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.
“So, since it’s inconvenient, let’s just sweep the AP document under the rug.” JW
Since it is irrelevant to what the White House is responsible for publishing, ignore it. It proves nothing. It is clearly at least a second generation copy, an d not a color scan of one of the 2 originals hand carried back from Hawaii by Obama’s personal lawyer. It has a white background.
Now, your link to youtube was a decent attempt at analysis- but still has issues. (He did not do a color scan and his samples did not have security background. He also uses OCR to explain away color aberrations, and we all know no OCR was performed.
The Nathan Goulding scan was worthless.
The AP pdf could be many things, but one thing it is not - a fIle the WH is responsible for publishing.