I am the walrus

July 23, 2013 • 1:41 pm

. . . napping on a Russian submarine LOL.

14E6xEY

UPDATE:  I was suspicious of a PhotoShopping here, and that seems to be the case.  Below are what appear to be the real photos, and the guy behind the walrus seems to have been Photoshopped in. Regardless, the real photos are cool:

20111030110649

20111030110649_2

h/t: fake photo from Rebecca Kreston at Twitter.

55 thoughts on “I am the walrus”

    1. That’s the royal baby? My…must really have been painful for what’s-her-name.

      And what’re the Brits doing using the deck of a Russian sub for a delivery room?

      b&

        1. Wait — Russian subs have invaded British Columbia so the British can have a walrus for a king?

          Man, the news these days just keeps getting weirder and weirder….

          b&

          1. No weirder than the idea of hereditary leadership of a “democratic” government.

          3. That’s a great idea. Sort of what they did with that empty plinth in Trafalgar Square. Let a random member of the public be king or queen for a day or week at a time, that would be rather more interesting to watch than the present lot of royals. And anyone from the Commonwealth should be able to apply.

          5. The Queen isn’t the hereditary leader of a democratic government; she’s simply the ceremonial head of state, a proxy for the country and its people without any party-political affiliation.

            /@

          8. To have an unelected proxy who cannot be sacked, is undemocratic. To say that one of the wealthiest women in the world has no party affiliation is to deny reality, she is working for her own interests and has no looming election to force her to consider any other. How she can possibly know anything at all about the lives of normal people is a complete mystery to me even if she did wish to advocate for them in some way. She also has a lot more power than you think.

          9. That’s why she has weekly meetings with the Prime Minister, to make sure they get their weekly ration of excellent tea?

  8. I wouldn’t want to get too close to that walrus. Judging by the look on the face of the actual guy standing in front of the walrus, he seems to feel the same.

    1. At 25 inches and the largest of any land mammal, a walrus’ baculum is going to inspire envy in a lot of human males. Thus the jokes.

      Human females, on the other hand, might have various opinions.

    2. Wow. If that’s what Jerry was going for, kudos to him. Subtle humor is an art.

      (And TBL is one of my favorite movies. What great characters.)

  12. In Russia, where does 1700 kg walrus sleep?

    I’m sure there’s a punchline in here somewhere, but I’m not finding it.

    1. If Russia was still Soviet you try a Yakov Smirnoff take: “In Soviet Russia, Sea World visits you”

  14. Sorry to be off walrus, but I have no choice. I just heard that morgan freeman’s through the wormhole program will be doing the free-will thing. I’m not a subscriber to science channel, being on the wrong continent, but would love to hear how it goes.

  15. Of the first two photos, the one -without- a person has definitely been photoshopped. There are definite indications that a clone tool has been used, most obviously along the shoreline behind the person–some sort of vertical lines + a rather vulviform hill are repeated three times in the personless photo. The line where the walrus meets the sea is also suspiciously vague and blurry in the personless photo, and, though more difficult to spot, there are several bits of the sea that are definitely duplicated. Further, it is very difficult to -create- shadow detail through photo editing… but the photo with a person has more shadow detail than the one without.

    It remains possible that the person was not really there, but then you need to invoke an unobserved original photo, followed by editing to stick a person in, followed by more editing to remove the person from that photo. However, this is less parsimonious. The personless photo has definitely been edited to remove said person. Anything beyond that is speculation only.

  16. I agree. The first is un-shopped, at least in regards to the human. The second image clearly leaves out detail where the guys arm would be, and duplicates some portion of the image, not to mention the blur along the Wallies side.

Comments are closed.