[palmer]

Then you'll have absolutely no difficulty in explaining exactly why, after spending many hours producing a lower-resolution forgery PDF, somebody also spent even more hours producing a high-resolution forgery as well.

That could be explained by reversing the order. The forgery, if there was one, was done on white background (unlike many of the theories floating around this place). Then it was reduced, blurred somewhat and copied onto the green hash paper in a final step (similar to the normal process of printing the scanned original onto new green hash paper).

A logical question would then be, why release the high res, plain paper forgery when it could lead people to the process used to make the final forgery?

[Jeff Winston]

That could be explained by reversing the order. The forgery, if there was one, was done on white background (unlike many of the theories floating around this place). Then it was reduced, blurred somewhat and copied onto the green hash paper in a final step (similar to the normal process of printing the scanned original onto new green hash paper).

I don't think it can be explained by reversing the order, at least not without invalidating the claim that the layers weren't created by machine. See the thinking in post 147.

In other words, the theory requires a disproof of the very thing it's trying to prove.

Either way, the layers-means-fraud theory collapses.

[Jeff Winston]

A logical question would then be, why release the high res, plain paper forgery when it could lead people to the process used to make the final forgery?

And that very question is another reason why the layers-means-fraud theory collapses.