"It is not plausible that you got that from what I wrote. You are not acting in good faith." yes i did - your English i so bad you expose yourself
"One of the tell-tale signs of a fraudulent photograph is evidence of an attempt to make it unverifiable." what moron told you that, you?
" would like to see all the available pictures to see if this was actually a doctored version" talk to your bosses, im sure they will just hand over all their secrets, also i told you twice its a still from a video, there are no multiple pics - daaaah
To verify it, all we need to do is go to the library and check the archive for that date and... Oops. The corner of the page is folded over it, making the task much harder. That's the dead giveaway that it's fake.
" would like to see all the available pictures to see if this was actually a doctored version"
Yes! We can check preexisting photos of Anton Szandor LaVey as well as preexisting photos of John Kerry to see if we can find matching images. Then we will have proven our suspicion.
From images of LeVey we get this from Rolling Stone:
well first off all you can search to see if that image is available elsewhere
secondly , someone with the right sources could take that image now and paste it into something else and just back date it and say " see , this pic is obviously fake cause its from 2012 and you would have no idea if "that evidence" was fake info or not
3. Those pics you posted are obviously fake, meant to sway you in some political propaganda, you dont need to be a genius to figure that out, so you didnt solve a mystery, you just finally realized the obvious. Congratulations, Sherlock
4. the relationship between The Bidens and Lady Gagy is already well established fact, maybe youre just hearing about it now, probably because you dont live here and are bit out of tune with our culture.
I think my demonstration was sufficient to show that creators of faked photos might deliberately make verification difficult and how access to other photos can help in debunking them.
I've tried to address your points below, but I think they distract from the important issues. In any case, groups of people should have access to the original data from all purported leaks.
well first off all you can search to see if that image is available elsewhere
What you are looking for are photos someone has used to construct the photo in question. You also get other information (metadata), such as when the photo was taken, published, by whom and context.
someone with the right sources could take that image now and paste it into something else and just back date it and say " see , this pic is obviously fake cause its from 2012 and you would have no idea if "that evidence" was fake info or not
That is a concern. In my demonstration, one of the original photos was published by Rolling Stone and the other was from a dated Facebook post. And intelligence agency could falsify backdated social media, but backdating an article of a major publication would be harder.
Those pics you posted are obviously fake
One is fake while the other two are ostensibly legitimate photographs.
...meant to sway you in some political propaganda, you dont need to be a genius to figure that out, so you didnt solve a mystery, you just finally realized the obvious.
It fooled quite a number of people when it was distributed during the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election.
the relationship between The Bidens and Lady Gagy is already well established fact
This is altogether different from Lady Gaga doing hard drugs with Hunter Biden.
"It is not plausible that you got that from what I wrote. You are not acting in good faith." yes i did - your English i so bad you expose yourself "One of the tell-tale signs of a fraudulent photograph is evidence of an attempt to make it unverifiable." what moron told you that, you? " would like to see all the available pictures to see if this was actually a doctored version" talk to your bosses, im sure they will just hand over all their secrets, also i told you twice its a still from a video, there are no multiple pics - daaaah
Nothing I wrote relies upon my mastery of English and a lack of language proficiency exposes nothing.
Yes, actually. Take this photograph of a newspaper.
https://files.catbox.moe/92jf12.jpg
To verify it, all we need to do is go to the library and check the archive for that date and... Oops. The corner of the page is folded over it, making the task much harder. That's the dead giveaway that it's fake.
Yes! We can check preexisting photos of Anton Szandor LaVey as well as preexisting photos of John Kerry to see if we can find matching images. Then we will have proven our suspicion.
From images of LeVey we get this from Rolling Stone:
https://files.catbox.moe/yf3alx.webp
From images of Kerry we get this from the clown's Facebook (the other clown):
https://files.catbox.moe/sg04f0.jpg
Badabing, badabang, badaboom--mystery solved!
So to know the truth, people should look at the original material. It's just common sense.
well first off all you can search to see if that image is available elsewhere secondly , someone with the right sources could take that image now and paste it into something else and just back date it and say " see , this pic is obviously fake cause its from 2012 and you would have no idea if "that evidence" was fake info or not 3. Those pics you posted are obviously fake, meant to sway you in some political propaganda, you dont need to be a genius to figure that out, so you didnt solve a mystery, you just finally realized the obvious. Congratulations, Sherlock 4. the relationship between The Bidens and Lady Gagy is already well established fact, maybe youre just hearing about it now, probably because you dont live here and are bit out of tune with our culture.
I think my demonstration was sufficient to show that creators of faked photos might deliberately make verification difficult and how access to other photos can help in debunking them.
I've tried to address your points below, but I think they distract from the important issues. In any case, groups of people should have access to the original data from all purported leaks.
What you are looking for are photos someone has used to construct the photo in question. You also get other information (metadata), such as when the photo was taken, published, by whom and context.
That is a concern. In my demonstration, one of the original photos was published by Rolling Stone and the other was from a dated Facebook post. And intelligence agency could falsify backdated social media, but backdating an article of a major publication would be harder.
One is fake while the other two are ostensibly legitimate photographs.
It fooled quite a number of people when it was distributed during the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election.
This is altogether different from Lady Gaga doing hard drugs with Hunter Biden.
your comments are gay, without a point and wasting my time, go away!