16 ms·
I agree that the sheer volume of not completely airtight reasons detracted from its cogency and echoes the style of "conspiracy theories". But for me there was
by abalone 13y ago
I agree that the sheer volume of not completely airtight reasons detracted from its cogency and echoes the style of "conspiracy theories".
But for me there was a very solid point that seals the deal: zooming in on the high-resolution source, there were no visible sign of wounds. The blood trickles appear out of nowhere. His "second opinions" agreed on this point as well.
It's clearly a fake. The photographer may or may not have been in on it, but the woman sure was.
- wrongc0ntinent 13y agoThere's no implicit claim the blood was her own.
- abalone 13y agoIt's not spatter. It's painted on her like streams bleeding from her own wounds. Only there's no wounds.
- wrongc0ntinent 13y agoIt doesn't have to be spatter, there are lots of possible scenarios where the liquid is being spilled on her from some other source (a small incidental pool), it doesn't make it staged. But maybe we just have different types of imagination :)