myurr wrote: ↑06 Mar 2024, 20:32
vorticism wrote: ↑06 Mar 2024, 19:46
Odd that you yourself were apparently willing to apparently snoop/creep on these purported names/identities yourself while claiming that this is in itself also a repugnant act. Shame on you? Regardless. You seem confident the jpegs are authentic.
When did I claim that?
I am confident the screenshots are authentic and have yet to see a single objective reason to believe they are fake.
When the images first leaked I leaned towards them being fake based off a pretty crude method, of of the CH selfies seemed to have all the hallmarks of being AI generated - nothing really strong about me opinions there but clear photo of CH and a soft out of focus background. Aware there are plenty of explanations filters, CH editing it, thats just how the cameras/phone took the image - though in general phone cameras do a decent job of keeping everything in focus (DSLR are obviously a very different story, as well as some photo software where you can control focus points and so on.). As well as the changing nature of the investigation first it was about controlling behavior with a specific part saying it was non sexual. A week or two later it turned into sexting ramp up the pressure. ALso aware how the some of the convo shows controlling behavior too.
I cam around to them being real though though a little of CH lack of real denial - again though who knoiws what hes been advised to say, as a company rep and legal advise can mean you can't always say what you would like. The email list it was being sent to as being a little too calculated. Again people with tech skills can easily find those things without much effort.
With the Saward article - and by all means I may be reading way too far into things and aware he has a bias/source and can only really tell what he knows. Anyway, get from that that the CH relationship with his PA is real - not that there was doubt there really. But his reference to ways to create a fake conversations is/was he indicating there are some real elements of the conversations and some that are generated/fake to ramp up the pressure against him. I guess it it just JS throwing a random theory out there that most on here have had or has be been hold something his article in general comes across as what hes been told/has some information on. Take into account too him saying the email list is highly confidential but people in tech enough know could manage it easily enough. Comes across a little told (well he indicates this) someone high up at RBGmbH in Austria . Go back on a second here too someone high up in RB GbmH would likely have the lawyers report too if his info on that is accurate. Maybe why he seems dismissive of the woman involved. Obviously just an opinion and maybe reading too much into it
It could be why CH can't deny the conversation there are parts of it that are obviously very very real, which means denials are pretty much impossible.
Add in the whole power struggle stuff etc.
