The Business Insider article about "red flags" contains only factual materials, but it's written in a way that implies stuff that is opposite of the facts, and then makes you click on the links to see the actual facts.
For example, it talks about how the shop owner forgot to scrub the metadata of the pictures, but the meta data shows where they were taken. This implies that photos of Biden smoking crack were photoshopped at the site of the shop.
You don't see the facts regarding the metadata until you click through to their source, which is, you guessed it, a Twitter post. And, when you look at that twitter post, you realize that the "photos" are of the Subpoena to appear before a grand jury
So, since the subpoena was sent to the shop, of course the photo is likely to be taken at the shop. This actually gives credibility to the story, and it is not in any way a red flag.
The only other place it talks about metadata is regarding the .pdf documents that Giuliani sent. They show that he compiled this info almost a year ago, and then didn't release it until now.
Once again, this matches 100% with what Giuliani has been saying on his video podcast. He said he has had the documents, and is waiting for the FBI to act on them (since they have them also). It's only because of the corrupt FBI refusing to act that he's decided to release them.
Libs of course, read the headline only, or the headline and then see the word "metadata" and let their own minds fill in the rest of the details. When you talk to them, they believe that the metadata disproves the story.
My wife told me this morning that the emails were disproved by metadata. She's beyond hope. Sadly, she's just one of millions. She refuses to discuss politics with me because I challenge her on stuff like this and use facts. I don't really know what to do.
Thanks for the analysis. I've seen this exact tactic used in relation to other stories. Citing real facts but relating them in misleading or logically fallacious ways.
About your wife, maybe tell her that you've been thinking about the emails and she might be right. Then ask her to walk you through, step by step, how the emails were disproved by metadata.
Play dumb, like you're trying to understand the argument, but keep pointing out the inconsistencies.
Thanks I knew there had to be some fuckery going on because he was trying to claim the meta data was from 10/14/20 which makes no sense as that's when the info was dropped. The twitter post he referenced is claiming russia made everything up on 10/14/20 and leaked it which doesn't line up at all.
Well, then surely the Biden campaign will address each of these accusations explicitly and prove, or at least claim, that they are false. Maybe Joe Biden himself will even make a public statement (after his nap and pudding of course).
I assume they did that immediately, and I just missed it. All I saw was a short text denial with loopholes so big you could drive a truck thru them.
Not a good look if the libtards and the media are out in front of the Biden campaign itself with the coverup lies.
Libs are claiming the metadata on the emails is from recently so it's all false. Wth?
There is no metadata lol, the post published pdf's without the headers is all
I did some research on this.
The Business Insider article about "red flags" contains only factual materials, but it's written in a way that implies stuff that is opposite of the facts, and then makes you click on the links to see the actual facts.
For example, it talks about how the shop owner forgot to scrub the metadata of the pictures, but the meta data shows where they were taken. This implies that photos of Biden smoking crack were photoshopped at the site of the shop.
You don't see the facts regarding the metadata until you click through to their source, which is, you guessed it, a Twitter post. And, when you look at that twitter post, you realize that the "photos" are of the Subpoena to appear before a grand jury
So, since the subpoena was sent to the shop, of course the photo is likely to be taken at the shop. This actually gives credibility to the story, and it is not in any way a red flag.
The only other place it talks about metadata is regarding the .pdf documents that Giuliani sent. They show that he compiled this info almost a year ago, and then didn't release it until now.
Once again, this matches 100% with what Giuliani has been saying on his video podcast. He said he has had the documents, and is waiting for the FBI to act on them (since they have them also). It's only because of the corrupt FBI refusing to act that he's decided to release them.
Libs of course, read the headline only, or the headline and then see the word "metadata" and let their own minds fill in the rest of the details. When you talk to them, they believe that the metadata disproves the story.
My wife told me this morning that the emails were disproved by metadata. She's beyond hope. Sadly, she's just one of millions. She refuses to discuss politics with me because I challenge her on stuff like this and use facts. I don't really know what to do.
Thanks for the analysis. I've seen this exact tactic used in relation to other stories. Citing real facts but relating them in misleading or logically fallacious ways.
About your wife, maybe tell her that you've been thinking about the emails and she might be right. Then ask her to walk you through, step by step, how the emails were disproved by metadata.
Play dumb, like you're trying to understand the argument, but keep pointing out the inconsistencies.
This also works when people accuse you off being racist etc.
Ask for examples, play dumb, etc.
Discussions where you both present facts only works if both sides act in good faith. Sadly, the left has set it's supporters up to not do that.
I have the twitter image but I don't know how to post it here I'll PM it to yoj
Thanks I knew there had to be some fuckery going on because he was trying to claim the meta data was from 10/14/20 which makes no sense as that's when the info was dropped. The twitter post he referenced is claiming russia made everything up on 10/14/20 and leaked it which doesn't line up at all.
No what they're on about is manufacture date vs. warrantee date. Which is retarded because the warrantee doesn't start until the item is purchased.
Well, then surely the Biden campaign will address each of these accusations explicitly and prove, or at least claim, that they are false. Maybe Joe Biden himself will even make a public statement (after his nap and pudding of course).
I assume they did that immediately, and I just missed it. All I saw was a short text denial with loopholes so big you could drive a truck thru them.
Not a good look if the libtards and the media are out in front of the Biden campaign itself with the coverup lies.