,
12 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
1n #Thread on @the_hindu & #Rafale. Thanks Paneerselvam, before i thought it was a case if shoddy journalism, now since you made me do a forensic analysis, I know now that it's a case of ACTIVE & DELIBERATE lying. First up here are the @ANI & @the_hindu images side by side. 
2n the last date we know for a fact on the Hindu's version is 1st December 2015. Because even though the Hindu cropped the date, the note was stamped and dates on this day as the ANI document proves
3n now notice. It's not just the bottom cropped out, but also the side date stamps showing at what date, who processed the document . Ask yourself WHY???
4n very simple. Because the correlating date stamp on the right of the allegedly "incriminating" paragraph is from 20th January 2016. Now, what else has happened in this document PRIOR to 20/1/2016?
5n ooops!!! It's Parikkar's note! Written on? 11th January 2016!!!
6n now ask yourself why did N Ram cut the signature of the Defence Secretary out at the bottom? WHY AT THAT EXACT SPOT? Because that marking shows the designations of the person who has RECEIVED & COMMENTED on the file. In this case RM @manoharparrikar
7n till now, what we have can be explained away circumstantially as "the source manipulated the document, we did not". But now comes proof that @the_hindu fudged the document.
8n what does this show? Image 1 a noting on 24/11/2015 which PRECEDES the Defence Secretary's 1/12/2015 "incriminating" noting. Yet!!! Which means the Hindu airbrushed it out as it falls WITHIN THE BORDERS of the fax sent, even if one assumes the fax didn't include side stamps
9n individually each omission is suspicious, but collectively we have 2 croppings & 1 airbrushing. Parikkar's note was cropped, the side stamps were cropped & even if you assumr that the cropping was legit, HOW DO YOU explain a time stamp that SHOULD have been within the ....
10n the margins by the time the Hindu claims to have got the copy isn't? We now have to consider if @the_hindu
1) Deliberately lied OR
2) it's fact checkers were incompetent OR
3) it's Readers Editor is a brainless hack who even post facto can't analyse time stamps/images OR...
1) Deliberately lied OR
2) it's fact checkers were incompetent OR
3) it's Readers Editor is a brainless hack who even post facto can't analyse time stamps/images OR...
11n
4) ALL OF THE ABOVE
You choose
On the day I alleged unethical behaviour, I did not tweet #CropItLikeTheHindu, because I thought they had been had by a source. But today I do, because thanks to its apologia, I am now convinced they knew.
4) ALL OF THE ABOVE
You choose
On the day I alleged unethical behaviour, I did not tweet #CropItLikeTheHindu, because I thought they had been had by a source. But today I do, because thanks to its apologia, I am now convinced they knew.
12n and this thread just keeps growing thanks to all of you alert folks on SM. This shows further deliberate, malign intent. Here you can see CLEAR UNAMBIGUOUS PROOF of a shoddy airbrush job
