Not to come across as uninformed, but did not one of our own Freepers prove Rather’s Burkett docs were forgeries based on online images alone? That is my understanding, anyway. Am I missing the point, and/or comparing apples to oranges?
The same has happened in disproving Obama; the difference is that no politicians are going to defend Dan Rather and CBS for passing off a forgery, but they will defend one of their own ... and evidently go to great lengths to do so, even across party lines.
Not to come across as uninformed, but did not one of our own Freepers prove Rather’s Burkett docs were forgeries based on online images alone? That is my understanding, anyway. Am I missing the point, and/or comparing apples to oranges?
_____________________________________________________________________________
I am not familiar with the Dan Rather forgeries. I am familiar with digital photography and my conclusions are based on my own review after being pointed to the issues by entries here and at P&E.
With the explosion of high resolution photography and with HD screens for computers and powerful tools like photoshop it now possible to construct almost any document or image to be placed on a document in a computer. The work in the computer can be extremely precise and look amazingly authentic on the screen. And if it looks good on the screen it will look amazingly good in print. Why? Because print is still relatively ‘low resolution’. This is why it is so easy for forge things nowadays and why the dollar bills had to be changed.
Given what I just indicated above. It is almost amazing the sloppiness of what is shown with the Daily KOS image and the Factcheck photos.
Lets start with the Daily KOS very high resolution image. It has unique and distinct smugs or dots in that image. While Polland says that this image is not a scan, somewhere a scan, likely of an authetic COLB was done. The smugs, and dots are likely just ‘scanner dust’ captured during that process. That original scan was heavily manipulated to create the Daily KOS image. I believe Polland is 100% correct in saying that is not a native scan image. In fact the image was verified as being last processed by Adobe Photoshope Mac C3.
Factcheck photos 2, 5 and 6 show signs of coming directly from that ‘image’. The same small elements are present. Even their exact source is no consequence. They map precisely to the same anomalies in the DK image. It is like birth marks. Those printed documents come from the DK image - NOT, I REPEAT WITH A DOUBT, NOT from a actual COLB. These are confirmed photos of fraudulent documents.
Add in that FC#3 has no seal and that FC#9 could not have made the bleed through in other photos or the DK image and you have further verifiable proof of fraud.