Because the triangle is solid black and the stamp text is also black, SO if you scan the image with a camera it cant differentiate between the black triangle ink and the stamp black text ink, your own eye could barely even notice the black stamp text on a solid black triangle. the ballot image seems to have some sort of replication algorithm that only traces and recreates the outlines of what it detects which is why the original ballot is a solid black triangle and the ballot image is a clear triangle, this also explains the weird warping around all of the stamp text, every ballot image has a different warping due to the random placement of the stamp.
e.g the recreated image isn't going to print the outline of the stamp within the solid black triangle because there IS NO OUTLINE to trace leaving the whole area blank making it "appear" as though the stamp text goes underneath when it actually went over the triangle. you can actually see the outline algorithm at work in the top left ballot image picture where it adds a spike to the triangle because it thinks the "A" in "Approved" is part of the triangle. <-------- sauces- Ballot Image: https://files.catbox.moe/7ezvfe.png Actual Ballot: https://media.kjzz.org/s3fs-public/green-ballot-envelope-signature-20201013.jpg
Focusing on and spreading photoshopgate(yeah im gonna call it that pogg) takes away from the point of why the images were presented in the first place, which is the fact that they put the verified stamp on ballots that don't even have a signature on them xD but hey at least now everyone has seen the stamp on ballots which no signature without noticing it, maybe that is why shiva mentioned photoshopgate, so that everyone on both sides spreads and debates the photoshopgate without realizing they are spreading indisputable evidence that they have verified ballots WITH NO SIGNATURE ;)
This is exactly the same technique they used with the draft summary that they "leaked", Jovan Pulitzer basically admitted that the draft leak was done by the audit team to bait the media in this interview around 32:00 ;) https://rumble.com/vmxq93-jovan-pulitzer-reaction-to-maricopa-county-audit-september-24-2021.html
absolute classic
EDIT: Great debate in comments going into further detail.
So you're trying to tell us that photoshop, and/or the scanners cannot differentiate between different shades of black?
I think its a bit more complicated than just the black on black, it looks like the outlining algorithm is using a width measurement of everything that's not white and leaving it hollow if its above a certain width around 1mm-2mm. but yes essentially.
Ok. I can see where something like that is possible. Or to put it in a more simplistic way, when the color ballot was scanned, or re-printed, and the image ballot was created in black&white, some type of software/hardware compatibility anomaly manifested, and resulted in a goofed looking image.
Yeah there's anomolies from some kind of algorithm all over the ballot images, no idea why they do this, shiva didn't either, probably some technical shit that's unnecessary.
u/#Topkek
I've scanned a lot of documents and pictures and never once has the scan only shown outlines of darkened areas.
I'll agree that there is enough of a problem with verifying ballots without a signature but I don't buy that scans only show the outline of darkened areas.
you're not looking at the picture of a ballot you're looking at a ballot re-created using the data from an image of a ballot.
With Occam's Razor as a guide, maybe it's a much simpler explanation. The triangle and the "rubber stamp" images were simply separate graphic items for the person to work with, along with several other graphic items on the ballot. In his/her haste to get the job done, the PhotoShopper simply made an error in layers and placed the triangle on top of the stamp rather than the other way around. After placing several items on a palate (and I've done it before myself), you can easily get distracted and not see an error like that. It's a simple fix, just bring forward or send backward objects as you want them to appear. In this case, it APPEARS the graphic person just failed to see his/her error and it wasn't caught by anyone else up the food chain.
how do you explain the triangles not actually being triangles though, if they were copy pasted wrong layer triangles they wouldn't have the weird merged outlines like on the "A" and "M" on the top left ballot image example.
Occam's Razor usually isn't the best guide for forensic investigations xD
Hey, you may be right.... I was just offering a different opinion to consider.
the ballot image creator is obviously using a width outline algorithm as you can see any solid that is not white that is above a certain width threshold is left hollow, even the THICC red text is left hollow, along with the little triangle, the big triangle and the signature box.
And image scanners do not decide to capture or not capture any part of an image. They replicate what they see. If those triangles were black, they'd be reproduced in black.
That is true. But look at the red triangle. It hollowed out that triangle too. I think OP is making a valid observation. I think the wonky looking image is more likely a computerized graphics type of artifact caused by the original ballot being in color, and the image ballot being reproduced in black&white. The software had to figure out how to print a color ballot in black&white, and the imperfect, suspect looking black&white image is what it produced. The anomaly is probably the result of some kind of cost saving, or eco-friendly ink saving bullshit.
I agree. Can't believe they showed an inaccurate reproduction as "evidence" when the image itself deletes part of the information. So odd they did that.
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/azfamily.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/30/f30dcc3b-ccc9-58e5-95f1-c4a071769a71/5f9b74a8d392c.image.jpg?resize=1120%2C630
Shiva with wealth of experience said it's a critical anomaly. Listen to the presentation.
You're missing a step, the scanner did detect the entire solid black triangle, when it re-created the ballot USING the image it removed all the black inside the triangle along with the text , just like it removed all the coloring inside the signature box the thick red text and the smaller red triangle, the re-created ballot is only re-creating the outlines of thick object. You can see it if you just look at an actual ballot and a ballot image breh. BALLOTS DO NOT HAVE HOLLOW TRIANGLES OR HOLLOW SIGNATURE BOXES OR THICK HOLLOW TEXT everything inside an object with a width greater than 2mm has been removed and turned white, why? fucked if i know. just so happens that the stamp was in an area that was thicc and turned white.
Remember when they mentioned and then showed that DSLR's were used for imaging? They didn't show one example of a DSLR shot where a triangle was solid black. DSLR's are one area of expertise I do have as a photographer. They do not pick and choose what to capture. Were any of these we saw from a DSLR or were they from some sort of flatbed or sheet fed scanner? I don't know that answer.
Bro can you read please, it doesn't matter what kind of camera was used to take a picture of the ballot, there is software being used to re-create the ballot using the data from the picture taken by the camera.
What you are looking at isn't a picture of a ballot, it's a digitally re-created (probably a PDF) of the picture that was taken.
step 1 insert ballot step 2 take scan of ballot step 3 analyze scan using software step 4 re-create ballot using data recovered by software that analyzed the scan of the ballot
Why do they do this? fucked if i know but the guy who wrote the program surely does.
Yeah, agreed. I searched out an official sample to make sure and you are correct. A DSLR would be an exact reproduction, not a photocopier looking reproduction like they showed. That triangle is full black on the sample I found, so I concede your point. Hard to believe they'd present that without at least clarifying that the image shown is not an accurate reproduction of those signatures. That makes the whole argument less powerful and anyone who saw those signature blocks before will know that the full black is missing from their scanned image, making their point moot.
Why on earth would they shoot their own case in the foot like that? I sure don't know.
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/azfamily.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/30/f30dcc3b-ccc9-58e5-95f1-c4a071769a71/5f9b74a8d392c.image.jpg?resize=1120%2C630
Thankyou, my brain is literally aching right now xD
I have a theory that Shiva added this to the end of his list so that people would take the "ermagerd photoshop lolol" reaction and spread it like wildfire all over the internet, which it did with great success, every single lefty has now accepted that what was shown were real ballots and showed all their friends.
The point is they still haven't realized that they aren't spreading deeboonked photoshop images, they are actually spreading indisputable evidence of ballots being approved with empty signatures boxes and now they've all agreed that they aren't fake images on top of that lmfao.
If you think i'm reaching and the audit team isn't laying traps like this, Jovan Pulitzer basically admitted that they released the draft audit report thing to bait the media into reporting on it. The photoshop scandal and the draft being used as bait have the exact same effect. sauce in this post - https://greatawakening.win/p/13zN1bB4Gi/jovan-pulitzer-is-asked-if-the-a/
I did see Jovan pretty much concede that fact that they leaked on purpose and why the political part about this is rubbish. And you're right, as people share about the triangles, they're in fact spreading the BS of validating a blank, near blank or scribble as a good ballot.
Irregular Information Warfare u/#Popcorn
No, it not PDF.
On the presentation it shows the filename.
It's TIFF (a bitmap). There is no magic program there. It's just a scanner and each pixel is represented 1:1.
Cool a TIFF is what you would want if you were going to run the scan through an algorithm for editing. this only strengthens my case. next...
If I scan something, it always comes up looking like it did originally. There is no reason for any "outlining algorithm." The only time I've had need for it was to create some clipart from a photo.
Do you have proof that the envelopes had solid black triangles instead of white ones with black outlines?
I say the envelopes were printed from a photoshop creation with the incorrect layer on top.
I have worked with scanners ever since the old black and white 4-inch wide handheld 400 dpi scanners. I've worked with graphics software since the mid-1980s.
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/azfamily.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/30/f30dcc3b-ccc9-58e5-95f1-c4a071769a71/5f9b74a8d392c.image.jpg?resize=1120%2C630
https://media.kjzz.org/s3fs-public/green-ballot-envelope-signature-20201013.jpg
The thing is what you're looking at isn't the scan itself, it's a re-created ballot using data extracted from the scan with some sort of outlining algorithm applied between the actual scan and recreation. more detail in other comments on the thread i'm about to pass out it's 10am here at and i've been up all night lol.
Why would they say that they're images of ballots, if they are some kind of fake recreations? There is no reason in the world to be showing any kind of processed images at the senate presentation. The redaction is simple black rectangles added to the images.
That's simply an issue with the naming of the ballot image, a ballot image isn't a picture like most people assume, it's an "image", an image isn't always a photo/picture. An image is just something that resembles the original.
Image definition = "a representation of the external form"
A ballot image is a specific term designated for ballot images, when they say "this is a ballot image" they aren't saying this is a 1:1 picture of the ballot, they are saying it's a "ballot image" a technical term.
I say that a scanned image should look like the original. I don't see any way that the triangle would turn into an outline, while nothing else in the image was outlined.
In other words, bullshit.
In other words you would have an algorithm in place that traces only outlines of blocks of color wider than 2mm which you can see has clearly happened in all the examples i have provided to you, every single block of ink under 2mm isn't outlined because it is simply just the outline alone e.g text, yet the big thick blocks over 2mm in width e.g the signature box the 2 triangles and the thick red text above the signature box are all hollow in the ballot image and full colored on the original ballot. sigh please read all comments on thread for deeper explanation
That's what Mark Twain would call a "stretcher."
What would be the actual point of scanning an image and modifying one small part of it incorrectly?
I read all of the comments, and it still sounds like a Rube Goldberg explanation for something that simple photoshop error explains simply. Occam's Razor and all that.
the photoshop error theory doesn't explain why the "A" and the "M" are merged into the outline of the triangles which is why the occams razor approach is nullified, if it was a layer of a triangle photoshoped over the top, why is it not a perfect triangle and why is the triangle and everything surrounding the stamp text unique in each ballot image.
Yeah, this all makes sense. A high contrast outlining program would, unsurprisingly, not be able to detect black on black. This program did seem able to work with black on red, however.
People that see the generated images are think thinking that they are seeing the real thing instead of a schematic of the real thing.
Black ballot blocks (triangles) stamped with black ink? In none of the scanned images was the area in the triangle black.
Show me a single photo of a ballot where the triangle isn't solid black, along with the thick red text and the smaller solid red triangle as can be seen here, https://media.kjzz.org/s3fs-public/green-ballot-envelope-signature-20201013.jpg
I thought the reason for the scans was for archival purposes. A scanner just digitizes the color at each particular (x,y) location on the document (for the entire reference frame of the document). Image processing would have to be done to remove the inside part of the triangles. If the intent was for archive, one would never do additional image processing on the scan.
One might do image processing to allow a computer to recognize certain artifacts from the document, but these manipulation would be internal to the routine to find the signature block, for example, and it seems unlikely that it would be output.
You're right but they do do additional image processing, I don't know the reason why but it's clear they do, please read other comments on this thread for deeper explanations with proof of post processing, my brain is in agony at this point from reiterations xD
They wouldn't be stupid enough to store a manipulated image. Imagine if three weeks after the scan that a particular abnormality is discovered. If the pure scan is stored you can go back and look at it. If a processed image was stored, then the data which they need to look at might no longer be available.
If one is doing image processing/detection, then they would always want to use the best, full representation of the data as input to the algorithm. The auditors were not the corner-cutting type, they were the type that would do things correctly even if it took more time.
hahahahahaha nice try. 10/10 for effort. But swing and miss.
pepega
So you're saying that people who spent 2 months and had access to physical ballots, doing the work of their life and being experts in their area for dozens of years have made such a stupid mistake?
I would rather assume your pseudo-theory here ("debunk") is fake and made up by shills.
Not a single person on the audit team claimed it was photoshop layering... sigh
All Shiva said was that it was odd and he wants to know the answer, did you even watch the audit report or do you just read forum posts?
It's not true. It's not all what Shiva said.
Yes, I watched all the presentations.
He said - "I would consider it CRITICAL ANOMALY" https://www.azleg.gov/videoplayer/?clientID=6361162879&eventID=2021091005 Watch: 32:40 - 33:10
I encourage everyone to watch and check yourself. Also watch the whole presentation when he is sharing his short bio and experience. Then decide whom to trust.
CRITICAL ANOMALY.
I agree that it is a critical anomaly that needs an explanation. If OP is correct about the printing [reproduction] algorithm "whiting out" parts of a ballot where a certain width of ink is used, then my question is: Would a signature made with a sharpie ink pen also get "whited out"?
Transcript =
"We also saw stamps of verified and approved in blank signature regions and ill share with you those, what's more interesting, i'd consider this a potentially critical annomaly is that we saw the verified and approved stamps appearing behind the envelopes and i'll show you this, it's almost as though it was imaged on there or.. i don't wanna say, you know photoshopped but put on there but it's quite fascinating i'm sure there's some explanation for this."
I have provided the rough explanation without the actual code that was removing the solid chunks and only re-creating outlines, Shiva said it was imaged on there because it was, during the re-creation of the ballot using the data from the scanned image. He actually specifically states that it was IMAGED ON THERE and that he DOESN'T want to say by using photoshop and he's sure there's some explanation....
but go on and keep spreading photoshopgate so everyone can see the screenshots of approved ballots with no signatures, the critical detail that Shiva was pointing out in this section of the presentation.
The explanation Shiva had in mind was: FRAUD, otherwise he wouldn't call it a CRITICAL ANOMALY.
You didn't get the sarcasm for "explanation".
Also what you're saying at the end is critical is not what Siva is saying is critical. Read the transcript you've just posted. "Behind" is critical.
Semantics make for excellent bait i'm done for today my brain hurts. Read other comments on my thread please.