We click the link, and we find the quote is good. So a local news outfit has confirmed the photographer did use an accelerant. When we go upstream to that site, we find an addendum on the original article: So we lumber upstream once again, to the PetaPixel site from whence this came. In other words, we still haven’t gotten to the source. In webspeak, “via” means you learned of a story or photo from someone else. So did his shoes catch on fire, or did he set them on fire? I do notice at the bottom of this page though that this is just a retelling of an article published elsewhere it’s not this publication who talked to the photographer! It’s a similar situation to what we saw in an earlier chapter, where the Blaze was simply retelling a story that was investigated by the Daily Dot. He says he wanted to take a picture of himself with his shoes on fire while standing on lava. Contrary to the headline the photographer doesn’t say lava made his shoes catch on fire. This may be a bit pedantic, but I still don’t know if this was staged. So we read the article down to the bottom:įor this particular shot, Singson says, “Always trying to be creative, I thought it would be pretty cool (hot!) to take a lava pic with my shoes and tripod on fire while photographing lava.” But all good fact-checkers know that headlines lie. Now we could stop here and just read the headline.