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.
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.