> "Hah," you exclaim. "You can just look at the pixels. There is always a way to tell if you look close enough." No I do not. And that claim is simply wrong. T

> "Hah," you exclaim. "You can just look at the pixels. There is always a way to tell if you look close enough." No I do not. And that claim is simply wrong. There's often a way to tell, not always. Nobody today thinks photographs are absolutely convincing proof anymore. Experts who detect altered photographs do NOT say nonsense like "always a way to tell". Yeah, we'll adapt, but the adaptation is going to be rough. A simple point is: my comment above is part of the adaptation process.