/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9657733
So now you're saying the guy's a forensic expert? And he doesn't acknowledge MPG compression algorithm anomalies? Why isn't the original, hi-res footage shown? None of that video is original. Do I know better? Yes. If this idiot is not producing the original unedited (BTW... you do notice that this video was literally edited by your "expert," right?) footage, it's hard for me to acknowledge that he's not being sincere, and that makes it hard to believe he's a 'forensic' expert. He also uses an apostrophe to make "wire's" [sic] plural in his production video. That doesn't boost my confidence in hies education. I agree a typo doesn't make or break a paper, but in scientific processes, the author passes it around for review and correction. Another reason this guy's a pompous, lay idiot. He hasn't gotten serious review first. He had a metaphoric premature publishing.

>>9638465
Thank you for your unsolicited expert opinion.

>>9483028
>proof of cgi used