"Not controversial thats for sure, maybe you should read both sides thats all, what could be wrong with that?"
Your comment could be taken in more than one way. And you seem to have been taking all of my comments lately in a negitive way...So I was not sure what to think. I do read many sides. And I don't post everything that I read here if it does not seem apropiate. For instance I have read the latest over at Top secret and they are of the conclusion that the code does not exsist on the video. Since I am sure that SP does not make things up or commit hoax's then this leaves many other possibilitys that they are not even considering over at TS.
1. The copy SP obtained is not the same exact one they are using at TS.
2. SP used a ceartin software that it showed up on.
And a couple of other possible answers that I will not state.
In matters like this I try to post only facts that I am sure about. I don't much like posting rummors that don't consider all the possibilites. If I do then I will state them as such. They think they have a conclusive answer over at TS, But it is full of holes...Other possibilites remain.
As far as #1, it is the same video. I grabbed the video off the original site posted at Jill's, and the video posted at TS is the exact same thing as well.
As far as #2, this is a possibility. The method I used only broke the video up into some ~3,600 frames.. Someone here mentioned that SP had broken it to 55,000 frames (which seems excessive, but possible I suppose).
freepmail
But I don't get what proof there is that TS conclusions are full of holes?
We could ask them to log on here to get their opinions?