# What's the 'dope on Snopes? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 24, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212 "2009-04-24T13:57:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/121 "2009-04-26T16:57:34Z")
Where is the proof that the sign is double-sided? I see nothing in any photos here that leads me to believe this is the case. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/122 "2009-04-26T17:12:34Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > It does. Clearly. > > But that is **totally consistent** with the rest of the shot. I disagree, and I’ll tell you why later. > [@ambushed](#): > > I’m sorry, **Johnny** , but there are quite a number of unjustified assumptions in that paragraph of your questions. > > \ > > While I would agree that it would seem likely that a single photographer took both photos shown on Snopes at the same time and date, there’s no independent evidence for that, while the evidence of the internal consistency of the photo in question is quite compelling. The assumption is perfectly reasonable that the photos were taken by the same photographer at approximately the same time. You can’t dismiss it just because it weakens your case, as you admit in your side note. > [@ambushed](#): > > Anyway, here’s why the photo at issue in this post is internally consistent, thus invalidating your argument about shadows: > > \ > > Note in particular the visually interesting fact that the shadow in question doesn’t reach very high above the ground where the tree with the plane in it is. But past that tree (i.e, deeper into the background), the sun once again shows strongly on the ground. > > This tells us that everything in the foreground – the entire rectangular shadow-shaped area that contains the entire bottom 20% of the image, including the sign – is in deep shadow(s) caused by the presence of one or more tall hangar buildings. In snopes photo 2 you can clearly see that the white sign is entirely in deep shadow. This can be seen in both photographs and is especially evident in snopes photo 1. We can agree on this. > [@ambushed](#): > > That being the case, mental geometry once again tells us that we should see the sign in shadow if the sign actually exists and has two identical sides. **And that’s exactly what we see!** This is where we disagree. That the sign is in deep shadow does not tell us if the sign has two sides. All it tells us is that the mottled shading on the sign cannot be caused by the sun cannot be hitting the sign in such a way as to create the mottling. There are three ways in which the mottled shading can be made on the sign: [ul][li]The sun is shining through the tree branches and the light is falling on the sign. As we both agree, the sign is in deep shadow; thus, this cannot be the case. In addition, in such a lighting situation the shadowing would be more pronounced. In the image it is subtle.[/li][li]The sign, which gives every appearance of being made of white plastic, is backlit. I do not believe that the lighting behind the sign in SP1 is consistent with the shadowing on the sign. I don’t happen to have any sign material here, and in any case I don’t really feel like pulling out a C-stand and setting up an experiment and waiting for the sun to be in the right position. But in order to _possibly_ get that kind of backlighting from a bright background (as in SP1) there cannot be a second sign behind it. And I’m not convinced that you’d get it in any case. There’s not that much light. The shadowing _can_ be caused by the conditions in SP2 if it is a single sign – but I doubt so in SP2.[/li][li]The shading might be produced by sunlight reflecting off of the bright white surfaces of the airframe. But that would require the sign to be facing the aircraft.[/ul][/li] > [@ambushed](#): > > There’s no reason whatsoever from the internal evidence to suspect – let alone believe – that the photo has been manipulated. My strong opinion is that if someone manipulated the photo just to make it funnier, they wouldn’t have taken such extreme care to make certain every single element of the photo was exactly where it should have been, in exactly the right color, in the exactly correct size, with all the exact tiny details such as 'shopping in screws or bolts around the perimeter of the sign, and each and every object with exactly the right shadowing. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that someone _wouldn’t_ take ‘extreme care’ to get the details right. I’ve worked with people who have done exactly that (in video) to make ‘perfect images’ when it made absolutely no commercial sense to do so. Look at the energy you’re putting into this debate. Surely you can see where someone might put extra effort into a gag. > [@ambushed](#): > > If that photo _was_ digitally manipulated, it was manipulated to look exactly like an untouched and unmodified photo taken at that time, date, and position would look. People do that. > [@ambushed](#): > > No, it’s not an assertion of any kind. It’s an argument. My argument is as follows: If you’re going to pay to dig a hole, insert a post, and put up a small-ish advertising sign that stands at exactly 90 degrees relative to the road so that _ **only** _ people driving by in one and _only_ one direction can read it, it’s flat stupid false economy. You can put the same ad on _both_ sides of the sign so that people driving _both_ directions can read it for a small additional expense(again, because we’re certain the sign is exactly perpendicular to the traffic flow, making it impossible to read from the other direction). That way, **for a small additional sum, you can increase the number of eyes that see your ad by 100 percent!** (maybe more and maybe less; it depends on the traffic patterns). Don’t think I haven’t thought of that. If the sign were ten feet closer to the road I’d agree with you. It would make it more easily read by people coming toward the viewer in SP2. If you’re going to pay someone to dig a hole, insert a post, and put up a smallish advertising sign, why not place the sign in a more visible location? There’s a reason why the sign may only be on the side facing the crash sight. Look at [this aerial view](http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&num=100&q=%22meadow%20lake%20airport%22%20address&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl). There is _nothing_ to the east of the sign. Nothing for miles, and miles, and miles. However to the west, the direction which the sign faces, there is a large population center. Why not spend an extra thirty bucks for the two green signs and an extra unknown amount for the custom white sign? (I don’t know how much a custom sign costs, but let’s say $50 just to have a number.) It’s less than $100 all together. Because many, if not most, FBOs are run on a shoestring. Where I learned to fly helicopters they rented a hangar and had a US surplus metal desk. I almost bought a helicopter about seven years ago. Just the insurance so that I could use it as a rental was $13,000/year. To overhaul a Robinson R22 costs over $100,000. Granted, those are helicopter costs; airplanes are cheaper. But I remember my dad paying $8,000/year to insure his leased-back airplanes in the '80s. An established FBO likely has several aircraft, all of which must be insured, and all of which require periodic overhauls. In addition there are the 100-hour inspections, annual inspections, instrument certification, fuel, oil, unscheduled maintenance, hangar/tie-down/office rental, employee expenditures… If I were running such a business I wouldn’t spend $80 to put up a sign facing where the people aren’t. > [@ambushed](#): > > Why? I don’t grasp your reasoning there. It seems to me that if it was a double sign, there would be _two_, not four, thicknesses of aluminum at the bottom. I don’t understand how you get to four. The top of the arrow sign overlaps the bottom of the learn-to-fly sign. That’s two thicknesses of aluminum. If there are two sides, then that’s four thicknesses of aluminum. > [@ambushed](#): > > Not so! Not so at all! > > If the pilot only took off from or landed at that airport only once or a few times, then that person might have been distracted by the accident and not know if the sign is double-sided and has the same info on both sides or not… He/She’s a regular, and thus very likely already knows if the sign is double-sided or not. If he/she does not know, I’ll ask that the person drives by and looks, then reports back. Airport management are also ‘regulars’. They have posted on their own website that the photo was manipulated, no doubt after hundreds of queries. As shown in the aerial photo, the pilot almost certainly comes to the airport from the west. He would have no reason to look at the other side of the sign no matter how often he goes there. I’ll have to defer to the management’s published statements over what a pilot who probably only peripherally noticed the sign might remember. Also: the pilot was flying a Piper. American Aviation operates Cessnas. So the pilot likely wouldn’t have any reason to pay much attention to the sign other than ‘Oh, there’s my turn.’ > [@ambushed](#): > > Hey, that’s good research! Congrats on that. It’s not research at all. It’s just something I know from being around airports my entire life. [Capt. Jack Sparrow]_Pilot!_[/CJS] > [@ambushed](#): > > But that’s exactly what I would have expected from the fact that the arrow is tilted in the photographs that we both already agree are real. If they _weren’t_ two separate signs, then the fact that the arrow is titled would prove quite conclusively that all the photos were faked. Nonsense. Anyone altering the direction of an arrow is going to make it a ‘separate sign’ whether it actually is a separate sign (which it is) or if it’s painted on the same piece of metal. Given that the arrow is attached to the sign, it is in effect _not_ two separate signs. > [@ZenBeam](#): > > Here’s the problem I have with the theory that there are two signs back-to-back on the single post. Those two signs can not be touching each other, then mounted on the post, because the post would be covering the front of one of the signs. There would have to be one sign on each side of the post, which would mean that there is a space of a couple inches between the signs. The back of sign facing away from the camera in [this picture](http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss299/ambushed_sd/Snopes_school1.jpg) would be very obvious on the right side of the signs, since the signs aren’t facing directly at the camera. The photographic evidence is that there are not two signs separated by a couple inches. > [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > Where is the proof that the sign is double-sided? I see nothing in any photos here that leads me to believe this is the case. I think **ambush** ’s assertion is that there are two signs that are attached at the corners by screws that he sees. Personally, I see no screws. I see what appear to be grommets in the white sign. I do not see (on my laptop, as I’ve mentioned) any sign of screws, rivets, or grommeted holes in the green signs. Also, I see no evidence of curvature, which would be necessary if the signs were joined. Nor do I see any necessary gaps between the alleged two signs, which would exist if they were only attached at the corners. > [@EJsGirl](#): > > My God, you guys, get a room already… 😉 Or rename the thread! I completely agree. This hijack became burdensome a couple of pages ago. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/123 "2009-04-26T19:08:31Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > It turned out that one of the frequent posters to that board, who uses “Racer” as his handle, lived in Colorado Springs, where Snopes says the incident took place. So he drove to the locale and snapped some photos of his own and then posted them. Here’s the photographic proof: > > [Proof that the sign is exactly where both Snopes photos show it to be](http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss299/ambushed_sd/Airplane_Crash_002_Racer.jpg) > > [Proof that a small plane crashed into the tree in question](http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss299/ambushed_sd/Airplane_Crash_003_Racer.jpg) > > [Proof that yellow police tape was still there when **Racer** took the pictures in 2007](http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss299/ambushed_sd/Airplane_Crash_005_Racer.jpg) I’m going to have to dispute [b[Racer\*\*'s assertion that the photos were taken at ‘the exact same place’ of the crash. Here’s why: [Here is the snopes photo](http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss299/ambushed_sd/Snopes_school1.jpg). [Here is **Racer** ’s photo showing the yellow tape](http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss299/ambushed_sd/Airplane_Crash_005_Racer.jpg). [Here is **Racer** ’s photo taken from a position more to the west](http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss299/ambushed_sd/Airplane_Crash_003_Racer.jpg). [Here is a google map](http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&num=100&q=%22meadow%20lake%20airport%22%20address&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl) [Here is an aerial image from MLA’s site](http://www.meadowlakeairport.com/tree_5_op_800x535.jpg). **Racer** ’s photos linked above were taken from Judge Orr Rd. The photos are of the west end of the open hangar. MLA’s photo shows markers at the east end of the hangar. The access road cannot be seen in **Racer** ’s photos The access road _can_ be seen in MLA’s photos and the snopes photo. The west end of the hangar and the wingless airplane can be seen in the snopes photo. (The northwest corner of the hangar roof extends to the right of the sign.) [Here is another of **Racer** ’s photos taken from an angle approaching that of the snopes photo](http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=29731&d=1168877742). Again we see that there is no access road and no sign. In the snopes photo we see a fence post. Airports have perimeter fences. This one extends along Judge Orr Rd, and is open at the access road. The fence continues west past the hangar. So **Racer** ’s photos are not of the crash site. What about the yellow tape in his photo? That doesn’t necessarily indicate the crash site. There can be any number of reasons there’s yellow tape there. Heck, I have yellow tape in my filmmaking gear. It’s easy to get. Perhaps he saw the tape and assumed that was the spot. But the crash took place at the east end of the hangar and not the west. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/124 "2009-04-26T20:53:54Z")
I really hate to continue this silliness, and I’m not interested in rebutting **ambushed** ’s multi-page posts, but I was discussing this w Johnny LA off-thread and he asked if I thought the image looked faked on a pixel level. I took a look, and feel pretty strongly that it does indeed look faked. See this blow up of the signage [here](http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn66/squeegee64/AAsign.jpg). I see the following problems: - The top-left edge of the sign does not line up with the corner; the white area that follows the red vertical line sticks out toward the left by one pixel compared to the corner. - The area just below where the red line ends at bottom-left has a semi-transparent area where tree-bits show through. - There is a half ‘grommet’ hole in the bottom-left corner. - There is a dark edge that begins at bottom left, and continues to the bottom-center of the sign; this line ends abruptly at bottom left, aligning with where that half-hole is. It also ends abruptly at center-bottom, where the sign-post would probably be. - The bottom-right of the image, from where that black line ends to the bottom-right corner is just a mess – bits of the tree trunk can be seen through the sign. Anyway, this isn’t conclusive proof, but it is highly suspicious. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/125 "2009-04-26T21:20:18Z")
> [@HorseloverFat](#): > > Considering snopes is Republican run, its not surprising That’s not even close to true. David Mikkelson is registered as a Republican. That doesn’t mean he actually is one, and his wife isn’t registered at all. ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/126 "2009-04-26T22:18:01Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > I completely agree. This hijack became burdensome a couple of pages ago. No worries, **Johnny** - you know I love ya! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![kayT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayt/32/3633_2.png) [@kayT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayT)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/127 "2009-04-26T23:56:33Z")
So what about copying from snopes? How do you do it? ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/128 "2009-04-26T23:58:42Z")
> [@kayT](#): > > So what about copying from snopes? How do you do it? Right click -\> View Source then scroll down to (or ctrl+f) what you want to copy. You have to remove and \ tags or \\ tags etc, but you work with what you get. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/129 "2009-04-27T03:32:42Z")
**I CONCEDE!** I haven’t read what’s new on this thread yet, but I wanted to start with my concession. Life circumstances kept me from posting this till now… I’ve received an email reply from Mark Shook, who sits on the board of the Meadow Lake Airport and is the webmaster of their web site. The relevant portion of his email reads as follows: > [@Mark Shook](#): > > I have lived in the Meadow Lake Estates subdivision (one street east of American Aviation) for 25 years. I pass this sign 2 or 4 times a day, (sometimes more). > > **It is a one sided sign** that faces west toward the traffic coming from Colorado Springs. The famous photo was taken in the early am the morning after the crash, standing east of the tree, facing west with the sun behind him. > > The crash knocked power out at my house. As a member of the Meadow Lake airport board, I was on the scene of this crash before the police or news media arrived. Only the FD was on scene when I got there. > > I am the webmaster for [MeadowLakeAirport.com](http://MeadowLakeAirport.com) ( [2MLA.com](http://2MLA.com). ) > > And YES, I am sure. That settles that! Props to all who tried in vain to change my mind, and thanks in particular to **Johhny L.A.** for not losing his patience with me! ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/130 "2009-04-27T03:44:02Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > Props to all who tried in vain to change my mind, and thanks in particular to **Johhny L.A.** for not losing his patience with me! It was a helluva fight! Now **I am bushed**! ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/131 "2009-04-27T04:03:59Z")
_That’s not even close to true. David Mikkelson is registered as a Republican. That doesn’t mean he actually is one_ Right, Im sure its all an elaborate prank, setup nine years ago to prank us today! Bravo sir Mikkelson, you have bested us with your pranksmanship! Get real. People dont usually register for parties they are not members of. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/132 "2009-04-27T04:25:02Z")
I didn’t want to spoil the purity of my complete, 100% concession post by bringing in extraneous matters, but someone might be interested… The email I sent to whomever was at the other end of the airport’s general-purpose email address (who turned out to be Mark Shook) was minimal and straightforward. In other words, I didn’t explain why I wanted to know and I didn’t reveal a preference one way or the other to avoid a possibly biased response. After Mark Shook emailed his reply that I quoted most of in my concession, I replied with an enthusiastic thank you, a vote of confidence, and some friendly remarks. I still had never discussed my own point of view. In particular, I never even _hinted_ at my advertising argument; i.e., that it would be false economy to have only a single-sided sign. Thus, I find it interesting that Mr. Shook brought the issue up entirely on his own in the following portion of his reply to my thank-you note: > [@Mark Shook](#): > > I was just trying to give you all the background so you could properly evaluate the credibility of my answer. > > I know what its like to wonder about a story and ask yourself what seams like obvious questions, **like wouldn’t the sign be two sided for traffic for both directions. Logical, but not factual.** Hmmm… I can only think of just a _few_ billion things that would fit that last description… Finally, I want to note that I also heard from the pilot of the crashed plane. Since the reply was via email, I still don’t know Terry’s gender! Anyway, here’s a part of the pilot’s reply: > [@Terry](#): > > I am flattered that you would be interested. If you need any more information or questions I would be honored to answer. Did anyone tell you that you sound like Jimmy Stewart on the phone? > > Kindest regards, > > Terry Why uh, uh _Harvey_… Terry’s talkin’ to _me_ now… ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/133 "2009-04-27T05:46:25Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > That settles that! Hold the phone… you believed **some guy on the internet**?!? Um… isn’t this pretty much what you accused me of, and scoffed at my gullibility? I wasn’t a “true skeptic” since I believed **the same guy** ’s web site, right? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/134 "2009-04-27T10:39:06Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > Hold the phone… you believed **some guy on the internet**?!? Um… isn’t this pretty much what you accused me of, and scoffed at my gullibility? I wasn’t a “true skeptic” since I believed **the same guy** ’s web site, right? Now, in fairness, this is untrue. You got a relatively anonymous email from someone who didn’t provide any support for their assertion. You had to assume their assertion was true solely from the basis of their relationship to the airport. For many, that’s enough; for some, that’s exactly the sort of gullibility that leads to erroneous “facts” being established as true. In contrast, note that the email he received is detailed as to how the writer knows the situation. The person was at the location at the time of the accident. The person describes the basis of his knowledge, including his proximity to the location, his knowledge of the location, etc. In short, the email he received gives the details that back up the somewhat more scanty email you received. Under the circumstances, only a conspiracy theorist would now cling to the notion that the photo wasn’t altered. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![dotchan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@dotchan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dotchan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/135 "2009-04-27T11:24:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Have they debunked a lot of left-wing glurge emails? AFAICT, liberals either don’t write or don’t forward political glurge, but I’m sure there must be _some_ out there. Alas, I no longer have the emails from the Democratic party back when Dubya was running for president, but I got one either from them or an Asian interest/lobbying group that claimed Dubya was a racist hayseed who wanted to carpet bomb Vietnam and put all squinty-eyed yellows in internment camps as soon as he got into office. (And that Kerry was Very Good Friends with Prominent Asians and would nominate them into Important Cabinet Positions.) ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/136 "2009-04-27T12:23:33Z")
> [@HorseloverFat](#): > > Get real. People dont usually register for parties they are not members of. Is there a difference between registering for a party and becoming a member of it? I do not consider myself to be a member of any particular party. I consider myself to be an independent, although I do admit that in the great majority of cases, I find myself to agree more with party X than party Z. In my state, you cannot vote in the primaries unless you register with that party, so about 15 years ago, I registered with party Z because I really really liked their candidate very much, and I wanted to vote for him in the primaries. For the next ten years, my votes in the primaries were pretty wasted, because I didn’t like either of Z’s guys, and I kept forgetting to tell the Board Of Elections that I wanted to switch to party X. I finally did that a few years ago. So you tell me: For those ten years, was I a member of X or of Z? What about now? (Personally, I don’t know and don’t care.) ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/137 "2009-04-27T12:53:17Z")
_Now_ can we talk about Pat Boone’s dick in a box? ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/138 "2009-04-27T12:54:57Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > Hold the phone… you believed **some guy on the internet**?!? Um… isn’t this pretty much what you accused me of, and scoffed at my gullibility? I wasn’t a “true skeptic” since I believed **the same guy** ’s web site, right? > [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Now, in fairness, this is untrue. You got a relatively anonymous email from someone who didn’t provide any support for their assertion. You had to assume their assertion was true solely from the basis of their relationship to the airport. For many, that’s enough; for some, that’s exactly the sort of gullibility that leads to erroneous “facts” being established as true. In fairness, what **squeegee** said is _completely_ true, and you’re adding, well, erroneous facts. Note that **squeegee** was convinced by this link: [http://www.meadowlakeairport.com/INDEX2.html#anchor\_1094](http://www.meadowlakeairport.com/INDEX2.html#anchor_1094) posted earlier in the thread, from Meadow Lake Airport’s website. He pointed out, in post 107, that the airport’s own website (well, again to be fair, a garbled version of the airport’s name) claims the photo is faked. > [@squeegee](#): > > **Ambushed** , I was a skeptic earlier in the thread, but I think Middle Field Airport’s take that [the photo](http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss299/ambushed_sd/Snopes_school1.jpg) is faked trumps all that verbage you (and earlier I) wrote. They would certainly know. To which **ambushed** replied: > [@ambushed](#): > > If some anonymous person’s bald assertion – contrary to all available photographic **-AND-** geometric evidence along with basic advertising sensibility – is all it takes to move your bead from the skeptical side to the believer side, I would be less eager in the future to consider yourself a skeptic. So, right. Anonymous person’s bald assertion = bad, even when anonymous person runs the airport’s website. But apparently attaching a name to the anonymous person who runs the airport’s website makes all the difference in the world: > [@ambushed](#): > > I’ve received an email reply from Mark Shook, who sits on the board of the Meadow Lake Airport and is the webmaster of their web site. The relevant portion of his email reads as follows: […] That settles that! In any case, **squeegee** “believed the same guy’s web site,” which is what he said. That would be, in fairness, true. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/139 "2009-04-27T12:55:15Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > _Now_ can we talk about Pat Boone’s dick in a box? If you hum it, I’ll join in the chorus. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212/140 "2009-04-27T13:41:22Z")
> [@dotchan](#): > > Alas, I no longer have the emails from the Democratic party back when Dubya was running for president, but I got one either from them or an Asian interest/lobbying group that claimed Dubya was a racist hayseed who wanted to carpet bomb Vietnam and put all squinty-eyed yellows in internment camps as soon as he got into office. (And that Kerry was Very Good Friends with Prominent Asians and would nominate them into Important Cabinet Positions.) Well, Hispanics have the Department of Transport, and South Asians now have the Surgeon General’s office. You ought to have _something._ 😉 > [@Keeve](#): > > Is there a difference between registering for a party and becoming a member of it? Yes. Registering simply means you can vote in their (closed) primaries, as you alluded to. To do that, you file a form with your state election commission (and/or county election supervisor, or some other people). Membership means you file a form with the party itself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-dope-on-snopes/494212.md?page=8)