>>281702

I think it is.

My thoughts on this photo exercise:

Q wanted us to get imagery (still or video unclear) and archive it offline before scrubbed (maybe.) We did.

The point I see is that there are two photos that are from almost the same vantage point, but not quite and taken very close together. The images on that phone are different - one has been changed.

There are VERY few people in the world who could fake a RAW image. Maybe NSA can, but I doubt they can do this at the drop of a hat (would be a major effort for very little gain.) I do not believe this is what happened.

I believe whoever paid Getty for that image to be circulated to just about every major media outlet in the world photoshopped the image. In the US, that would be a violation of FCC rules for transmitting 'news' and could result in the loss of broadcasting license, for example. At the very least, it was something that the Gods of News didn't want the world to see. (Limited hang-out - it is OK to go ahead and show the Dems looking foolish, but not treasonous.) I think that's the story here. News distributors shopped the image to remove evidence of sedition perhaps.

I would bet $1 that RAW image shows up on the internet in the next few days. LOL

If the photographer uploaded it to Getty (near 100% probability), then NSA has a copy of the unedited image.

>>281749

I don't see why this is a big deal. The photo shows her writing an email of her press release. (Same text shows up in a single article online.)

>>281753

We don't know the photographer did it. More likely the news distribution company did it and sent it to everyone.

Also, any decent photographer has archives of ALL of his images in RAW format.

>>281765

Yes, nearly 100% odds. Pro photographers archive AT LEAST anything that is worth selling and often eveerything. Storage is cheap these days.

>>281804

If the RAW image is evidence of corruption right now, a warrant will declassify it.

>>281808

Guys, we need those two phone images side-by-side asking why the image on the phones is different when it appears in the press.

>>281818

Whoever shopped it (Gannett?) did a shitty job because they're sloppy and inbred.

>>281838

>It’s FAKE NEWS distributed by who?

I'm guessing Gannett.

>>281841

Video won't help you - pixel density isn't high enough.

>>281843

Check back in a couple of days.

>>281851

Suggests Gannett applied photoshop fuckery to the image. Getty may still have the original, but not for long. Spooks working overtime to accidentally corrupt that image.

>>281858

Gov already has evidence. They only need a warrant for the photographer's photos and it is admissible under the current legal environment. Also, even NSA collection is admissible if the information is evidence of corruption, which I think this could be. (Caveat: not lawfag.)

>>281859

Yes, but email vs. text is irrelevant here.

>>281861

Doubtful Getty would get RAW files. Maybe, but more likely just high resolution JPEG images or TIFF.

>>281866

This guy is a very prolific photographer. He's using a 1D or better - 25Mpixel likely. There's a shitload of dots. Not publishing RAW (photographs love dicking with white/color balance and consider it an art. They're not giving out RAW except in very rare circumstances and this isn't one of them.)

>>281871

NSA already knows how they disappear things. They learned that shit from NSA. :-)

>>281898

I'm guessing that Q may have not directly been telling us to do it, but telling us to do things that would lead to us all having lots of copies of the two images in question proving there's been fuckery.

If you read it differently, perhaps Q is dictating what one would need to do to have an airtight case. In other words, perhaps they've already gotten a warrant, contacted the photographer and have a legally obtained copy of the RAW file. Then, they drop it on us, we get all excited and meme the fuck out of it, driving awareness and putting the fear of Odin into the blood drinking pedophile inbred buttfuckers.

>>281925

Photographer likely wouldn't have even looked at what was on the phones. When they do image manipulation, it is like an assembly line. They're looking for things like spectral range and white balance to make sure the images 'pop'.

>>281965

The original photo is a RAW file. Almost impossible to fake - not because it would be THAT difficult from a programming standpoint, but because the RAW formats are all largely proprietary and NOBODY makes software to generate RAW images - only the cameras generate the RAW formats. (It is possible, but I suspect it is not happening in the world we live in.) RAW images are just CCD data dumps with a bunch of parameters in it that helps the PC software interpret the CCD data to make a color corrected image out of it that your eyes like.

>>282019

If the photographer didn't notice the text he's not complicit. You have to have intent to break these laws.

>>282035

Yeah, or he's already being watched to see if they try to take him out. Or he's on a vacation somewhere safe. Really depends on what the original text says. With something real bad, they could arrest the perps immediately and then there's no need to kill the photographer - evidence is already out.

>>282043

I checked smugmug but didn't find anything. This guys has direct lines to Getty - he likely doesn't do normal photographer peddling.

>>282063

You're assuming he was even aware of any of this. I'm guessing photograph wasn't aware. Maybe he found out by getting a Sherriff at his door with some escorts showing him a warrant for copies of photographs of the SOTU.

>>282106

They're almost certainly not online.

>>282129

This photographer (and no real pro photographer) is going to send RAW files anywhere. They process them on a beefy PC and then send edited files out. Anything you see online is going to be JPEG. Very rarely, you'll find TIFF files on pro photo distribution sites.

RAW for this isn't online unless someone intentionally put it there for us to find, which I find very improbable.

>>282147

>you are making no sense

Reread until lucid.

>>282168

Above the black cock-us in the gallery. There are three photographers in roughly the right position.

>>282186

They don't need to control the photographer. They need to control the evidence. They could break into his place and take the evidence. Less risky than a murder.

>>282191