Reply #12: My Point Is

[IAMREALITY]

Sure, It's one way it could've been done, but so is this:

dim b
dim b1

b1 = sum(b) + 3893

b=b1

My point is there are a billion coding examples. The chance that this one, or the one in the original post for that matter, are indicative in any way as to what really happened is nill. Sure it looks impressive, there are a lot of mathlike looking numbers, but if this was ever released to the media, investigators, or professors, they would laugh at it.

I also don't understand why it matters to see 1 of a billion examples, as I don't think anyone questioned in the first place that code could in fact be changed to alter a result. Did any of us actually believe (before this post) that code couldn't be changed? Or that it wouldn't be that easy to alter? I don't know, everybody is entitlted to enjoy whatever posts they want, and if it helped you to see the issue better then that's great. My take on it is simply that WhiteKnight's post, though good, was just a way to show off that he knows how to program. Of course you all may see it differently and are entitled, but I was entitled to that take on it. Any programmer could come up with a similar code example quite quickly, and there is really no genius to it. I will give WK credit though that it was well thought out and a good code example. But convince me as you may I still don't in any way see it as relevant in the slightest to the overall investigations of the Fraud of 2004.

But that's just my take on it :)


:hi: