How to Spot a Liar: The Case Against Amanda Carpenter

Danger and Play ^ | 3/27/2016 | MIKE CERNOVICH

[BlackFemaleArmyColonel]

Ted Cruz has been accused of having at least five mistresses, including CNN anchor and former Cruz employee Amanda Carpenter. The media claims Cruz has denied these accusations.

Cruz is lying, according to multiple trial lawyers and experts on persuasion. His lies are hard to spot, because his lies are also truthful.

Consider what Cruz said in response to the news story:

“Let me be clear this National Enquirer story is garbage. It is complete and utter lies. It is a tabloid smear and it is a smear that has come from Donald Trump and his henchmen.”

Let’s look at what Cruz did not say. Cruz could have said, “I have never cheated on my wife.” Why didn’t he?

Consider the oath witnesses take before testifying. “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Isn’t that redundant?

Ted Cruz is accused of having had an affair with five women. He could say, “That’s a lie. I did not have five mistresses.” If Cruz did have one mistress, then he’d have told the truth (he didn’t have five) but not the whole truth (he had one).

[PA Engineer]

Thanks. Interesting she cancelled today’s fund raising event. Odd. If she is out fund raising for her husband, that puts her in the race.

[over3Owithabrain]

Carpenter, for her part, is specifically defending herself on Twitter now after 3 days. She claims she has “never” cheated on her husband. She claims the whole staff was in on the April Fools tats. She was asked where are their tat pictures which is a great point. So far none have emerged.

She’s attacking and blaming Trump hard, saying he is the adulterer.

[over3Owithabrain]

One thing for sure, Carpenter is real confident there is no evidence or she is setting herself up for a huge fall.

[Aliska]

No, it would be on the exif which isn’t available. What I posted wasn’t the exif info which is digitized when the photo is taken. I know what kind of info to look for and what I got with my exif viewer wasn’t exif. Instagram won’t let you do anything to try to see if it is present either.

[BagCamAddict]

LOL Yes. That.

[Aliska]

The exif is recorded by your camera when you take the photo. When you take it into a photo editor, it is still there. I can read it in Photoshop on my own photos. There are ways to save that will strip the exif off plus some websites strip it off when uploaded.

There is another date time stamp with the exif data, if present, showing the date created on the machine as you say or the date modified. But the original creation date remains the same. (No, not quite, as explained below when I saved the photo to my desktop to see what would change in the exif, if anything).

Here goes formatting headache), a cute cupcake photo from my Canon EOS-20D which does not record GPS (some phones and newer cameras do).

Here is what exif data looks like. The Image Created was what the camera recorded when the photo was taken. The Image Generated and Image Digitized below info are the same, a little later from the time taken and were recorded by Photoshop when I processed the photo.

So I open the photo in Photoshop again and save it again to my desktop. The Image Created date and time are changed to today, but the Image Generated and Image Digitized info remain the same as when I processed the photo originally. The original camera date taken and time data are lost, but I keep all my original photos as shot in .CR2 (RAW) format in different folders and can recover that easily.

But I didn't know which date changed! I knew it also changed something if I move to another computer. Different cameras may have slightly different info.

File name: Cupcake_2_Go.jpg
File size: 140551 bytes (800x600, 2.3bpp, 10x)
EXIF Summary: 1/400s f/6.3 ISO400 100mm (35mm eq:160mm)

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 20D
Camera Software: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Photographer: unknown
Maximum Lens Aperture: f/4.0

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation: Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution: 72 dpi
Vertical Resolution: 72 dpi
Image Created: 2012:08:23 17:38:42
Exposure Time: 1/400 sec
F-Number: f/6.3
Exposure Program: Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating: 400
Lens Aperture: f/6.3
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Metering Mode: Pattern
Flash: No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length: 100.00 mm
Color Space Information: Uncalibrated
Image Width: 800
Image Height: 600
Rendering: Normal
Exposure Mode: Auto
White Balance: Auto
Scene Capture Type: Standard
Other Properties:

Resolution Unit: i
Exif IFD Pointer: 228
Compression Scheme: JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Horizontal Resolution: 72 dpi
Vertical Resolution: 72 dpi
Resolution Unit: i
Offset to JPEG SOI: 730
Bytes of JPEG Data: 8684
Exif Version: 2.21
Image Generated: 2012:08:23 17:28:13
Image Digitized: 2012:08:23 17:28:13
Shutter Speed: 1/400 sec
Focal Plane Horiz Resolution: 3959 dpi
Focal Plane Vert Resolution: 3959 dpi
Focal Plane Res Unit: i

[Ray76]

I know. The exif info posted however lacked nearly everything, IIRC the only info was create date, which was today.

I downloaded many copies of the hotel photo and all had the xif info stripped.

[Ray76]

This is the post I’m referring to.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3414573/posts?page=278#278

[jonrick46]

Spot on!

[Aliska]

We really need to be careful that nothing has been photoshopped.

Yes, and I'm not an expert at telling for certain that a photo has been altered unless it's a dead giveaway or there's something obvious about it. If that graphic of Amanda's children had their faces altered in a graphic editor such as Photoshop, and presented as real (to look like Ted's), it is downright mean and dishonest, and I wouldn't do it unless I included an explanation of what I did and why I did it.

I've created tons of graphics from photos where I altered them for artistic or creative purposes; most of it was allowed by the photo contributor or I used my own but some news photos, I suppose I should have gotten permission which would have most likely been denied. I never had an issue with it, and they are no longer on the web, but it's something to consider.

Maybe a lot of the unflattering graphics posted here of people many of us don't like from web photos would eventually bring trouble for copyright violation just as we can't post info from certain sources as it causes trouble for FR.

[Mechanicos]

http://www.gotquestions.org/Presbyterians.html

[Aliska]

Yes that one. Instead of getting a blank for the data which I usually get, I was surprised for the Picasa data to come up, but I was soon disappointed to realize that it wasn't the exif.

Now I have a lot of my son's iphone photos saved on my hd and when they started the GPS, it is on there. I warned him to turn it off but he didn't care. Just to learn how to do it, I plugged the coordinates on some website and got surprisingly close to where I know the photo had been taken.

[Ray76]

I think the hotel photo is flipped left-right.

In this CNN clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9_kimVFRsps#t=53

her hair is parted on her left. In the hotel photo her hair is parted on her right.

[Albion Wilde]

Ur precious Twitterspeak on FR is making no headway with voters who have actually read deeply about the candidates — all of them. CU

[NYRepublican72]

I think the hotel photo is flipped left-right.

Mirror shot. So that would absolutely happen.

[AuntB]

Also:

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/behavior-experts-ted-cruz-appears-deceptive-in-response-to-sex-scandal/
Experts: Ted Cruz Appears Deceptive in His Response to Sex Scandal Story

[Ray76]

Yup

[swampfox101]

Evidently you aren’t one of them or u wouldn’t be supporting the man that thinks your are a complete DA. Lol

[AllAmericanGirl44]

Much appreciated Albion.

Your last part written here is why I was unsure.
It’s a heads I win, tails you lose.

I’m disgusted with the den of snakes swarming all over DC.

[dforest]

Heidi is preparing her statement that she has joined the Trump campaign.