Layers might not be evidence of forgery, but multiple pixelations (image resolutions) certainly are. Here is a blowup of the signatures of Dunham and Sinclair:
It is obvious that the signatures are not from the same scan. The document is a composite and therefore a FRAUD.
ML/NJ
There are not multiple image resolutions in what you provided or in the original PDF at the WH web site. There are the same number of pixels per inch in both signatures. If you examine both signatures in their entirety, you’ll see that the ‘A’ in “Ann” and the ‘D’ in “Dunham” appear just as “pixelated” as the ‘D’ in “David.”
Using different pens, inks, and/or pressure when signing names on the same document can and will result in lighter or darker signatures, which will result in exactly what you see. (It will do the same thing if the document is faxed.) Each pixel has an RGB (Red-Green-Black) value determined by the imaging software that digitized the document. Darker, fatter, heavier signatures (as parts of SAD’s are) can result in higher black values in the corresponding pixels. Lighter and thinner signatures can have lower black values.
Anyone who continues to maintain that the offered Obama long form BC is authentic ought to have his head examined. There are dozens of indicators pointing to forgery. For goodness sake, it doesn't even have a copy of the embossed official state seal on it and the rubber stamp that was used has a spelling error in it.
Anyone who continues to maintain that the offered Obama long form BC is authentic ought to have his head examined. There are dozens of indicators pointing to forgery. For goodness sake, it doesn't even have a copy of the embossed official state seal on it and the rubber stamp that was used has a spelling error in it.
