First, take a look at this upcoming Rolling Stone cover.
Then see if you can guess what’s wrong with it.
They forgot the bottom of the photo!
Done in one!
looks okay to me.
John Hancock’s signature appears on the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
(Also, that’s a pretty flamboyant signature for an insurance man…)
Other than JH’s signature being moved, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that photo!
bingo!
All the S’s look like F’s.
They shouldn’t. Only certain s’s should have that formation. For example, “happiness” should look like “happinefs”.
C’mon, everybody knows the Hancock goes in the front.
Her left arm is in the way.
I doubt it’s really her body. I think that’s worse than the signature.
And the comments in the article! People think it’s no big deal about the signature! What’s wrong with people?
It’s hard to hit the porch from a horse.
I tend to agree for varying levels of “big deal”. I think whoever did it should feel silly and Rolling Stone should give a good-hearted “Whoops, our bad” but I don’t think it portends the downfall of America or anything.
My tongue is nowhere near it.
I can’t see it?
What is wrong is what is right-a 51 year old woman shouldn’t be light year’s close to being that hot.
I don’t think John Hancock signed the Constitution.
Maybe not the first one, but he might have signed Julia’s butt. Can you prove he didn’t?
I think Mr Photoshop may have had a hand in that.
There’s a high-resolution version available. If that’s a Photoshop, it’s a damn good one. There’s also another slightly more revealing pic, but there’s only a low-res version so far.
http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/4436556/1