Anons,

Finding the raw photo is good. Legalanons can advise on how one might compel Getty to release it. Also, many media sources that published the photo may have received a .RAW TIFF file. If we can get a hold of one of those it would be interesting.

However we might only be able to prove that Getty doctors their photos. The .RAW file should be easier to analyze because there is no JPEG artefacts, but at the end of the day, there may only be a doctored photo.

This is why the video is key. Even if there is only one original in the hands of the FBI, using FOIA to get it puts more eyes on the analysis. A video is harder to doctor.

And, if the person really was writing a message, then even if the message has been replaced, the video will show their finger taps which lets us recover the message. Just like those old 30s movies where the detective unrolls a typewriter ribbon and reconstructs what was recently typed. It's called forensic investigation, CSI, etc… You can do it too.

Need some advice from legal anons. Know a lawyer? Get them to join in this conversation. They can even use your computer to write their messages if they are afraid of the watchers.

Anons,

Want to know what the ARM is?

Check their Facebook page

https://

www.facebook.com/ARM-American-Resistance-Movement-167638441130/

>>286849

Remember that somebody redacted a name from the official report of the incident. Where is this redacted report? Who wrote it? Who redacted it?

Oh, and whose name was redacted.

>>286877

That is a wrong assumption. The T s/b shot comment comes from file 1 of 4 video files. Q told us to use this to identify just which SOTU vide he was talking about. It is not the long 12 hour recording of all of Jan 30th.

We want a highres video where the whole day is broken up into shorter timelength files. There are 4 covering SOTU, and the 1st has the "shot" statement on it. We want the 4th of those files. In that 4th video we will find mobile phone screens exposed and one (or more) of those screens has incriminating info on it.

Q knows this because Q has the original file. But Q cannot release it because it is now evidence in a criminal investigation. However, if we can get a hold of this video file recording a public event (i.e. it is NOT classified in any way) then we can see the incriminating evidence and make it public.

Fact is that we are "the public" If we publish something, that is our right. But the administration is "the government". The Democrat view is the elite view, that means they are above the law. But the Trump administration believes that government is a servant of the people and is limited in what it can do, by the people. Therefore they cannot release this evidence except in the proper process which is before the court. As you know, the legal process takes time, especially when the courts are full of MS13 and illegal immigrant cases.