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..
LOL! Paragraphs are our friends...
thanks, staying tuned!