I’m just going to say one thing about this debunking. I have the same concerns I had with the Polarik(sp?) analysis. Many of the things some are looking at, such as image artifacts, etc are not the best to use and can actually lead you to a false conclusion when you are dealing with an image of an image. In this case, this is supposedly a copy of a document > scanned > uploaded. That is three layers of ‘processing’ through computer programs that can add in these artifacts or other oddities. Those kind of ‘proofs’ only really work on an original, not a copy of a copy of a copy.
If you want to debunk this, focus on factual issues or things like the infamous “Buckhead” discovery regarding fonts that aren’t correct (non existent for the time, etc).
Playing around in Photoshop or Illustrator only reveal oddities that may have been put there though the multiple scanning and copying processes.
Thank you. A voice of reason.
It makes me cringe to know that many non-FReepers are reading these posts and laughing their butts off at some of the ignorance, delusion, and rabid conspiracy. I’m embarrassed for those who don’t have the sense to be so for themselves.
Ugh.