Paris Hilton's Ass-Goiter and the Fleshy Knoll Theory
An anonymous reader has sent us an in-depth analysis of the Moment That Changed a Nation Forever: the Zapruderesque Paris Hilton ass-flap photograph. And while this latter day Jim Garrison's relentless search for the truth may not contain any catchy, repeatable catchphrases ("Flap, and to the left... Flap, and to the left..."), the conclusions remain nevertheless stunning:
I wish I could come up with something more exciting, but after extensive examination of the photograph (spectral analysis, multivariant tone separation, photon emission tomography) and an even more extensive survey and palpation of my own posterior, I have come tothe following conclusion: that wickedly unattractive protrusion, much like your current workload, is just ass.
Then why does it look so messed up? Blame for this hideous depiction
must fall upon Paris and the photographer in equal measure. First, Ms. Hilton is wearing what appears to be the remnants of a standard-issue U.S. Army duffel bag, grommets and all. If one must be seen "in the bag," so to speak, one should always ensure that one's hindparts are fully covered. Failing that, common decency at a minimum requires covering one's face. Displaying both heads and tails is poor sport indeed.
Further analysis, and overhead projector commenting, after the jump:
Second, ol' gay Paree has assumed a most unflattering stance vis-a-vis
the camera. Below the waist, Ms. Hilton seems be trying and failing
to recreate the graceful contrapposto familiar from classic greek
sculpture and later Rennaissance works such as Michelangelo's David.
From the grommets up, the dear girl is doing a perfect sendup of Mary
Lou Retton struggling to stick her landing after a triple tuck off the
vault. Needless to say, this is not a successful juxtaposition.But what of the mud-flap? From whence the ass-goiter? Yea, verily.
Let us establish our perspective. Although from the angle of Ms.
Hilton's face and right foot one might conclude that she is facing the
camera directly, a closer inspection reveals that we are actually
viewing the crime scene from slightly to port. Note that Ms. Hilton's
left foot and if you'll excuse the vulgarity the crotch of her
panties form an identical angle pointing just to the left of the
camera. Also observe that Ms Hilton has extended her right leg and
lowered her right hip, thereby pulling her right buttock somewhat
forward and down. While it is true that most normal-sized women could
assume this pose without exposing their seat-cushions, Ms. Hilton's
emaciated thighs (which are here, as is frequently the case,
indelicately parted) are sadly unable to obstruct our gaze.In addition, there are factors beyond the heiress's control. First,
the photograph appears to have been taken from a position at or below
the level of Ms. Hilton's sacrum, creating an viewing angle that may be familiar to Gary Coleman but will be unusual for most spectators. (See how Ms. Hilton's outstretched fingers appear higher than the lamppost? While undoubtedly high, she was not actually that high.) Second, the photographer's flash was positioned just left of the lens, as shown by the location of the shadows cast by Ms. Hilton's leopard-print welllingtons. This slight angle, coupled with an unfortunate medial rotation of the right femur, creates a distracting shadow just below the panty line that makes the right buttock appear to be leading a separate existence.At bottom, then, we conclude that the furor over this photographic
evidence is largely unwarranted. Call off the search for weapons of
ass destruction; the tush is intact. Before I go to bed, however, I
want to air an unrelated concern: what the hell is up with the two-
headed blonde on the left?
