photo provides context for the second.

We disagree on the mechanics of the shots. The second photo could not be taken by the same photographer in the manner you suggest unless the Mayor were asked to move and the President asked to keep holding his wad. The same is also true if you assume a second photographer.


How do you know the mayor didn't walk away or step behind the president for a few seconds? As a matter of fact, I think I saw a photo (I can't remember where now) where the mayor was on the other side of the president, and a few steps away, while they were still at the counter. If the mayor moved, could not a photographer have stepped into position to take the second shot? We know there were two photographers, because the photo credits are different for the different money shots. How do you know how long the president held his wallet in his hands? He may have been holding it while talking for a few minutes. Long enough to take several shots of him.


The SECOND money shot photo lends credence that these wad shots are NOT random, imo.


This is where it's getting silly. There is more than one shot of him eating. Random? There is more than one shot of him talking to the woman behind the counter. Random? There is more than one shot of everything he did at that deli. Why are you so focused on the multiple shots of him paying for his meal, as opposed to the multiple shots of him eating his meal?



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



Originally posted by kaylaluv

The SECOND money shot photo lends credence that these wad shots are NOT random, imo.


This is where it's getting silly.


Of course.

It's natural to pose holding up your money wad.


We can agree to disagree.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
In any event, it is an interesting photo


We must be leaving in a pretty boring world, if contents of someone's wallet, as mundane and nondescript as they are, still manage to stir this kind of agitation. Some people like to carry hundreds. I prefer 20s. What's the big deal?

Come on. The $20 bill is the most convenient denomination when going for beers and fast food. How the hell can this be "interesting"?

If Obama was paying in gold bullion, now we'd have something to discuss.

Yawn.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by loam
 



But here is what I REALLY want to know. Look at the first photo and then compare to the second one. Did Obama pose for this second shot????


I doubt he posed for it. He’s just pulling cash out of his wallet…..who cares?

I'm not being confrontational but all I see is a $20 and a small wad of cash; what's the conspiracy here?



ooohhh!!!!....a black man has cash!! something's wrong!!!....ooohhh!!...i agree, why else would the OP even post this, unless it was meant to be racist?



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
So I went looking for the original untouched photo.

Here is what I found:



As you can see, it shows much more of the room at the moment Obama is pulling out his money.

It seems pretty clear to me that there were no camera men positioned close enough in time to take the next photo, unless that shot was intended to be taken by staging it.


edit on 24-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join