Replies

I wonder what Polarik might have to add to enlighten us?

Let's try this again.

Good grief, what don't I have? These bird-brains dissed some of my early analyses thatare as true today as they were two months ago. Of course, they gave us the old line about the gray pixel halos being only "artifacts from the scanner." Yeah, right.

Here's what I've found on FactCheck's original SCAN that do not match their counterparts on this "new" COLB PHOTO, and/or on my 2007 COLB photos and images:

WRONG PATTERN AND DEFINITION OF BORDERS ON SCAN

WRONG SHAPE AND CONSISTENCY OF BORDERS ON SCAN

WRONG LOCATION OF SIGNATURE STAMP ON SCAN

NEARLY INVISIBLE SIGNATURE STAMP ON SCAN

WRONG IMPRESSION OF SIGNATURE STAMP ON SCAN

WRONG LOCATION OF DATE STAMP ON PHOTO

DATE STAMP TOO FAR FROM BOTTOM OF SEAL ON PHOTO

EMBOSSED SEAL IS MUCH LARGER ON PHOTO

EMBOSSED SEAL IS CLEARLY DEFINED ON PHOTO

ONE BARELY VISIBLE FOLD ON SCAN

WRONG LOCATION OF LOWER FOLD ON PHOTO

"ANY ALTERATIONS..." TOO WIDE ON SCAN

More to come. Stay tuned..