Nobody wants to touch it out of the box either!!!
Y’all don’t get the point, do you ? It’s not that all these tall tales are being debunked by a single couple. It’s that this couple is a couple of Democrats. Meaning the “facts” and “reality” they investigate to get to the truth is highly suspect.
Oh, wait, they aren’t ?.. Still. What the Right says and chain-mails is Fact. That’s a Fact.
As a registered Republican sometimes closet Democrat fiscally conservative and socially liberal gun owner, CNN and FOX watching news junkie, who has read Snopes for years, I find no bias in their attempts at getting to the bottom of things.
I figure the sign in the faked photo isn’t the sign in the real photo. Probably, there’s more than one sign leading to the airfield, and whoever 'shopped the first photo used one of those. It’d explain why the arrows changed directions, at least.
I commented before that the biggest beef I have is the third item from the 9/11 commission that Snopes uses. The one that claimed that the FBI properly interviewed the persons of interest in the Bin Laden Family before they let them go.
On light of the hundreds of times that they water boarded suspects that where brought in from other countries weeks or months after 9/11 the idea that a few persons of interest in the Bin Laden family were properly interrogated (it looks like this took only a few days!) and then with the whole lot being let go is bugging me.
That IMHO does sound like a reckless decision, specifically on the political side, I think an effort was made to keep this under wraps, and I think that if this had been known sooner I do think many would had demanded that some heads had to roll (in the metaphorical sense) and I suspect that many on the right would had been also the ones demanding an explanation.
In light of the Plame affair I do not believe also that only Richard Clarke authorized that.
Remember that South Park where Butters gets pissed because every time he/Professor Chaos comes up with an evil plan, it’s already been done on The Simpsons?
Well xkcd is getting like that.
Whether he’s a conspiracy theorist or not is a trickier question than it may at first seem. I may have to start a GQ thread on that very question…
In the past, Moore has been okay (but just okay) in my book. I didn’t consider him a conspiracy theorist, but it may just have been that I hadn’t heard him spout any CT bullshit. He exaggerates, but he’s certainly not the only exaggerating political entertainer around.
But then I heard him say this (though not from the site I’m linking to, nor do I think it was this particular occasion): Michael Moore finally speaks…
If you take that at face value, then Moore clearly is a crackpot “9/11 truther”. I’d say the preponderance of the evidence is well in favor of him being a conspiracy theorist, and the Right probably has this one right for a rare change. But Moore might just be placating the nutjobs in order to avoid their idiotic wrath and keep up the size of his audience. He is an entertainer after all.
In any case, after hearing what he said in that clip, I’m forced to conclude that he’s either a fool or a coward, so he’s unlikely to ever regain even the limited respect in which I’d once held him…
Not necessarily. Given similar light to take a closeup of those same signs, I could whomp together a convincing composite in short order. The nice thing is you don’t need to blend the edges of the comp with the background when you comp the new signs onto a photo of the back of that signage; you already have the backs of those signs to work with, so you can comp right up to the edges of the back side, and all the tree bits and whatnot are already aliased into the existing sign edges. The shapes of the signs also give you ready-made registration points to warp the images onto the existing signs. The only really tweaky part for me would be getting the color/brightness/tone to look natural. Flipping the arrows is cake: just flip the signs altogether, then flip just the letters on the signs back the way they were (although the ‘dot’ in that exclamation point would require a little painting, but its not that hard). But I don’t expect most fakers to know all this stuff, so it was a 'shopper with some talent at least.
You’ve been insisting on this point throughout the thread, but this doesn’t seem to be a nit you’re picking, it’s a piconit at most.
The claim Snopes evaluated was this: “Photograph shows small plane crashed into a tree next to a sign advertising flight lessons.” In other words, they were asked whether the photo depicted a real event or if the plane had been Photoshopped into the tree followed by Photoshopping the combination next to the sign. The questioner wanted to know if the whole scenario was P-shopped, not whether the tiny, insignificant detail of whether the sign was actually facing the way it appeared to be or not.
After all, no one knows who took the photo. It certainly wasn’t the Mikkelsons. They give no one photographic credit, which confirms what at least one report said about no one knowing who took it. Hell, the sign might have been physically moved by the photographer and thus never photographically manipulated at all!
Not only that, how could they determine if the sign had been manipulated or not other than determining whether the event actually occurred or not? In all the cases I know of in which Snopes determined whether a photo had been manipulated, they didn’t employ some sophisticated (or even unsophisticated) technological toolset; they simply found the original photograph(s) that had later been P-shopped together (in at least some instances, by the public discovering them and sending them in to Snopes).
In conclusion, Snopes evaluated this claim: “Photograph shows small plane crashed into a tree next to a sign advertising flight lessons.” Their determination was: the “photograph shows small plane crashed into a tree next to a sign advertising flight lessons.” What’s to nitpick?
This idea that the identity of the people behind Snopes was hidden is strange. Wasn’t one of the Snopes team on season 1 of Mythbusters?
The nitpick is that the juxtaposition of the sign and the accident aircraft was manipulated.
The idea behind the photo is ‘Isn’t it funny that there’s this sign advertising flying lessons, and there’s a crashed airplane behind it?’ And it is funny. How about a picture of people in a park, and there’s a ‘Keep off the grass’ sign? Does it matter if I put the sign there myself because I thought it would make a funny picture? The crash is real. The sign is real. The second photograph is real. But the second photo isn’t funny because the sign isn’t foremost in the frame. The implied question isn’t ‘Is there a flying lesson sign next to a crashed airplane?’. The implied question is whether the juxtaposition is real.
I contend that your claim is assuming what has yet to be proved. At the least, it’s certainly not what I see.
Let me begin by saying that I definitely see why people might think the signs are in different positions in the two photos. The geometry is not straightforward in appearance.
But although I’m not an expert photographic examiner, here’s what I see: When I closely examine the large version of Photo 1, I see the left wing of the aircraft pointing generally towards the sign in question on the other side of the small road. When I closely examine the large version of Photo 2, I see the left wing of the aircraft pointing generally towards the sign in question on the other side of the small road. In other words, to my eye, the signs are in the same position relative to the plane.
But it’s easily possible the signs are not facing in the exact same direction in both photos. So let me put it this way: The sign post seems very much to be in the same location in both photos. If they’re not in exactly the same place, they’re close. I can observe nothing at all from a careful analysis of the geometry to make me think the images were manipulated in any gross manner. All I’d be willing to accept is that the sign might have been turned to face a different direction in one of the photos. And again, if that is the case, it would have been easier for the photographer to change the direction the sign faced physically than it would have been done digitally or in the darkroom.
Where do you contend I went wrong?
I should have added that I’ve assumed the sign is double-sided…
Probably because this picture is much more frightening. :eek:
No, that was Heather Joseph-Witham.
Hey, Johnny L.A., come on back! I want my “uh dun duhn” moment!
I get 'em so rarely, after all…
Ah, thanks for the correction.
And he and Barbara (whose maiden name was… Hamel, I think?) met on alt.folklore.urban. This is all Ancient Net History.
Indeed, I’ve known their names for possibly a decade.
And as an additional data point, I emailed a generic snopes.com email address once,suggesting a clarification in one of their reports.
Barbara emailed me back via a personal account of hers, where her real name was clearly visible.
So an alternative method to unmasking their nefarious conspiracy would have been to, like, email them, at one of their published and public email addresses.
Oh, all right, Johnny L.A. I can’t wait any longer to spring my little surprise on you. So much for my “gotcha journalism” career…
After posting my reply above, I did some Internet leg work of my own to try to determine if the sign was Photoshopped or otherwise photographically manipulated into the shot (and I don’t mind complaining that it took a lot of work crawling through all those damn tubes).
My conclusion? Dun dun dunh! – It wasn’t 'shopped. Both photos on Snopes are the real deal with no image construction or manipulation. There wasn’t even any physical relocation of the sign by the photographers.
How do I know this? It turns out that someone on a flying forum (dedicated primarily to helicopters) posted a photo identical to the first one posted on the Snopes page in question. Some of the participants understandably thought like you, Johnny, so the photo was challenged on the grounds that the sign looked too conveniently located to be genuine.
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
Proof that a small plane crashed into the tree in question
Proof that yellow police tape was still there when Racer took the pictures in 2007
Intellectual honesty compels me to note that Racer said he thought the sign had been moved physically or via Photoshop to make the photo posted in that thread’s OP (i.e., Photo 1 on Snopes), but now that I’ve got three large, clear photographs to work with, and from two different photographers, it’s abundantly clear that the sign is in the exact same position in all three photos that include it. It’s also clear that the sign in question is double-sided, with the same content on each side.
Mystery solved. The Snopes photos were not altered in any way.
Here’s a link to the board, forum, and thread in question: I hate when that happens!. I retrieved the photos from the final post in that thread (on page 2). The photo credits belong to Racer.