Hat Tip JP
I woke still furious about the whole puppy incident. JP talked with me about it and managed to make me laugh. A former green-side Corpsman he’s very familiar with wounds and he not only verified my own thoughts but elaborated on the nature of the wound pictured with details I hadn’t thought about. My emotions are now firmly controlled and I can continue with this line of inquiry.
Devil in the Details
The puppy’s wound is most definitely NOT the result of anything GARD claims in either the post or comments. First, the cleanliness and color of the wound itself indicates either 1) the puppy was dead when the incision was made, 2) the photo was taken at least an hour after the pup’s death, or 3) it’s a Photoshop job. A fresh wound on a live pup would have lymphatic seepage, capillary blood seepage independent of the severed subclavian artery and evidence of clotting—none of which appear in the posted photograph.
The wound shows absolutely no signs of suppuration or inflammation, again indicating a mortal injury or post-mortem incision. The claim of the pup wandering home is ludicrous on several levels including this one (remember, coastal Georgia and flies/maggots/gnats/etc and the EXIF data.)
Note the deepest part of the wound. See how pale the tissue is? Yet another indicator.
Under no circumstances is this puppy alive right now. GARD’s posted photograph makes that clear despite their claim to the contrary.
Then there are the surroundings and the body of the pup. If this pup were alive her coat would be covered in blood. The surfaces beneath the pup at the very least would be bloody, and likely splatters all over the wood floor as well. If the pup were alive at the time the photo was taken but had been injured elsewhere, fluids would be collected on the floor beneath the pup’s wound. The floor is clean.
The pup’s corpse was positioned to make the wound prominent. No live puppy with that wound would willingly assume or remain in that position, the most painful position she could assume. The photo is intentionally staged.
I see signs of potential Photoshop work though I’m not certain of that. What do you think?
GARD has a history of using photographs pulled from the internet as a ploy to raise money off of animals they don’t have. It’s worked for a number of years. They’ve collected thousands of dollars with this sort of fraud.
Using photos like this one is particularly effective since most people don’t want to look at it. They turn away without applying a critical eye to the image and take it for what they’re told it is.
I sincerely hope the federal investigators have seen these two posts. Between these two posts and comments GARD has pulled the trigger too many times. Unlike earlier frauds, people are paying attention.
I won’t be sending flowers for the funeral.
The irony is delicious! Joy Bohannon knows exactly what she’s doing with these fraudulently employed images. Just like the supposed “rickets” puppy, Bohannon intentionally uses photographs and videos with no context, no identifying features—nothing whatsoever to positively identify the animal, the location or the people involved. This Facebook post demonstrates she is well aware of how best to deceive people.
I hope I have enough notice to make it down for the perp walk.