February 02, 2005

Michele

. . . has the best side-by-side comparison of the "captured American" with the Cody action figure doll that was used to create it.

Quinton has the best roundup.

Apparently, the whole affair is already on Snopes, but the UK's Guardian is still cluelessly running the story about our guy held hostage by the jihadis.

The weird thing is that the MSM went with this. Don't they have people who can look at a picture and gauge its general authenticity? This is reminiscent of the RatherGate memo affair, in that there are a lot of details that are wrong, but beyond that the whole look is wrong: if nothing else, the head and the body are out of proportion to each other, and the face looks distorted, not quite human. (Just as there were dozens of problems with the RatherGate memos, but they were simply bogus as first glance: typed documents from the 1970s look different than MS Word documents from the 1990s/2000s, and these papers were clearly computer-generated. I would have found that whole affair forgiveable if the memos had been created using Courier, or some other typewriter-simulation font. But they were not.)

The only available conclusion: the MSM is, as a group, less intelligent than my old hiking boots.

My only question: did those who created this image make a tiny little banner to go behind Cody, or was that photoshopped in later?

soldier_held.jpg

Fortunately, in this case if the Islamofascists take his head off, it can be popped right back into place. I love happy endings.

UPDATE: Scrappleface tells the heroic story of how the doll hostage was rescued.

Posted by: Attila at 10:22 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

1 It looks like it may have been photoshopped in. As a matter of fact, my first thought was that they had one of their soldiers dressed up and just pasted a new face over his. If you enlarge the facial area, you can see definate signs of photoshopping around the mouth (I'm guessing they tried to make it look more real) and I'm pretty sure you can see some other signs around the head and ears. You can take a look at the enlarged one and an explanation of what I thought was wrong with it at Conservative Friends

Posted by: Drew at February 02, 2005 12:15 PM (Ml8z/)

2 I figured. But I loved the idea of them having to embroider in teeny tiny stitches to get a doll-sized banner just right. As I understand it, though, the gun is also wrong, and the "American" uniform is incorrect—closer to that of the action figure than one worn by real soldiers.

Posted by: Attila Girl at February 02, 2005 12:20 PM (RjyQ5)

3 One thing I noticed is that M4. No clip. And, when did the terrorists start using american rifles?

Posted by: William Teach at February 02, 2005 02:41 PM (HxpPK)

4 I'm afraid I'm not very good with longarms, but my spouse assures me that it's the cheesiest-looking M16 one can imagine--proportions all wrong, even if it were the appropriate ordnance.

Posted by: Attila Girl at February 02, 2005 02:48 PM (RjyQ5)

5 Also notice, no one is holding the gun. You can clearly see the trigger guard, trigger and part of the grip: but not a hand is to be found there. You would at least expect to find fingers wrapped around the grip. I'm pretty sure a gun that size would be rather wieldy to hold only by the stock (not to mention pointless).

Posted by: Masked Menace© at February 02, 2005 02:48 PM (ISV0b)

6 Hey, it's the gun of the immoral infidels. They didn't want to get cooties.

Posted by: Attila Girl at February 02, 2005 03:36 PM (RjyQ5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
25kb generated in CPU 0.084, elapsed 0.2302 seconds.
208 queries taking 0.2117 seconds, 441 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.