<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '><b>Link:</b> <a href="http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/b ... sp">Snopes link</a>
Honestly, I'm surprised that the "most plausible explanation" of the sign is manipulation of the "original" to say 'killed' and 'knocked up', especially when a quick 15-second inspection of both signs clearly show that the "original" saved/rescued sign is a fake Photoshop job. There are several tell-tale signs of this:
1. The words 'saved' and 'rescued' are clearly in a different style, color, and thickness. It is in somebody else's handwriting. The person could not even get the slant right in Photoshop.
---
2. JPEG is a lossy compression format. This means that it loses some quality information every time it is saved. The saved/rescued pic shows signs of JPEG compression degradation, more in comparison to the killed/knocked pic. You can see this best in the cardboard sign grainyness. (Sometimes, Photoshoppers do this on purpose to hide factors in an edit.)
---
3. You can tell that the writer of the sign is pretty good at justified handwriting. In other words, he can write words to fit the length of the space he's writing on. (Not everybody has this talent, but judging from the neat handwriting, he's pretty experienced at writing.) He forgot to count on the letters "en" being covered up by the boy, but he otherwise made the words fit the length of the sign.
Why then is the "he rescued my" line not justified? The "most plausible explanation" would be that the Photoshopper moved the word "my" (since "rescued" is smaller than "knocked up") to the left, and used a Clone brush (very popular PS tool) to mimic the blank cardboard. Considering that cardboard is fairly similar all throughout, it wouldn't be hard to do.
---
I'm not taking sides on this issue for political means. Humans are capable of either situation. I'm merely debunking a rumor on one of the articles from a site that is about debunking rumors.</div>
Honestly, I'm surprised that the "most plausible explanation" of the sign is manipulation of the "original" to say 'killed' and 'knocked up', especially when a quick 15-second inspection of both signs clearly show that the "original" saved/rescued sign is a fake Photoshop job. There are several tell-tale signs of this:
1. The words 'saved' and 'rescued' are clearly in a different style, color, and thickness. It is in somebody else's handwriting. The person could not even get the slant right in Photoshop.
---
2. JPEG is a lossy compression format. This means that it loses some quality information every time it is saved. The saved/rescued pic shows signs of JPEG compression degradation, more in comparison to the killed/knocked pic. You can see this best in the cardboard sign grainyness. (Sometimes, Photoshoppers do this on purpose to hide factors in an edit.)
---
3. You can tell that the writer of the sign is pretty good at justified handwriting. In other words, he can write words to fit the length of the space he's writing on. (Not everybody has this talent, but judging from the neat handwriting, he's pretty experienced at writing.) He forgot to count on the letters "en" being covered up by the boy, but he otherwise made the words fit the length of the sign.
Why then is the "he rescued my" line not justified? The "most plausible explanation" would be that the Photoshopper moved the word "my" (since "rescued" is smaller than "knocked up") to the left, and used a Clone brush (very popular PS tool) to mimic the blank cardboard. Considering that cardboard is fairly similar all throughout, it wouldn't be hard to do.
---
I'm not taking sides on this issue for political means. Humans are capable of either situation. I'm merely debunking a rumor on one of the articles from a site that is about debunking rumors.</div>
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
