Liars nailed. Forensic proof (that would stand up in court) that the Keylowna article was posted the night before
- Category: Jim Stone
- Created on 19 September 2013
- Written by Jim Stone
If you are going to lie and “debunk” and modify things after the fact, HIRE A PROFESSIONAL LIAR. Make sure he actually works in the media, and IS NOT JUST A SYSTEMS TECH DOING A JOB.
Here is how I nailed them in the lie. When I discovered the article was indeed posted early, I bagged about 40 shots of both it and the Google confirmation with a digital camera. THE TIME STAMP FROM THE CAMERA CONFIRMS I TOOK THE PICTURE BEFORE THE DATE ON THE PDF, WHICH WAS RELEASED LATER WITH THE “CORRECT DATE”. At that time, (though I never posted the shots that had it because they lacked visual appeal,) I also had the clock on the computer going on the screen. Both of these times, on the camera when I was doing it all and windows time, confirm that I took the pictures BEFORE THE MODIFIED DATE ON THE PDF THAT WAS RELEASED LATER as a “CORRECTION”.
Here’s where it gets cute.
Because their story was that their server got the date wrong, ALL THEY DID WAS CHANGE THE DATE ON THE PDF, NOT THE TIME. SO HERE WE HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH WITH A TIME STAMP IN THE EXIF DATA THAT WAS TAKEN WITHIN A TIME WINDOW THAT PROVES THE ARTICLE WAS RELEASED TOO EARLY, AND THE PDF DID NOT EXIST YET. THE FACT THAT THE TIME ON THE PDF MATCHES THE TIME ON THE ARTICLE AND ONLY HAS THE DATE CHANGED NAILS THE LIE, BECAUSE IT LEFT A 24 HOUR OPPORTUNITY GAP DURING WHICH I NAILED THE SHOT.HEY LIAR, IF YOU ARE GOING TO LIE, MOVE THE TIME ON THE PDF FORWARD A LITTLE, TO PROVIDE PROTECTION. I PHOTOGRAPHED THIS BEFORE THE PDF VERSION OF THE SAME ARTICLE EVER EXISTED ACCORDING TO IT’S OWN “CORRECTED” DATE STAMP. ACCORDING TO YOUR COVER LIE, I ALSO PHOTOGRAPHED THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU EVER POSTED IT.
I am uploading the original shot NOW, STRAIGHT OUT OF THE CAMERA. I am in the Central Standard time zone, in the state of Guanajuato Mexico. This photo then, was taken FOUR HOURS before the PDF ever existed in Vancouver Canada AND ACCORDING TO THEIR NEW LIE, BEFORE THEY EVER POSTED THEIR ARTICLE.
Download THIS PHOTO and right click it. You will get the option to view the exif data under the files property tab, or line, or whatever for whatever operating system you have. All file systems will allow you to view the exif date of a photograph.
And if that won’t do it for you, I also have here another photo where I opened windows time and date to prove Google was not screwing up on the screen with it’s time stamps. The camera did not adjust for daylight savings time, so the photo from the camera and the windows time are an hour off from each other. Big woop, they both nail it anyway.
Google time stamp “GMT TIME” lie easily disproven
Too easy. You see, NONE OF THE OTHER VANCOUVER PAPERS GOT THE TIME STAMP ON GOOGLE A DAY EARLY. WHY WAS KEYLOWNA THE ONLY ONE? on top of that, IT WAS INDEXED WAY TOO EARLY, FAR TOO EARLY FOR ANY GMT ERROR TO CAUSE SUCH AN ANOMALY. 14 hours after the “shooting”, Google was saying the article was two days old. If it was a GMT error, and one did indeed exist, Google would have said it happened 1 day ago on the day of the shooting, not 2. And when google puts it’s time stamp, the current day is listed in hours – 4 hours a go, 12 hours ago, and only after it rolls past a certain number of hours does it say 1 day ago. So the GMT time error would only make it 1 day, NOT TWO. NAILED YOU A SECOND TIME, not that it was necessary because the exif data in the photos PROVE THE DATE ANYWAY.I now place a lot less credibility on alternative media sites that are “debunking” this, sure, anyone can “debunk” but a debunk has to be done correctly to hold water, YOU CANNOT BATTLE WHAT IS HERE, BY SHEER LUCK I ABSOLUTELY NAILED IT. This time I got lucky simply because of the procedures I used to document this. Learned a lesson – it won’t be luck next time.
The linked photograph which is straight out of the camera has exif data that proves it was never modified. This photo was not ever opened in photoshop or any other editor. That is why it is forensic proof that would hold up in court. You can prove it is the original shot and was never tampered with.
My original reason for using a camera rather than doing screen captures was because pictures from a camera are not easy to modify undetectably (and I’d say impossible when it’s a computer screen) because of issues such as lens vignetting, compression artifacts, color variances and other factors that make a picture from a camera totally unpredictable. Had I done screen captures, the photos would have gone to absolute bits that are easy to fake later. So a picture of a monitor is far better proof than a screen capture, and this particular story which absolutely FRIED THEIR ASSES had to be done the best possible way.
Aah yes, – the shills and liars can front a little B.S. about how someone who according to the engineer who designed reactor 3 had an unbelievable understanding of reactor and industrial control systems WOULD BE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND TIME STAMPS AND DATE ZONES AND SCREW THIS UP. GET A LIFE A-HOLES, YOU HAVE BEEN NAILED.