This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Can't say I have ever seen a picture of SHS holding any firearm. Makes me wonder!!
Wonder no more, Mr Wendling:
That's Lars Herseth and his daughter Stephanie, out menacing our state bird on an idyllic October day in South Dakota. Yesterday, actually. Happy hunting, everyone.
----------------
Update 2010.10.24 08:40 CDT: Rod Goeman takes the political Rohrschach test and sees a doctored photo. I shake my head and post the other hunting snap Lars and Stephanie's Friday shotgun stroll:
Look like Stephanie's got a pretty firm grip on a pretty real gun. But never underestimate the capacity of Noem apologists to misinterpret reality.
Cory, is it just my imagination or is that a very large over & under shotgun? And where is her hand because I don't see the stock of the gun coming out in front of her jacket with her hand on the stock. Is this photo-shop or just a very short stock on a very large gun? The angle of the gun would indicate you should see her hand and the stock in front of the bottom of her jacket. It looks like her hands are both in her pockets. I'm not saying this to create controversy, but if you look closely at the photo...
ReplyDeleteGoldman, as with many digital pictures, this one appears to need what we in the craft call "standard levels and sharpening adjustments." The parts of the gun you are looking for are there, but they're blending in with the other dark shadows.
ReplyDeleteTo see for yourself, download the picture to your hard drive and simply increase the brightness. The picture will look a little washed out, but you'll see the missing "evidence" immediately.
If you want to do a more pro job of it, open in photoshop and then got to "Image>adjust>levels
and move the midtone slider to around 140.
Thus endeth the lesson. Sorry, if I teach you any more, I'll have to send you a bill. ;^)
Just kidding.
*gantiope* (wild!)
Bill,
ReplyDeleteCan you now teach Cory the difference between a "lie" and a "comment" or "personal observation"?
There is a free viewer on line called "irfanview". Google it for your favorite download spot. It does a wonderful job of clearing up photos with many different options, it's simple and it doesn't take much space and loads instantly. I use it all the time and love it. It will clear that photo up for you instantly Rod.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very nice picture of a father and daughter doing what so many in South Dakota do this time of year.
ReplyDeleteHere's another angle for GoldMan.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=455755776064&set=a.411049786064.180855.21068491064
Mike H., that's a little tougher. The two are not mutually exclusive. Can you be more specific?
ReplyDeletehmmm... similar situation actually. The solution is to shine a enough light on the subject to bring the truth out.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteSo, if I were to say that until I saw this picture posted this morning, I had in all honesty never seen a picture of SHS with a gun in her hand you would be unable to differentiate between me making a comment about my own personal observations or me flat out lying?
While it is possible that the person that made this Facebook posting is "lying", as Cory implies in his title, most likely the person has truly never seen it. I dont believe I ever had until this AM either. It isnt like the poster said SHS has never touched a gun. Just that he had never seen it. Maybe it is just me, but if read that Facebook post I wouldnt get up at 6AM to make a blog post about Noem supporters being a bunch of "liars".
Mike, it looks like it might be a snarky innuendo to me, with that "Makes me wonder!!"
ReplyDeleteWonder what?
What do YOU think he was wondering?
Did anything come up for you?
What could he be wondering about?
How often do you use two exclamation points, Mike?
And when you do, what do they mean?
Like I said above, maybe we need more light and less heat to get to the answer to your question.
That of course presumes you are being intellectually honest in the asking of it.
Are you?
Way to turn it around on me there.
ReplyDeleteWe all know what the original Facebook poster intended with his comment. But does that mean he is a "liar"?
That is my point. I am not here to defend the original poster's comments, just pointing out that calling someone a liar for making a comment that is probably 100% accurate is slightly less than "intellectually honest" in the first place.
Cory could have worded this post differently. Stating that he is refuting a lie is disingenuous at best. Meanwhile, Bill, you are quick to jump in and "teach" anyone that questions the info that Cory posts, yet you overlook the glaring dishonesty of the post to begin with.
Note no where have I defended the Facebook post, not supported or opposed any candidate. I am just pointing out that you seem unwilling conceed that the post was frivolous in the first place, but are quite willing to defend Cory in his posting of frivolity.
My personal feeling is that it was pretty silly to make a 6AM post in order to call a person a liar when in reality the person was just conjecturing.
I guess I better be carefull stating my personal observations, though. I might be mistaken for a liar.
I am surprised Cory you have spent so much time supporting Stephanie. Christine would probably say, she's not me. A step above Noem I suppose, but still nothing to get excited about. Sometimes the middle is just gooey.
ReplyDeleteRod, seriously? Permit me to add the snap linked by Bill above.
ReplyDeleteMike, I stand by every word. The commenter was trying to create a false impression based on his incorrect conjecture. That is dishonest and should be called such.
Donovan Wendling also asks in the same conversation, "I do however wonder how much SHS's daddy had to pay to up her rating with the NRA??" That's not a lie, just a question, right? perfectly acceptable to say such things, as long as you tack a question mark on the end, right?
ReplyDeleteMr. Wendling does not appear to approach public discourse with honest integrity. Again, I stand by my characterization of his earlier comment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLarry: Source? Evidence? Consider my bulls#*@ flag thrown on that one, too.
ReplyDeleteObjection noted, Mr. Heidelberger.
ReplyDeleteMore on this story to come.
I stand corrected. After taking the advice of your blogladites, one can see the stock of her shotgun when enlarged and lightened. Remember, I didn't say the photo was altered, just asked the question. You have to admit the photo looked unusual at first glance. Your second photo is much clearer.
ReplyDeleteGoldMan, they are SHS's photos from her Facebook page. I'm sure if Cory would have taken them, he would have made some adjustments before posting them.
ReplyDeleteThanks for suggesting we "look closely at the photo." That means something different to us graphic designers than it does to you apparently.
Anyway, happy to be of service.
Next time you'll know a couple of other things to try before you tell us to look closely, right?