i am really not concerned with the AP LFCOLB. The WH LFCOLB is the one that I am concerned about.
However, I think it is possible to clean-up the WH LFCOLB - to create the AP LFCOLB.
My concern is that the WH LFCOLB has clear signs of human editing - and the layers are one of them.
Absence of an anomaly in the AP LFCOLB does not clear the issue of that anomaly occurring in the WH LFCOLB.
This is a clear example of you brushing aside evidence in an effort to white-wash the issue. Layering, as it appears in the WH LFCOLB does not happen without human intervention.
If you hold otherwise - SHOW the evidence. Using the WH LFCOLB or a process on a similar document create a similar nested but limited layering pattern. (You can’t.)
OBOT.
I've already given you the evidence. Nathan Goulding. You won't accept it.
Here's more. But I've no doubt that you won't accept that, either. Better to live in a world of your own creation than accept reality.
i am really not concerned with the AP LFCOLB. The WH LFCOLB is the one that I am concerned about.
So, since it's inconvenient, let's just sweep the AP document under the rug.
However, I think it is possible to clean-up the WH LFCOLB - to create the AP LFCOLB.
You're right. Throw in maybe a hundred hours or so of graphic editing, and it'll clean right up.
So your theory now is: First, someone spent a few dozen hours hand-creating a PDF forgery (instead of the obvious explanation that someone scanned a document in two minutes and got the same result Nathan Goulding and others have gotten).
Then, they spent, oh, maybe another hundred hours or so "cleaning up" the PDF document to produce a much better-quality document.
Then, they released BOTH documents to the public.
And if someone doesn't agree with the theory, they're a "troll."
OBOT.
Thanks for making my point: You'd rather devour your fellow conservatives, than accept reality.