Comments for Social Media Debunked http://socialmediadebunked.net We search through social media sites checking out suspect posts and revealing the truths from the fakes Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ Comment on Peanut the Turtle by carlgt http://socialmediadebunked.net/2013/03/05/peanut-the-turtle/comment-page-1/#comment-45 Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:13 +0000 http://socialmediadebunked.net/?p=27#comment-45 OK so, you got me thinking about this. Until I realise that your quoting Wikipedia at me. Seriously? My source Website is a US state government conservation site (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) and the photograph is attributed to “Missouri Department of Conservation”. I have no reason to believe that this is fake.

Also, to answer your lack of photos question, back in 1993 digital cameras weren’t mainstream, we barely had mobile phones let alone phones with cameras in them so there weren’t a hundred and fifty photos of what you’ve just had for dinner floating around the dead space of the internet – hell even the internet wasn’t exactly ubiquitous as it is today.

As for the degradation of six pack holders, sure they photo-degrade (Photodegradation is degradation of a photodegradable molecule caused by the absorption of photons, particularly those wavelengths found in sunlight) but underwater, wrapped around the shell of a turtle – I’m not so sure it’s getting its full compliment of sunlight there.

I’m always open to questions and debate, it’s how we get to the truth, but my friend, you are yet to convince me on this one :)

]]> Comment on Peanut the Turtle by adnsetin http://socialmediadebunked.net/2013/03/05/peanut-the-turtle/comment-page-1/#comment-44 Sat, 25 May 2013 09:01:05 +0000 http://socialmediadebunked.net/?p=27#comment-44 And there is only one picture on Google picture search of Peanut the turtle. Many copies, but all copies of the same picture, which leads me to believe that the picture is fake. Why would they only have a picture taken from one angle.

]]> Comment on Peanut the Turtle by adnsetin http://socialmediadebunked.net/2013/03/05/peanut-the-turtle/comment-page-1/#comment-43 Sat, 25 May 2013 08:57:49 +0000 http://socialmediadebunked.net/?p=27#comment-43 Exactly, especially considering that the six pack holders are made to photo-degrade in 30-90 days and turtles grow very slowly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_pack_rings

]]> Comment on Peanut the Turtle by Patrick http://socialmediadebunked.net/2013/03/05/peanut-the-turtle/comment-page-1/#comment-11 Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:08:35 +0000 http://socialmediadebunked.net/?p=27#comment-11 Why does this 29 year old six pack holder look brand new?

]]> Comment on More dastardly doggie-napper shenanigans by carlgt http://socialmediadebunked.net/2013/03/07/more-dastardly-doggie-napper-shenanigans/comment-page-1/#comment-2 Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:17:10 +0000 http://socialmediadebunked.net/?p=70#comment-2 :) Nice! Thanks for the update!

]]> Comment on More dastardly doggie-napper shenanigans by why http://socialmediadebunked.net/2013/03/07/more-dastardly-doggie-napper-shenanigans/comment-page-1/#comment-1 Thu, 07 Mar 2013 20:45:32 +0000 http://socialmediadebunked.net/?p=70#comment-1 ….and correct me if I’m wrong but I thought that British rego’s either had the number 50 or 52 (it’s been a while since I’ve been there so I could be wrong!)

you’re wrong. 57 would mean it was registered between september 2007 and march 2008

]]>