[iM@k]

A friend of mine was looking through a scrap book of his parents, and came across this post card (According to the caption with it, it was bought at the Howard Johnson's in time square in 1980).

At first it seemed innocent enough, then upon further review I realized how many things were wrong with it, and I quickly realized I was looking at my therapy bills sky rocketing.

So...how many things wrong do you see in this picture (Here's a hint, I'm not sure there are actually any females in this picture!).

[@pplejaxkz]

wow...just wow lol.

[Sherman Homan]

Times Square in the '80s did not look like that...

[Mastrap]

That little boy is probably in a group therapy session as we are reading this. Just wow.

[mindwaves]

Improper shadows and the boy is sitting on his dad's lap without any support (like a bench underneath)?

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by mindwaves 

the boy is sitting on his dad's lap without any support (like a bench underneath)?

Beside the fact that the mother looks like a transvestite and the little girl looks like a trisomic, my first reaction was to think that the father's knee will probably need some medical attention if he keeps doing that

[SirCastor]

The little boy is actually a sophisticated Ventriloquism dummy. No person would intentionally dress their child as such.
I stayed at the Howard Johnson outside Time square back in 97. Nice place... No transvestites that I remember.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

I see nothing that suggests that the boy or anybody is doing anything wrong or disturbing.

I used to wear care bear sweat pants imported from China in kindergarten to my dismay, is it any worse than that crap he has on?

[ghporter]

The picture looks doctored. Not just the shadows, but the combination of the facade and the clothing-it's just not right. Yes, people DID wear clothes like that, and maybe as late as 1980. But the woman's suit is more like a 1972 vintage, and by 1980 I don't think any girl out of diapers wore that sort of "Shirley Temple" pinafore. The mechanics or the little boy sitting on the man's knee do work-he's not that big. But then there are those "wrong" shadows. And though I've never been to Times Square, that building doesn't look like architecture you'd see in 1980. In the 1950s as a "flagship" "modern" location, or maybe in the mid 1990s, but architecture in 1980 was so... square.

[Railroader]

I used to own a pair of pants EXACTLY like that kid's when I was about his age. That was back in the mid-70's as ghporter suggests. I wish I still had those pants so I could make my kids wear them like my parents made me wear them.

The shadows don't look wrong to me. Perhaps the front of the building has a covered car-port and the family is just out from under it.

[iM@k]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The picture looks doctored. Not just the shadows, but the combination of the facade and the clothing-it's just not right. Yes, people DID wear clothes like that, and maybe as late as 1980. But the woman's suit is more like a 1972 vintage, and by 1980 I don't think any girl out of diapers wore that sort of "Shirley Temple" pinafore. The mechanics or the little boy sitting on the man's knee do work-he's not that big. But then there are those "wrong" shadows. And though I've never been to Times Square, that building doesn't look like architecture you'd see in 1980. In the 1950s as a "flagship" "modern" location, or maybe in the mid 1990s, but architecture in 1980 was so... square.

Allow me to clarify, this post card has a copyright of 1969, which is when I assume the actual picture was taken. Sorry to disappoint, it's not PS'd. (1980 was the year the post card was PURCHASED)

Yes I realize fashion was "different" back then, but this is the worst I'd ever seen it.

Further more, what the hell could the "dad" be showing/saying to the boy while shoving his knee it the boys crotch that would cause the boy to have that expression on his face!

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

But then there are those "wrong" shadows.

The sun is 3/4 behind the guy's right side, or 3/4 in front of the, uh... "gal's" right side, since she's standing perpendicular to the guy.

There's something flagging the sun off of everything behind them, including the building. In fact, the sun is only really hitting the concrete in front of them, the pantsuit (which is dark), a sliver of her face and 3/4 behind everyone's head. Everything else is bounce light. There's probably a white card out of frame to even everything out, but the light is too diffuse for you to see the shadow.

[olePigeon]

[Mastrap]

^ I love that cartoon.