Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by UcDat
So a software editor that prominent birther Jerome Corsi claims as being "nationally recognized" is all you need to finally put the nail in the
If she can prove it...yep.
Why? What do you base your views on? People telling you its real?
Why is it that World Net Daily is the only source that recognizes the story?
Huffingtonpost, Donald Trump says BC is fake altered
If this software individual is so nationally recognized, wouldn't other sources be reporting on this?
You would think so. Try googling it. Yep, other sources are reporting on it. Just not the top news stations in America.
Oh, wait, I forgot... This is one of those conspiracies with many layers,
Many layers indeed...but layers are not the thing. OCR makes layers. Its the link history that shows images were added, altered in size and
positioning. Really, its pretty weird to see that happen when as far as I know it is impossible unless someone took images from a separate image and
rotated/resized/added them ....oh wait, you mean "layers as in the story" not the doc...never mind.
where the MSM is knowingly withholding such information, as it is in the back pockets of the bankers and slimy Washingtonians!
Nope...sorry pal, I am not saying that is what the reasoning here is. You are...in fact, I notice a lot of folks try to shove words down people's
throats as soon as they start listening to explanations that do not support the BC being real. Fact remains, I am confused and want answers to basic
Answers to things that even basic first-year photoshoppers seem to be confused on. I just want to understand what I do not...is that a crime? Or am I
a racist who believes in alien Washingtonians taking over the news?
Give it a break.
No...I won't, and neither will anyone who understands adobe products enough (or not enough) to not understand why these anomalies are present.
I've worked with adobe products for over a decade professionally and personally, sold said products for a large company for a few years AND have
heard many people I know agreeing the case is "weird" due to anomolies within the doc.
Now you have Mara Zebest saying the same, and you still think its not worth debating or looking into.
I find that very odd. She has
authored and coauthored books on the programs in question and her credentials are far more impressive then say
"a guy who knows zero about them". So where is the harm watching this unfold?
This birther thing was pathetic to begin with, and it's even more pathetic to continue.
The funny thing here is- this is NOT a birther thing. Its a "forged document" thing. I do not think Obama was born in Kenya, nor do I care what
race he is. But I do suspect "for hard reasons" that the doc provided was falsified and altered. I would like to know why.
So would many other folks.
Now if you are done calling people birthers and ridiculous...can I please learn of why you trust the BC? Do you have first hand knowledge of any Adobe
products? Are you a digital forensic authority? Written or coauthored any books on the subject?
Or are you just reaaaaaalllllllly intent on taking a story that seems littered with holes just because your TV won't tell you otherwise?
Want to talk ridiculous?