I haven't finished with Neil Ferguson, but this is more pressing and relevant to something I've just discussed above. I came across a reminder of this abortion issue from March.
Humza Yousaf commits to introducing abortion up to birth and sex-selective abortion in Scotland
https://righttolife.org.uk/news/humza-y ... o-scotland
Humza Yousaf, who is running to be the next First Minister of Scotland, has committed to removing abortion from the criminal law, which would introduce abortion on demand, for any reason, up to birth in Scotland – along with legalising sex-selective abortion.
The three candidates for the next First Minister of Scotland were approached by campaign group, Back Off Scotland, asking them whether they supported three changes to abortion legislation. Back Off Scotland is the Scottish arm of the Back Off campaign, which is run by the UK’s largest abortion provider, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS).
The third of the three proposed law changes is “removing abortion from the criminal law”.
Humza Yousaf then announced on Twitter that he would support all three changes, including “bringing forward decriminalisation proposals in current parliament term”.
Now, if you look back to the previous page, you will know I'm already very dubious about Scottish First Minister, Humza Yousaf. I suspect he is using race-swap makeup and is in fact white, but also, there is some indication there is a gender-swap going on. As I noted earlier, I think he wears made-to-measure suits designed to give the illusion of a longer body. That being the case, it points to Humza possibly being female, because women have shorter upper bodies than men. Which in itself has a bearing on the abortion issue he is pushing. And I think we have a right to know if this is a woman wanting to cut babies in half.
Note, every time I type this stuff, there is part of me thinking I've entered la-la-land. But the point of a magic trick is to do something that is so absurdly improbable it is dismissed as being impossible. In these pages, only if I've seen a proof of concept that something exists do I then use it in my consideration to explain what we might be observing.
So, looking at some pictures of Humza, I noticed the standard motion blur/depth-of-field blur they add to politician's hands so you can't get a good look at them. They do it a lot, it's another one of those indications that not all is as it seems, because otherwise, why bother adding a selective blur to the hands?
So I saw this picture, and I thought, there is something odd about that hand, have they replaced the original?
That seems a very awkward bend at the wrist, it doesn't look attached to the arm correctly.
So I thought I'd stick it in fotoforensics and see if there is any indication it has been replaced. And guess what...
I know what that result says to me. See the post above regarding my tests on AI created images.
https://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php? ... 8&show=ela
I'll have to do some tests on raw images saved from a camera to examine their footprint. But if this is a real world picture it suggests there is zero editing at all on it and it's been saved out from a raw file. But against this premise, there is no EXIF data, camera model, shutter speed, etc. But we do have a fair amount of data to do with who it is and where it was apparently taken. Also, it is unheard of for a photographer not to adjust contrast levels and add sharpening to a finished image, but these would show in the ELA.
There is some information in the String data of interest:- "JPEG APP13: Photoshop 3.0". It confused me a little as the Towers were still standing when Photoshop 3 was out. But checking, what I can say, the image was saved from an application that uses the Photoshop 3 de-facto standard. Further, this application is not Photoshop or an Adobe product as there is no reference to recent Adobe application numbering. I'm more and more convinced regarding what this actually indicates. We are getting to the stage where politicians are no longer required, they can all be AI generated. And this is why there was no pushback to lockdowns, because there is nobody there. This is also why they need the pandemic excuse for politicians appearing on screen only. There is going to be another pandemic with a permanent lockdown as soon as the WHO: International Health Regulations (IHR)
is made international law.