TechDude showed that certain pixel deviations "fit" with certain proposed texts. I've seen nothing to show that such apparent fits could not happen by coincidence. Further, TechDude's blog doesn't show non-marked magnified versions of the areas where he is drawing his inferences so as to make clear why he is drawing them, nor does he do a good job of explaining what enhancements were performed on the image prior to analysis.
I’ve seen nothing to show that such apparent fits could not happen by coincidence.
***Coincidence? That’s fascinating. What are the chances that the stars align tonight and spell out the words, “Obama’s Birth Certificate is a Forgery”? About the same as the chances of random specks lining up in such a way as to spell Obama’s sister’s name. If you’re so convinced, then log onto techdude’s blog and take issue with him. But what you write is an example of what Cicero called ” aspernatio rationalis”. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2055569/posts?page=134#134
True. But Polarik proved it a forgery weeks ago.