[4woodenboats]

Dittos - when the topic of the fact check is a scan, reducing the size of the scan obviously makes it impossible for the intended audience to come to their own conclusions, and if they don't even inform said average reader of the change, it is simply not what it was, or currently described.

As the original scans offered for examination, the size/resolution is integral to the story, so an observance that "fact" check changed the size for financial reasons is absurd at best.

I'm just commenting on the undue riducule heaped upon Polarik on this thread. I haven't visited fact check in some time, as I consider them biased, ill informed amatuers, and appreciate FReepers who alert us to suspected fraud and manipulation, especially when the deceivers are hanging neon "Trust Me" signs on their storefronts.

[Polarik]

Dittos - when the topic of the fact check is a scan, reducing the size of the scan obviously makes it impossible for the intended audience to come to their own conclusions, and if they don't even inform said average reader of the change, it is simply not what it was, or currently described. As the original scans offered for examination, the size/resolution is integral to the story, so an observance that "fact" check changed the size for financial reasons is absurd at best.

I'm just commenting on the undue riducule heaped upon Polarik on this thread. I haven't visited fact check in some time, as I consider them biased, ill informed amatuers, and appreciate FReepers who alert us to suspected fraud and manipulation, especially when the deceivers are hanging neon "Trust Me" signs on their storefronts.

Thanks, 4woodenboats. I take their ridicule as a sign I'm on the right track. I did want to mention that if the FactCheck photos were reduced just to conserve bandwidth, then why did they remove the Exif data -- that Israel Insider blasted them about?