Well, since this seems to have been asked and answered, I’m going to go off on two tangents:
Man, do I ever hate it when people write or say “Wikipedia” got to the bottom of something. Wikipedia is a storehouse for the information. They don’t have teams of researchers employed to do investigative journalism. It’s a place where people can contribute information that they have on a given topic. I know that you Dopers know that, but it kills me how many people don’t. And since a part of my job is teaching information literacy, you’d think I’d be used to it by now.
Real question: Why did snopes get so inundated with pop-up and -under ads? Any idea why the Mikkelsson’s didn’t adopt a less egregious advertising model?
I only get one Netflix ad the first time I click on a story. Not much of a problem, though I hate pop-unders.
What’s inconvenient for me is that you can’t copy-and-paste from their site without going in through the back way. I understand why they made it that way, but it makes it difficult for the rest of us who are not stealing content but trying to provide a citation (with a link to the page, of course).
Apparently, they take the “if the check clears, it’s good” method for their ads. Their ads also were linked to Malware some little time ago.
They got one other thing sort of wrong- the bit about Texas splitting into five states, they label it “True”. Although the way they word the question does make the answer “True” Texas cannot unilaterally split, they require the consent of Congress,just like any other State.
And that proves what? I happen to be registered as repubican [i flipped a coin. to register i needed to be dem or rep …] I cant think of too many repubs I have actually voted for.
Look at the signs. In the first photo the arrow points to the left. In the second, the arrow points to the right. Ergo, two signs, back-to-back. A driver makes a left turn coming from one direction, a right turn coming from the other.
I agree, its a darned good fake. In fact, I think the sign images would have needed to be comped in from a third photo of the signs that we haven’t seen – the ones in the un-faked shot are far too small, unless it that shot was taken at crazy high resolution. And the faker got the lighting and tone just about perfect, which takes some expertise. Hell, the signs in the un-faked photo look more fake than the faked photo to me!
About the lighting: In the faked photo the sign appears to be backlit, only it is in shadow. In the other photo you can see that the light is indeed coming from behind it, filtered through the trees. In the faked photos, one could say that the background is bright, so it’s showing through. But the backlight shadows don’t quite seem (to me) to match with the structure of the tree behind it. Also, if it were two signs placed back-to-back on the post, I doubt there would be any light showing through the white sign.
If I try to highlight something to cut, it doesn’t highlight. If I try to cut anyway (on the assumption that the highlight just isn’t visible) nothing is cut. I’m using Safari.
The email says “the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party)”… that’s not factually correct. It goes on to assert they have some liberal bias, and I guess that’s just a matter of opinion.
