Replies

“(1) He has at hand a number of copies over the years of HI COLB form. He was aware of the issues of variant forms.”

Then he ought to post them all to make his case. If he nows the forms varied, then that knocks down the ‘its a forgery because its different from the decost 2002 form’ theory. Until that time, his assertions remain just assertions.

“The KOS COLB document image he examined was NOT a raw scanned image “

This is a strawman argument. Nobody said it wasnt. Its known the original went through photshop to blank out the cert #s.

He ought to do the same analysis on the Factcheck.org scan.

Given his position as a certified Forensic examiner, it may be he cannot release all of them, because he received as a matter of special trust.

The changes he notes when beyond the mere blanking out of the cert number in photo editing software. Besides exactly WHY was the cert number blacked out in photoshop? Better to scan it with a post-it note/tape over the number -- that way there is no post-scan editing that really ruins the "chain of custody".

How do you know this:

is fake?

It's all on one layer so it must be true, right?

OK. I'm guessing you know it's fake (You do, don't you?)

How?

Besides that fact that the subject matter is ridiculous, you probably noticed that the scale of the bunny and Rachel's heads are different.

If you looked closely, you might be able to discern that the bunny image has a higher resolution (pixel density, if you will) and a different aspect ratio than the Corrie head.

That tells you instantly that it is a photo(shop)montage.

The chunking of the images varies across the whole image.

Compare to:

bvw ~ "(2) The KOS COLB document image he examined was NOT a raw scanned image -- by doing statistical analysis on the image data chunking in the file (that's my read on what his forensics are) techdude was able to determine that just about everything in that image -- except perhaps the background, had been modified after the raw scan."

In plain English, this means that the background was made at one resolution, the border at another, the text at yet another (several others depending on which block of text) and the magic seal at still yet another.

Yet you very credulously insist its all good...

Why is that?