[MHGinTN]

You're not too beight are ya, Charley? I answered that issue in my post. It is an anomolous ommission by the OCR scan which was but one of the layers used to fabricate the composite. The 'conspiracy' revolves around the issuing of a fabrciated composite as if it were an authentic scan of a single on-file document.

No wonder you spend so much verbiage on these threads. You can't keep up!

[CharlesWayneCT]

OK, let's go with that one: The 'conspiracy' revolves around the issuing of a fabrciated composite as if it were an authentic scan of a single on-file document.

Who do YOU think made the fabricated composite?

And why do you dismiss those who have stated that they scaned a document and got the same kinds of layers with the same kinds of OCR anomalies on some layers as you see here? What is your reason for asserting that it is a fabricated composite, and not an authentic scan of a single document?

And why do you use the words "scan of an online document"? We don't scan online documents. If the documents are online, they don't need to be scaned.

But really, what we need to start with is who you think it is that built this fabricated composite scan.