is the most obvious one.  In both cases I can see clearly that the color density of the bandanas doesn't match the photo itself.

The real interesting part is that the "writer" to Malkin's blog claims the woman dropped the child running away.  Maybe one of the more "in touch" Olympians can tell me, but is there residential housing that close to the port?  If not, the two pictures were taken in totally different places, which could very well mean that this woman was being stalked by someone with a camera and an agenda.

Her full name and google instructions to her phone number were posted in The Olympian (a violation of their privacy policy, but so what, huh?) and are still there today.

I'm not a fan of bringing children to events such as these, but if you read Thursday's comments in the Olympian, you'll find "Patriotic American" was defending her right to bring her 12 year old son down there to "welcome the troops".  She was complaining that he got pushed by a protestor.  I'm wondering if she was using the child as a human shield from protestors (as long as we're going down that road)

copied the photo and imported it to Picasa, then blew up the cropped facial portions at 400%.  The focus on the bandanas is far more crisp that the surrounding portions of faces, which I would conclude was from a separate photo.

That is the skill I have to offer.

Just sharing my "expertice" and findings.  I also question the edges and the position of the dangling portions of the bandana at the tie behind the neck. The position of the tie doesn't look natural.

True photo journalism should require nothing more than cropping horizontally and vertically to center the subject and eliminate superfulous background - in other words - FRAMING.

Considering that someone also went out of their way to post the woman's name and access to her phone number, I'm fairly confident that there is some agenda here. 

As another of our bloggers (more conservative than I) mentioned to me in PM "she didn't break the law".  To which I have to agree.  I disagree with the mother's idea of good sense.

Finally, I still stick to the issue of the headline that said she "dropped the child".  My wife even didn't buy that one.  I seemed rather obvious that this was a mother picking up a toddler that fell.

Will the photographer of these pictures step forward and tell us the original method of the pictures taken?

Something tells me that you're monitoring this, Photoperson.

I'm just using all my skills and technical equipment to examine.  So far, I'm skeptical.

Since I made my call for the photographer to address Olyblog.  I find it impossible to think that this person isn't monitoring the blog.

Step up.  You can even be Anonymous, like me.  We'd like to know the story behind those pictures.

Ask Rob Whitlock if the pics are good ones. He knows, cuz he was there when the pics were taken.

http://thurstonblog.blogspot.com/

I have enjoyed your analysis of the pics, it has made me smile a lot.  Kind of reminds me of the FBI and their crack forensic team at their lab.  We know how well they have done in the past.

My guess is Rob will be mute on this.  He knows  the pics on the Malkin website are real, and unaltered, and he won't want to throw one of his own in front of the bus.  

The kids were running around with their bandanas on like little anarchists.  Mom was on her butt on the wet ground in front of the semi with her baby in her arms.  Not the place for younger kids, and certainly not an infant.

I didn't see the kid get dropped, but I saw the future Rob Richards with mom.

I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this, but... I am. And I found another pic with one of the kids with his bandanna around his neck.

Peace became pizza. -- Guglielmo