|
Eye, eye!
|
Posted By:
Lord Lucan
in somewhere strange
Jul 23, 2005
|
The Mikkelsons (of Snopes) berate their more credulous readers who, faced with an obvious leg-pull ask them for verification. The Mikkelsons complain of messages
<br><em>'forwarded to us with "Is this true?" queries attached by people who either have leaf-filled burlap sacks for heads or who think that being skeptical means "I must ask about everything instead of ever relying upon my own brain."'</em>.
<br>So, it is somewhat surprising that their own brains cannot be relied on when they are confronted with <a href="http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/googly.asp" title="this"><b>this</b></a>?
Snopes says: Status - undetermined. (How much thought is needed for this one?)
<br>This sort of thing was never intended to be taken seriously for one moment. But, perhaps when the Mikkelsons stroke their beards and say: "This requires some more research" they are just taking the Mikky.
|
Comments
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 | 04:57 PM
To be fair, they say "We do not yet have any information on the origins of this image. "
That's what makes Snopes so reliable, in my opinion.
The fact they don't just look at an image, and say 'it's fake', but wait until they have some sort of information on where it came from.
(And if it were me, I'd immediately just say 'it's fake', but I suppose that's why I don't run Snopes.)
😊 |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 | 07:05 AM
I have to agree with Boo. |
~*sShimmeRr*~
in Adelaide, Australia
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 | 05:09 AM
Well, lets look at the photo in a logical way.
I've been thinking about this photo for the past few days and I've come up with a few things. If you look at his eyebrows, they are still in the same/normal position. Yet there seems to be alot of excess skin between his eyebrows and his eyes.
For him to be able to "stretch" the skin (upper eyelids) to that degree, he'd have rolls of skin on his upper eyelids that would cover his eyes when they were in the sockets.
There just seems to be too much excess skin to me. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 | 05:13 AM
How this for logical?
Your reasons are stupid and don't make sense.
Seriously, if this is a photoshop, most of that image is manipulated. You can't look at it and 'guess' the actual parameters of his eyes and lids. |
~*sShimmeRr*~
in Adelaide, Australia
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 | 05:31 AM
I'm not trying to start an argument here, I was just trying to work it out... sorry if it isn't what some people think as well... jeeze.
I don't care if it doesn't sound logical to you, it sounds logical to me. I'm not saying that it's definately a hoax or not, I'm just trying to work it out and make sense of it "for myself".
I won't post anything next time. |
Gutza
|
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 | 05:36 AM
Why is that Meagan? Not only that I agree with ~*sShimmeRr*~, but I also followed the same rationale independently. For any "positive" theory (the "theory" in this case being that the photo might hypothetically be real), one good blow is enough -- and I also find this to be that one good blow. Of course, there are several things which don't fit, because, as you mentioned, the entire image is manipulated, but would you find it more exciting and/or convincing for someone to write an incredibly long list with all the details which don't add up (e.g. optical nerve, eyes leaving sockets if that particular grip was used, etc)? |
~*sShimmeRr*~
in Adelaide, Australia
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 | 05:44 AM
Thank you Gutza. That's what I was getting at before the backlash....
For him to manipulate his eyeballs all the way down to that part of his face, his eyebrows would have to move with it... unless he has massive upper eyelids to compensate for all that extra skin... |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 | 07:11 AM
Maybe I should have put a little smiley in my post - sorry. I wasn't attacking anyone.
I'm just saying that to look at the picture and think that for the reason behind this not being real is b/c his eyelids would be baggy...isn't logical, it's a guess about a body part whose image has been manipulated. |
~*sShimmeRr*~
in Adelaide, Australia
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 | 11:08 AM
That's cool Maegan, I was in a mood...lol. I shouldn't have taken it as an attack. My bad... |
Casey
|
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 | 08:24 PM
Okay, I'm not looking into this further then looking at this picture, but the human eye looks like this <a href="http://www.eyedesignbook.com/ch6/fig6-14bBG.jpg">human eye</a>
and if he were honestly able to stretch his eyes down that far, there's no way that his eyes would go back to normal. He would have most likely ripped out parts of the muscles in his eyes. But please do not take offence to this, these are only my opinions (and the opinions of a 15 year old arn't that logical)
~Casey |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
