[m14nut]

http://www.optonline.net/media//image/NY11112111956.jpg

pulled this off optimum online news...

Caption reads...
"Although wounded, Staff Sgt. Shannon Kay, of 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, fires on an enemy position after being attacked with a car bomb, Saturday, Dec. 11, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. (AP Photo/Army Times, M. Scott Mahaskey, via USA Today) "

[IMtheNRA]

What is that device on top of the hanguards?

[m14nut]

The scope appears to me to be possibly a Leupy CQB....
perhaps the other "devise" is a laser of sorts????

[mete]

He's already been wounded, if he were Kerry ,he'd just take his Purple Heart and go home....I guess they like their Strykers over there.

[Blackhawk 6]

Optic appears to be a Leupold CQT. Device on the handguards in an AN/PEQ-2 IR laser/illuminator.

[MaceWindu]

....that guy is just a B**A**! Cool under fire...

MW

[4v50 Gary]

Look very carefully at the tip of the muzzle flash. It appears to be the bullet in-flight.

[CannibalCrowley]

....that guy is just a B**A**! Cool under fire...Either he isn't under fire or his buddies are the "cool" ones. It's likely a posed pic.

[Destructo6]

Either he isn't under fire or his buddies are the "cool" ones. It's likely a posed pic.
Since both appear to be moving towards objects that could provide cover, you seem to be jumping to conclusions.

[jefnvk]

I don't understand photographers. They just stand there and take pictures. And people say that soldiers have a deeath wish.

Good pic, great job they are doing for America.

[possenti]

He's obviously wounded.

There appears to be blood on his left thumb, eye and nose. Of course, everyone can probably see it better than me - my monitor is a POS...

Great action picture!

[CannibalCrowley]

Since both appear to be moving towards objects that could provide cover, you seem to be jumping to conclusions.Look carefully, both the soldiers in the background are walking and neither one is attempting to engage anyone. I've had to move for cover before and walking wasn't my mode of choice. Kay himself isn't too worried about seeking cover and neither is the photographer standing above him. Furthermore, nobody is using the gun on the APC, many would argue that it's the first thing that should be up in a firefight. Also, why did he take his helmet off? Taking off one's helmet generally isn't the first thing one thinks of during a firefight.

[Double Naught Spy]

Since both appear to be moving towards objects that could provide cover, you seem to be jumping to conclusions.

In an city/urban environment, cover is in just about any direction. In the given picture, you have the foreground and the background. The soldier firing is close-up and no cover is seen. In the background, cover pretty much spans the entire width of the image. Yes, they may be moving toward cover, but not necessarily because they are seeking cover.

Sometime back, the History Channel did a show on combat news/photographers. It is not unusual to have a staged picture where the photographer asks the soldier(s) to re-enact their performance for posterity. Maybe it is staged, maybe it is real time. The caption says the soldier is firing at an enemy position, but doesn't actually say if the enemy is there.

It does look like the bullet was captured by the camera, but I doubt it. The photographer would have to have a pretty special camera to get a stop action shot that would appear to freeze or nearly freeze the bullet in flight. Note that the supposed bullet appears to be slightly stretched. I am guessing the image shows it as about double its actual length. The bullet should be about 0.6" in real life. If seen as twice as long, then the bullet traveled about 0.6" while the picture was being made. What sort of shutter speed would be needed to do that? Assuming the bullet left the muzzle at roughly 2800 feet per second (or 33600 inches per second), you would need a shutter speed around 1/50000 to 1/52000 of a second.

Due to the fast shutter speed, the photographer would need an extremely bright light source or extremely fast film. A bright light source does not appear to be present. If it was present, then the muzzle flash would have been washed out and shadows cast behind the shooter from the flash. If the fast film was being used, then I would expect the image to be more grainy. Given the field conditions, high speed camera temperments, and cost of such cameras, I would doubt any of the war photographers have these cameras or use them in the field. Plus, there would be few, if any, where the photographers would need such camera capabilities.

[DigMe]

The people in the background look like they're moving at a jog to me and the do appear to be headed for some kind of cover. As for the photographer...he could be standing just at the edge of some cover himself.

brad cook

[BlackCat]

great job they are doing for America

I think you mean IRAQ :(

[El Rojo]

I don't know about you guys, but the guy in the background on the left looks like he is leaning forward at a pretty critical angle in order to be merely "walking". You can tell my the position of his feet. If I tried to walk like that, I am pretty sure I would fall on my face.

Then again I am probably wrong. They are probably walking and Sgt. Kay probably found some fake blood lying about and decided to pose a photo. Heck, he could have been really bored and had his buddies punch him in the face until his nose bled so he could get a real photo. Or just maybe, he really did get hit and instead of getting medical attention or cleaning up, he took the time to pose for a photo and shoot his gun in the middle of town because the officers like when you shoot randomly in urban areas after a car bomb explodes and you are bleeding from head trauma or facial injuries.

CannibalCrowley you get the armchair quarterback of the year award. Good job. You most certainly know more about the situation than anyone there and all from the comfort of your office several thousand miles away. You figured out that his helmet wasn't blown off, but that he took it off for the staged picture. You also figured out that the soldier on the left is walking despite his foot posture and body position would suggest that he is at a trot or run. You also correctly observed that the APC crew are obviously in their vehicle and are reading comic books as the action was over hours ago. They most certainly are not out of their vehicle somewhere else and this situation couldn't have happened just seconds before so the APC crew would most certainly instantly know where the threat is and start shooting at them immediately. You also didn't fall for the bit that Sgt. Kay could be the gunner on said APC, so indeed the gunner must be eating an MRE inside the vehicle as the action was over days before. Further, you recognized that the top of the APC has a servicable firearm on top and that it isn't a command vehicle or an AA vehicle despite the picture cutting the top of the vehicle out.

[Miller High Life Music with Deep Voiced Announcer]Here's to you Internet Armchair Quarterback Commando Expert.[/Miller High Life Music with Deep Voiced Announcer]

[Miller High Life Singer with Higher Pitched Voice]Mr. Internet Armchair Quarterback Commando Expert![/Miller High Life Singer with Higher Pitched Voice]

[schizrade]

I don't know about you guys, but the guy in the background on the left looks like he is leaning forward at a pretty critical angle in order to be merely "walking". You can tell my the position of his feet. If I tried to walk like that, I am pretty sure I would fall on my face.

The image is fisheyed. The photog used a macro or fisheye lens and the soldiers appear to be in a forward run. The image is just distorted. They are walking.

[mete]

Yes the fisheye has made the Stryker look like it's leaning over too.

[Number 6]

http://www.optonline.net/media//image/NY11012111957.jpg

Here's another picture from the article of Staff Sgt. Shannon Kay.

And here's the article.

http://www.optonline.net/Article/Feeds?CID=channel%3D32%26article%3D13245565

[Langenator]

For the sake of argument, let me paint a likely scenario here:

Convoy is moving through the area. Car bomb (or VBIED-Vehicle Borne IED, in mil-speak) detonates, disabling one or more vehicles, and wounding several soldiers, to include the good SSG Kay. The infantry troops, including SSG Kay, set up a perimeter to secure the area. Once the perimeter is established, and any more seriously wounded have been cared for, the medic checks out SSG Kay, who removes his helmet so Doc can check out the cut(s) on his face. News photog, attracted by the blood, goes to take some shots of the medic at work. While being examined, SSG Kay notices a guy with an AK paying way too much attention to what's going on. Being a man of action, SSG Kay drops to a knee and opens fire on the muji, meanwhile being captured on film.

FWIW, I used to work just down the street from 1-24, aka "Deuce-Four." Good unit.

[m14nut]

Well said Lang.....
This was just posted to show our Boys using the M4....that's all. Look at the way the topic got s t r e t c h e d ! :scrutiny:

[CannibalCrowley]

CannibalCrowley you get the armchair quarterback of the year award. Good job.I simply have the mind of a skeptic along with the wisdom to spot inconsistencies, just because you lack those qualities you call it being an armchair quarterback.You figured out that his helmet wasn't blown off, but that he took it off for the staged picture.The other picture of him shows the helmet still on and a facial wound. He must have a dedicated deity if there was an explosion near enough to him to blow his helmet off and reak his chinstrap without seriously injuring him.They most certainly are not out of their vehicle somewhere else and this situation couldn't have happened just seconds before so the APC crew would most certainly instantly know where the threat is and start shooting at them immediately.Well there is that other picture which shows another APC with the gun being manned.

The press has a history of taking fake photos after the actual action is over, I'm seen it myself. You can even look into the Mount Suribachi incident where they staged a second flag raising.

Hmm, by saying that you know more about the situation at hand than me, that would make you an "Internet Armchair Quarterback Commando Expert" as well.

[Miller High Life Music with Deep Voiced Announcer]Here's to you Always Believe the Press Expert.[/Miller High Life Music with Deep Voiced Announcer]

[Miller High Life Singer with Higher Pitched Voice]Mr. Always Believe the Press Expert![/Miller High Life Singer with Higher Pitched Voice]

[Number 6]

A couple things make me believe that this is not a staged photo. I am not in the military, nor have I ever been in the military so I might be completely off.

Firstly, would you want to be the Marine who faked an injury in order to get on the news? Your reputation with your men would be ruined. Also, I am sure there would be some Marines who actually were wounded in combat that would be quite upset at him.

Secondly, the soldier is firing his weapon. I would think that discharging your weapon when not in combat would be a big no-no. I know that it is probably pretty easy to away with it in Iraq, but when there is a photo of you doing it you might get some questions from higher up.

Thirdly, in the second picture you will see two soldiers in a defensive position in the background of SSgt. Kay.

In terms of his helmet being off, there are a couple of scenarios that could have happened. The most probable one from where I sit is that the soldier had an injury to the face. To make sure there was not anymore damage and to dress the wounds I am sure the medic asked him to remove his helmet. One other point to consider is that we do not the order of events and what happened between the pictures, so trying to assign an order of events based upon the photos would be difficult at best.

[SkyDaver]

If you're going to cue the Deep Voiced Announcer, and the high-pitched background music, shouldn't you get the brand correct?

I THINK that it's Bud Light. :neener:

[ScottsGT]

The only screwup I see here is that the commercials are for Bud Lite, not Miller Lite :neener:
I've got a CD with all the older ones on it. Funny Stuff!!
Besides, Budweiser is a big 2nd supporter!

DOH! SkyDaver beat me to the punch!

[m14nut]

God protect this man while we sit safe in our homes dicussing what we think happened.

http://www.optonline.net/media//image/NY11012111957.jpg

[Destructo6]

The press has a history of taking fake photos after the actual action is over, I'm seen it myself. You can even look into the Mount Suribachi incident where they staged a second flag raising.
They raised a second, larger, flag, in part because an officer wanted to keep the first flag. That is hardly staged.
I simply have the mind of a skeptic along with the wisdom to spot inconsistencies, just because you lack those qualities you call it being an armchair quarterback.
You made the initial assertions, which were based on very little. I believe that generally qualifies you for the title. And picking apart your assertions in no way makes one gullible. Or should we just take your word as fact?

[RED-DOG 40]

Irregardless what anyone "Thinks" went on in the picture, just remember he is there making it possible for us all to be safe and able to guess.
May the" Big Guy in the Sky" watch over and keep y'all safe....

[Double Naught Spy]

Firstly, would you want to be the Marine who faked an injury in order to get on the news? Your reputation with your men would be ruined. Also, I am sure there would be some Marines who actually were wounded in combat that would be quite upset at him.

The photo may be staged, but not necessarily faked. Photographers ask soldiers to repeat what they just did so that they can get "action" shots, only the action isn't while under real fire anymore. The injury is real, no doubt, and occurred via the enemy, but the returned fire part of the image may be re-enacted. After all, it is a very powerful image to see an injured soldier engaged in battle, no?

Would his reputation with his men be ruined if the image were faked? Probably not. Just how many of the folks in combat get to see the pictures taken of them? Besides, his injuries look superficial, minor lacerations.

As for the lean of the soldiers in the background as indicators of their speed, supposedly jogging or running, at just what speed would you estimate

Secondly, the soldier is firing his weapon. I would think that discharging your weapon when not in combat would be a big no-no. I know that it is probably pretty easy to away with it in Iraq, but when there is a photo of you doing it you might get some questions from higher up.

Iraq is a combat zone. Weapon discharges, especially close in time to fighting or events such as roadside bombs would not be unexpected. So, it probably isn't much of a NO-NO.

Thirdly, in the second picture you will see two soldiers in a defensive position in the background of SSgt. Kay.

How are they in a defensive position? Their backs are turned away from him. Debate has already raged on whether they are walking or running away.

As for the helmet, there is nothing in the image that sheds definitive light on why it is off. Blown off, set down, dropped, left in the vehicle, etc. are all possibilities. He may not have had his helmet on when the attack started and hence did not have it on for the battle.

In regard to the lean of the soldiers being indicative of their speed, running or jogging, at just what speed is the leaning vehicle in th upper left going? As noted, the image has a definite fisheye effect.

And, the flag raising at Suribachi while maybe not staged, certainly is not as billed by many writers. It is supposed to symbolize the strength and determination of the soldiers in battle, working very hard to raise the symbol of America, etc etc etc. The flag was NOT raised during battle. The great show of determination supposedly represented was not nearly as exciting as the symbol has come to represent. If you have seen the actual movie footage of the raising of the flag. It goes up and they men meander and disperse, no big deal. It is a great and powerful image, but with more greatness and power than the actual event.

[CannibalCrowley]

He may not have had his helmet on when the attack started and hence did not have it on for the battle.The above picture is closer to the time when he was first wounded and his helmet is on with chin strap in place.Or should we just take your word as fact?Nope, people are free to decide on their own. Of course they shouldn't see a pic with a caption and take that as fact either. The media is far from consistant when it comes to honesty and accuracy.

[feedthehogs]

Hey, can I play?

I was good at finding, Where's Waldo and doing word jumbles.

Its just a friggin picture, holy crap...................

[m14nut]

Its just a friggin picture, holy crap...................

exactly. I posted it just cause the flash looked badass, and I thought I'd add the quote so people would know the story...

:cuss: Jeez guys, just accept the pic for it's face value :banghead:

[Ed]

To the more important part, Someone needs to send this pic to all those Pro Ban Congresspeople and let them know that They must have kept the ban in the US military. Because everyone knows that a flash suppressor hides the flash from onlookers, and I see a flash in the daytime in this pic. So Our troops must have been issued these rifles before Sept.... :rolleyes:


That was said with sarcasm.

[Double Naught Spy]

The above picture is closer to the time when he was first wounded and his helmet is on with chin strap in place.

On what do you base the sequence of events? Would it be because there is less blood on him in the picture where he is wearing his helmet? My guess would be that he got a quick swabbing by a medic, determined there was no real damage, put on his helmet and went back to work taking care of his people.

---------------

As for the notion of taking the image at face value, why? I have no reason to trust the media.

[Lonestar.45]

It's all second guessing because none of us where there.

My guess? You wouldn't see a bloodied Marine firing his weapon in order to "pose" for a photograph in a battlezone.

[El Rojo]

Well it is obvious now that I have no credibility with the beer drinking crowd. Sorry about the beer screw up! :)

The other picture of him shows the helmet still on and a facial wound. He must have a dedicated deity if there was an explosion near enough to him to blow his helmet off and reak his chinstrap without seriously injuring him.How convienent of you to try and support your baseless assumptions by looking at pictures that were posted long after your initial assumptions and then taking my satirical assumptions and portraying them as fact since you have new knowledge that was not present when I first challenged your theories. You mistake my challenges to your assumptions as the real story. I made no real claims on what really happened. I only point out that you don't know what happened and yet you offer statements that suggest you know exactly what happened. Not only that, you are critisizing SSGT Kay for what he does and doesn't do with his helmet when you yourself don't have the frist clue what really happened there. That is armchair quaterbacking, not being skeptical. Being skeptical is saying, "Hey, that looks inconsistent, do you think it is a staged picture?" You stated is a staged picture and you stated that the guys in the background are walking, and that the absense of a helmet makes it staged.

Well there is that other picture which shows another APC with the gun being manned.Again, taking my points as my explination of the events and trying to prove me wrong based on new information you didn't have at the time. Anything I have stated has nothing to do with what really happened, it only offers a counter assumption to your same assumptions that are based on limited information and not really knowing what happened. I never stated I knew more than you, I only state that you probably don't know as much as you think you know. I don't know what happened to SSGT Kay. I am not going to pretend like I do either and pass it off as some superior ability to be "skeptical". I call that a superior ability to jump to conclusions based off of limited information and assumptions.

[444]

" You wouldn't see a bloodied Marine firing his weapon in order to "pose" for a photograph in a battlezone."
In this particular instance, you are looking at a bloodied soldier from the Army. I am not sure whether Marines do this also or not. :neener:


I have always wondered why certain people (many of whom are on this board) delight in trying to prove every picture ever posted is a fake. There are people who live for this and make endless posts about photoshop, shadows, people's feet etc.
If you are right, do you get a gold star or does the teacher write your name on the blackboard ?

[CannibalCrowley]

It seems to me that some people just don't want to admit that some "combat pictures" are staged. It's often impossible to determine whether or not an event is staged just by the picture itself; however, the pictures often have evidence that lead one to believe that the picture may be staged. So should we question the ones that have such evidence, or accept them all as fact? Sometimes the serviceman is at fault, but most of the time I blame the press for making the pictures public while providing the wrong info. For instance, a while back a then local newspaper reporter showed pictures of a training accident and tried to caption it as being taken while we were deployed.

How convienent of you to try and support your baseless assumptions by looking at pictures that were posted long after your initial assumptions and then taking my satirical assumptions and portraying them as fact since you have new knowledge that was not present when I first challenged your theories.Incorrect. Unlike you I don't take things at face value. A simple Google News search turned up quite a bit of info, including the second pic that was posted. The one I found was smaller so didn't bother posting it, besides it's always interesting to argue a point when one holds more information than the other party.That is armchair quaterbacking, not being skeptical. Being skeptical is saying, "Hey, that looks inconsistent, do you think it is a staged picture?" You stated is a staged picture and you stated that the guys in the background are walking, and that the absense of a helmet makes it staged.First off, I'm not sure what you mean by, "you stated is a staged picture". But the rest of the sentence makes it look like you're saying that I stated the picture was staged. Go back and read, you'll see that I wrote, "It's likely a posed pic."Not only that, you are critisizing SSGT Kay for what he does and doesn't do with his helmet when you yourself don't have the frist clue what really happened there.Hmm, don't remember that part, but it isn't the first time you've made something up in an attempt to paint someone in a bad light. I pointed out the missing helmet because no sane person takes his helmet off during a firefight, thus he likely waited until it was over.I don't know what happened to SSGT Kay. I am not going to pretend like I do either and pass it off as some superior ability to be "skeptical". I call that a superior ability to jump to conclusions based off of limited information and assumptions.Yet here you are trying to say that I'm wrong for pointing some things which make it seem like the pic had been staged. Smell that folks, it's the sweet smell of hypocrisy.In this particular instance, you are looking at a bloodied soldier from the Army. I am not sure whether Marines do this also or not.Yes they do. Usually it's just for their own jollies, but sometimes the press is there as well. Remember this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=113912&highlight=ppsh ? There are people who live for this and make endless posts about photoshop, shadows, people's feet etc.
If you are right, do you get a gold star or does the teacher write your name on the blackboard ?In that case, nobody should have challenged the documents that Rather brought out concerning Bush's military service. If one takes everything as fact without question, how would you separate truth from the lies?

[Litlman]

How about that M-4 in action????? To the rest of the paranoid negative crap, a big BLAHHHHHHHHH!!!

[buzz_knox]

So the "it was staged" argument goes something along the lines of immediately following an IED attack (as evidenced by the blood), a reporter gets some Marines to do what they did mere moments before, including discharging a weapon.

Sorry, but I think a Marine would say 1) "I'm getting this head wound checked first, thank you very much"; and 2) "I'm not popping off rounds given that everyone is naturally a wee bit nervous about the attack we just had."

If we're going to argue that the photo is staged, isn't it equally plausible under the circumstances that the blood is ketchup, and this took place on the same sound stage that the moon landings were faked? ;)

[Andrew Wyatt]

just for the record, strykers have a remote weapons station. this means the guy manning the weapon is out of sight and inside the vehicle.

[444]

Canibal, you and Buzz both missed my point. This guy is in the US ARMY. He is not a Marine.

[RED-DOG 40]

Who CARES about, posed-staged-faked...
The original post was about the flash....and that's all folks..... :p .... :D

[Destructo6]

It seems to me that some people just don't want to admit that some "combat pictures" are staged.
Red herring. Your assertion wasn't "some are staged", it was "this one was staged". Stick to the argument you have, not the one you want.

[fistful]

Rojo & Cannibal:

You two bicker like an old married couple.

[El Rojo]

Unlike you I don't take things at face value.So you assume because I dispute you, I take things for face value? That is a brilliant assumption.

The one I found was smaller so didn't bother posting it, besides it's always interesting to argue a point when one holds more information than the other party.Number 6 posted the new information, not you. This isn't a real time discussion board. I would venture so far to say you did no Google search and you simply followed the link in his post. Oh yeah, the skeptic gets skepticed (I am following you lead and making stuff up, like skepticed :neener: ). Now you are claiming you found some smaller picture? Right. Try and prove that one. Why don't you tell us what Google words you used to find that article? I know you aren't going to tell us "Staff Sergeant Shannon Kay" because it would be obvious that you are just copying what I just posted. Again, you act is if this is real time posting and you "hold more information" when in fact, you just posted before me because I work long days. Your "claiming" to have done a "Google Search" after you saw Number 6's post to the new article is laughable at best.

Hmm, don't remember that part, but it isn't the first time you've made something up in an attempt to paint someone in a bad light. Give me an example of where I made something up. Oh wait, you don't have one. Again another assumption of yours stated as fact. I pointed out the missing helmet because no sane person takes his helmet off during a firefight, thus he likely waited until it was over.You just said you aren't armchair quarterbacking, but you just said SSgt Kay wouldn't be a sane person because he removed his helmet during combat. I think we can take a poll and most people are going to agree you just contradicted yourself and armchair quarterbacked. You just painted yourself as a combat veteran and you stated that he obviously doesn't know what he is doing because no one would do what he did because you "took cover once". Yeah I take cover all the time too in Halo and Rainbow Six, but I don't count it as combat experience.

It's likely a posed pic.So now you are unsure of yourself? Either it is a staged photo or it isn't. One second you are a skeptical genius and the next you aren't sure about your skeptical powers? So is it a staged photo or isn't it? You had enough statements earlier that you seemed awfully sure you knew what was happening; now it is only "likely"? Some confidence in your superhuman analytical ability you have there. Having a hard time justifying your comments as we offer counter assumptions?

Yet here you are trying to say that I'm wrong for pointing some things which make it seem like the pic had been staged.Go ahead and quote me where I said it was wrong for you to be an armchair quarterback. In fact, I congratulated you numerous times on your armchair quarterback of the year award and your uncanny ability of skepticality as compared to us mere, sheeple mortals. You can make up things about staged pictures all you want. People can refute your assumptions and you can refuse to listen and properly justify your statements in the face of adversity. That is your God given right.

In that case, nobody should have challenged the documents that Rather brought out concerning Bush's military service. If one takes everything as fact without question, how would you separate truth from the lies?Don't try and change the subject your way out of this. You are obviously trying to compare your ultra-skepticality to this Bush situation. I just can't figure out if you want us to compare you to the people who were skeptical about Bush's guard service and made up the fake document, who were skeptical first. Or are you trying to say you are like the people who were skeptical about the fake document and came second. You are cutting edge skepticality so I am going to assume (lots of that going on here) that you helped draft the Rather letter in order to help gather movement for the "Bush is a bad soldier" skeptical movement as only us mere mortals would be so slow as to only become skeptical after the first set of pure skepticals. I guess that makes you OG skeptical. Again mad props to you OG-S. :evil:

[buzz_knox]

444, the worst part is I knew he was Army. I have no idea why I typed Marine.

[armedcitizen]

I think the only appropriate response to the original post is "cool pic, thanks for sharing".

A lot of the rest of you have way too much time on your hands.

[m14nut]

your welcome citizen, glad you appreciate the pic. ;)

[CannibalCrowley]

Red herring. Your assertion wasn't "some are staged", it was "this one was staged". Stick to the argument you have, not the one you want.There's a little thing called comprehension, get back to me after you've attained it.You just painted yourself as a combat veteran and you stated that he obviously doesn't know what he is doing because no one would do what he did because you "took cover once". Yeah I take cover all the time too in Halo and Rainbow Six, but I don't count it as combat experience.I was an infantry Marine for four years (started out as 0311 and then became an 0351), and also participated in Operation Enduring Freedom. How about you?
Give me an example of where I made something up. Oh wait, you don't have one. Again another assumption of yours stated as fact.Sure thing, in fact I don't have to go any further than your most recent post. RIght there:You had enough statements earlier that you seemed awfully sure you knew what was happening; now it is only "likely"?You see, I've stated that it was only "likely" since my first post in this thread.
So now you are unsure of yourself? Either it is a staged photo or it isn't. One second you are a skeptical genius and the next you aren't sure about your skeptical powers? So is it a staged photo or isn't it? You had enough statements earlier that you seemed awfully sure you knew what was happening; now it is only "likely"? Some confidence in your superhuman analytical ability you have there. Having a hard time justifying your comments as we offer counter assumptions?Wow, you've made it readily apparent that you didn't even read my post. It's really pointless for me to continue with you since you've already shown that you lack the ability to properly read the words on your screen.

[Tamara]

There's a little thing called comprehension, get back to me after you've attained it.

There's a little thing called the High Road.

Let's all stay on it next time, okay?