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.
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.
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