DAMMING PICTURE EXPOSES JOLIES TWIN PREGNANCY BUMP

by **Guest88** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:14 pm

My god you people are so immature and ignorant. Can any sane person please comment on the lack of jolie's reflection in the window, as in the pic above?

by **Guest** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:22 pm

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:Uh are you blind that you didn`t see that Jolie bends sidewards in the pic were she holds Zahara? Her b.reasts and her bump aren`t horizontal because she bends to one side!

PS: Still don`t get why you are unable to link to the mystery pix were her pose is identical to that in the balcony pic! Could that be because the pic does not exist?

PPS: JJ is not a good reference because if you look for the pic Jared was forced to take it down by Jolie`s lawyer! But Popsugar has the same pix just not the one you were talking about!

Obviously you've NEVER been pregnant. You CAN"T no matter how hard you try move that bump ya dumfvck. IT A HUMAN BEING NOT A PILLOW except in the case of joLIE.

No igit, the pics are STILL at JJ. I just saw them....take your lazy ass over there like I said and do you own damn homework before opening your pie hole again.

NO it is TWO human beings and yes the babies can move!

LOL...you've obviously never seen the belly of a REAL pregnant woman carrying twins in the 8th month. Or even a singleton for that matter. You're obviously quite ignorant, so please stop trying to act like you're an expert on the subject because it's obvious to every woman who has ever been pregnant that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

by **Guest** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:33 pm

I agree on the old beach photos being the same ones used to make Angie look pregnant in the black bikini. I remember seeing them in magazines and _. I think you have the year wrong I think it might have been 2002, might make the pics easier to find.
But yes they are the exact same pis. Loony is probably right I bet they were removed from the internet when Brangelina put out the photoshopped ones to try and squelch the fake pregnancy rumors.

by **Guest** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:36 pm

Guest88 wrote:
Guest wrote:poor loon can't even post their proof

Just wondering if her reflection should be in the window, like the tree branches??

Lol, yes we should see her reflection too.

by **Guest** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:05 pm

hahaha wrote:Nope. It's real. You can go crazy trying to prove otherwise but... The picture speaks for itself. I honestly wasn't sure looking at all your evidence before - I'm not a loon - but this convinces me.

I guess you are easily fooled and have never heard of photoshop. You are not a loon my ass, in fact I think you ate not guillible and haha and most the loonie post on this threads writer.

by **Guest** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:12 pm

Guest wrote:poor loon can't even post their proof

ok, white shutters closer to window than ho, reflection check, tree furthere away from ho to window, reflection, check, Ho in between shutters and tree, reflection, nope not at all, weird, is she a vampire? a ghost? a photoshopped in image? i just can not figure it out.

not to mentio i remember the original beach pics too with mad.

by **4 leaf clover** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:20 pm

The pic is definitely photoshopped. In addition to pitt's and jolie's missing legs, if you look closely at the bottom left of the pic where her back is turned to the camera, you will see a space (indicated by a black line) which extends from her back ,to her elbow and over to the arm of the other individual. In the pic showing her bump again the bottom left of the pic (right side to her) shows the line which goes up along the left side of her bump like a shadow.
In the other pic which shows her wearing supposedly a gypsie skirt her upper body is too far back from her lower body and she's missing her legs.To say it,s part of a chair also does not make sense because the top of the chair does not match the rest of the chair. It seems to be made of a rattan type of material.

by **Guest** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:27 pm

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:Uh are you blind that you didn`t see that Jolie bends sidewards in the pic were she holds Zahara? Her b.reasts and her bump aren`t horizontal because she bends to one side!

PS: Still don`t get why you are unable to link to the mystery pix were her pose is identical to that in the balcony pic! Could that be because the pic does not exist?

PPS: JJ is not a good reference because if you look for the pic Jared was forced to take it down by Jolie`s lawyer! But Popsugar has the same pix just not the one you were talking about!

Obviously you've NEVER been pregnant. You CAN"T no matter how hard you try move that bump ya dumfvck. IT A HUMAN BEING NOT A PILLOW except in the case of joLIE.

No igit, the pics are STILL at JJ. I just saw them....take your lazy ass over there like I said and do you own damn homework before opening your pie hole again.

NO it is TWO human beings and yes the babies can move!

LOL...you've obviously never seen the belly of a REAL pregnant woman carrying twins in the 8th month. Or even a singleton for that matter. You're obviously quite ignorant, so please stop trying to act like you're an expert on the subject because it's obvious to every woman who has ever been pregnant that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Tell me does every pregnant woman obsess over Jolie and devote her life to uncovering the supposed conspiracies that Jolie is involved? I would really like to know from an expert such as yourself!

by **Guest** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:35 pm

Oh look. The photo Ms. Lewis said did not exist. And...oh look...the balustrade is so high it doesn't show her tummy.

by **Guest** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:40 pm

WHY WOULD SOMEONE CREATE AN IMAGE (AND A BADLY PHOTOSHOPPED ONE, I MIGHT ADD) TO INSIST THAT WE ARE CRAZY FOR SAYING JOLIE DID NOT CARRY TWINS? BECAUSE THEY KNOW SHE DIDN'T.

by **Guest** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:43 pm

The Smoking Gun:

by **Guest** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:47 pm

-Lawyers for Brad Pitt are threatening legal action against news outlets if photos taken of the actor and his brood at their French estate are published. The images, Pitt's lawyer contends, were "surreptitiously" taken by paparazzi with "highly powerful telephoto lenses," and, if published, would violate the star's privacy rights.

The photos show "Pitt and his family as they engaged in familial activities on private property," according to attorney Yael Holtkamp, who last night sent TSG the below legal notice (though in our 11+ years, we've never purchased a single paparazzi photo).

The letter does not further describe the photos of Pitt, who, with partner Angelina Jolie, is reportedly negotiating a multimillion-dollar deal for the first pictures of the couple's twins, born July 12 in France.

Holtkamp, an associate with Los Angeles-based Lavely & Singer, noted that one unnamed photo agency had already sold or licensed the images, but that the firm agreed to "cease and desist from any further sale and dissemination" of the pictures and had them removed them from its web site

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/ ... arazzi-pix