In any case, filming a photoshop doesn't prove it's not a photoshop. It makes no sense for John to do this, there's zero motive that makes sense.

Interesting that so many are so quick to treat John as guilty until proven innocent, very similar to those who dont know the difference between a coin they don't like and don't want to to do well and a coin that actually isn't going to do well.

People like Jamie Dimon is this way on Bitcoin, just like all those people saying Ripple will never get to $1 because "it's impossible" because they hate Ripple were proved wrong and all it took was 3 days, and where are they now? Oh could never get to $5 it could never get to $10. That's impossible. Or Doge, where I was told over and over that it would never and could never anywhere near 100 sats mere days before it took off from 18 and is now nearly 80 sats. Again, what they mean, is they dont WANT it to reach those figures.

This is what happens when you allow your feelings to be confused with facts. When you're this biased it means you wouldn't even be right EVEN IF John really doing dodgy stuff, just as you wouldn't be right if Ripple couldn't get to $1. Why? For the same reason if you win the lottery you weren't "right" when you decided to pick those numbers, you didn't "know" those numbers were going to come up and the worst thing a gambler can have is the belief that they have a some mystical or illogical system and then experience a win or two. Sometimes winning is the worst thing that can happen to you and that's much more likely when you set yourself to be wrong.

Everytime Ripple went down they'd say SEE I TOLD YOU, and look where it is. Everytime Bitcoin goes down they say SEE LOOK BITCOIN IS FAILING and then they ignore every time it goes up.Everything that appears to accord with your bias becomes further support you'll think you're right, and everything that doesn't is ignored.

If you are biased to seeing the glass half empty or half full you are effectively blind.

With this McAfee thing you have already proven you're blind, because even if McAfee is doing this for some reason, you were willing to believe it with next to no evidence without logic. You also are willing to believe it against the evidence part of which is the lack of comprehensible motive you ignored as well as ignoring the fact that there is various comprehensible motives to fake it. Even if someone is guilty, it doesn't make you right to have not treated the accusations with skepticism and reason. When you treat someone as guilty before proven innocent you're not validated if they turn out to be guilty. If you believe something based on no evidence you cant retroactively validate belief in it when you had no evidence.