The California Man Who Marries a Dog Story Looks Like a Hoax to Me

From Ken Adachi, Editor

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/donmanmarriagestorylooksfishy10feb14.shtml

February 10, 2014

The California Man Who Marries a Dog Story Looks Like a Hoax to Me (Feb. 10, 2014)

Keith Howe sent me a link to a story that was originally posted at the National Report web site titled, “California Allows First-Ever State Recognized Human-Animal Marriage“.

http://nationalreport.net/author/paul-horner/

The National Report web site frames the photos of Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin at the top of every page. I have no idea what role they play with that web site. .

The man marries dog article is re posted further below.

This article has been re posted ad nauseam all over the internet. However, I did not find one web site who questioned its validity, yet there are so many holes in the story, it immediately struck me that he whole thing is a hoax. The first oddity noticed was when I looked for the date of its original publication – there was none. The only thing it showed at the top of the article was: “Posted about 2 months ago”. Huh?

So let’s look at the story more carefully:

First, there is no official from the State of California, such as the Secretary of State, verifying that a marriage between a man and a dog is legal in California. You only have the author of the article, supposedly a guy named “Darius Rubics” stating that some odd wording in the “… book of California’s State Laws and Regulations,,, ” of 1850 legally validates the marriage between a man and a dog; where he quotes: ” According to article 155, paragraph 10...”

Right.

Well, first I want to read it myself to verify his statement, but he provides no link to that supposed article and paragraph, so I have no way to check if it’s legitimate.

Second, the California Constitution was ratified in 1849, not 1850.

Third, The photo supplied with the story shows what look like TWO guys in religious clothing, but the article only quotes ONE of these guys, the “Rev. Father McHale” of the Presidio Chapel (former Army base where Col. Michael Aquino used to work).

I suppose “Father McHale” is the guy with the beard holding the book, but when I made an enlarged crop of these two “priests,” I see telltale signs of PhotoShop trickery. It looks to me like the guy with the beard was superimposed into the scene. It doesn’t look real: the depth of field between the guy with the beard and the guy behind him doesn’t look normal at all. The skin tone between these two guy is too different, considering that they were supposedly standing in the same light, right next to each other. And the collar of “Father McHale” doesn’t look right either. It looks like the white part of the collar and the white cross on his chest were PhotoShopped onto his clothing. They look too white and too bright. Because the dog’s face projects over the front of “Father McHale’s” left leg, you’re suppose to think it’s real, but it’s easy to use a black background to superimpose the dog’s face over it.

Fourth, the photo isn’t framed properly for an article that’s going to go viral around the world and be re posted to a gazillion blogs. The right side of “Father McHale” body is cutoff? No, no, no, I don’t think so. This photo is a PhotoShop creation in my opinion. The only guy who was actually at the scene is the younger looking “priest” who was photographed in other photos taken at the event.

I did a Zaba Serach of the name “Father McHale” and the Presidio Chapel in San Francisco and nothing came up. I went to the Presidio Chapel web site and could find no mention of the name of “Father McHale.” The only articles that come up when I did a Google search for “Father McHale” is this one article. The guy doesn’t exist. We’re being played. .

---

http://nationalreport.net/california-allows-first-ever-state-recognized-human-animal-marriage/