Oh, yes, the dreaded “photoshop”.
I remember the most recent, where some idiot “right winger” claimed that Obama photo-shopped a picture of him and his wife on an airplane stairway.
That got big media play, people even posted it here. Then, when the damage was done, we got to see an entire STRING of pictures from the same shoot, and it was clear that what was seen as “photoshop” was just an unfortunate juxtaposition of body parts. The “fake hand” was actually another person’s hand.
Anyway, I’ll also tell you, whether it matters or not, that digital camera photography, especially consumer cameras, are not actually taking pictures, they are capturing light levels on a CCD, and then they have extensive processing software which attempts to build those pixels into a realistic photograph.
Sometimes, they mess up. I have a lovely picture of a woman with her leg morphing into a ladder, because the software couldn’t distinguish between the two.
In this particular case of the kids with legs, you can see their legs.
But I have to ask, because it’s not enough just to say “look there is an inconsistency” — what is the POINT of the inconsistency? For it to be a sign of a conspiracy, there needs to be a point.
So, what is the point? Are you saying this family doesn’t actually have that many kids, so they had to photo-shop strangers into their picture? If so, why do we see all but the dead kid in post-shooting pictures?
Are you saying the dead kid wasn’t part of the family? Then why have so many people mistakenly said that her sister was her, because of the family resemblance?
Suppose they simply photo-shopped three pictures together for their family christmas photo, like they do in that commercial about how the new cool cameras can take several pictures and build a composite?
I would guess such a picture might have some anomalies, but what would that prove as far as a conspiracy goes?
What is the point of arguing the kids don’t have legs, unless you are actually telling us they are cripples? What is the point of saying the kids are making “devil signs”, if you aren’t arguing that the family is in a devil worshipping cult?
What is there about that picture that in any way matters to the supposed “conspiracy”, whatever that conspiracy is. Heck, what exactly IS YOUR CONSPIRACY, because there are so many.
Are you saying Adam didn’t do the shooting? What does that have to do with this picture or the family? Are you saying he did the shooting, but used a handgun? What does that have to do with this picture?
Are you saying the shooting was a hoax? Why the argument about not seeing the evacuation — do you think the kids were NOT in the school?
Let’s start with a simple question: Do you believe 20 kids were murdered at the school?
Once again, I said the most likely story with the highest degree of probability is that the incident occurred. I have no idea if 100 children were killed or 10.
What I do know is that the Firehouse Chief said they were set up for triage and only got a couple of adults. Don’t remember how many. No children. So I guess everyone else was dead or not injured. I did see helicopter footage that the entry to the school has been blocked off . Ambulances wouldn’t have even been able to get in.
You also scream NUTTER because someone questions oddities.
Oddities should be questioned. They can have “typical” resolution or they can be filed away as an atypical resolution awaiting more clues.
It is entirely possible in your Obama story that it was disinformation ploy.
I think many of you on this site have no idea how prevalent disinformation is from various factions.
There is nothing “NUTTER” about the idea that a photo can be photoshopped to intentionally create a disinformation campaign.
Disinformation campaigns are actually quite effective.
So I guess I will await your posting of the footage or photo that shows a huge group of children .
456 children are going to require hundreds of parents, and hundreds of cars, too.
If you can’t provide that footage then you should be asking why.
Not because the incident didn’t happen. Assume it did.
Why aren’t we seeing what we would typically see -Especially when Obama’s central theme to get rid of guns is based on Sandy Hook.
You should be looking for what should be there but isn’t.
Instead of screaming “nutter”