Reply With Quote
And some will always, no matter what level of proof is given. Still, this was an extremely poor move on the administration to release a do ent than can clearly be seen as fishy.
People still arguing about this? Lol
And some will always, no matter what level of proof is given. Still, this was an extremely poor move on the administration to release a do ent than can clearly be seen as fishy.
Yeah let's blame the White House that you and hundreds of other people are ing idiots. They should have known better than to release something that would confuse you and very few other people.
Except the do ent isn't fishy, unless you're ignorant.
I'm saying they were stupid for releasing the particular file they did. The layering in the do ent renders it useless as evidence. If you don't comprehend that, then I'm sorry.
That's like saying David Copperfields magic is fishy. Maybe he's really a demon. He doesn't ven explain how he does it! Sounds shady to me.
And your expertise in do ent forensics is?
Yes, the pdf release is fishy. Sorry, but you are the ignorant one.
How does it render it useless? Please explain why and be specific. Please also detail your expertise in Adobe acrobat and imagery analysis.
What's your expertise in PDF file forensics?
Why? Please explain and give specific technical details.
I have a thorough understanding of the Postscript (PDF predecessor) and PDF format.
Please detail what's fishy about this do ent. Don't be shy to go into technical details.
Really now. Are you that stupid? Look carefully at its layers.
Keep in mind I am not saying it is a fake. I'm saying it could be a fake. Open your mind, and stop ignoring possibilities.
I am reasonable certain a proof positive copy exists. I say they were stupid for not releasing a clean data image that wouldn't be so questionable. What is so hard to understand about that?
What leads you to believe it's a fake? What about the do ent having layers leads to a possibility of forgery? Please explain.
I already gave all the detail needed by anyone who can think. Look back at my first few posts.
Is that your technical assessment?
Have you ever loaded a PDF on Illustrator before? Heck, have you launched Illustrator ever? If you did, you would know that the PDF isn't layered.
IOW, you think it looks fishy because you don't understand how scanners can be set up to divide do ents into layers.
I think that your global warming statistics are fishy because they use very specific numbers. Why do they have to be so esoteric? Seems fishy.
So you have no expertise in do ent forensics, Illustrator, the PDF format.
That's what I thought. I'll take your opinion accordingly.
It's not the PDF that has been layered, it's the scanner that produced a layered image. A PDF is merely a container for the base image.
My God... You are you that ing stuuuupiiid.....Is that your technical assessment?
Have you ever loaded a PDF on Illustrator before? Heck, have you launched Illustrator ever? If you did, you would know that the PDF isn't layered.
Again, I am not saying the do ent is fake. I am saying that the way they presented it to the public is in no way proof it is real.
Get a clue. Surely you aren't that ing stupid.
Yes. I know illustrator will do that. Part of your stupidity is not recognizing the things I do take into account.
And we are telling you it is proof that it's real. You just don't understand because you think it's "fishy" based off of non-expertise.
It is not proof. You are wrong.
It actually shows it's in fact real to those that do forensics. Removing the original scanner layering would have proved tampering.
But you're talking to an expert on the matter, you just don't know when to shut the up.
This clown caught talking out of his ass again...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
