All it takes is one feature that both the scan and the photo have in common but are represented differently
And that is, "The top fold on the FactCheck photo runs diagonal (left side of fold is 20 pixels further down than the right side of fold) while top fold on the FactCheck image runs perfectly horizontal with the top border."
Bye-bye, FactCheck
All it takes is one feature that both the scan and the photo have in common but are represented differently
***That’s enough for those of us who are familiar with the evidence. But there are thousands of lurkers who are trying to get a handle on this and if they only encounter one feature it might not be compelling enough. We need to find dozens, an overwhelming amount, so that the peanut gallery is quieted.
Very, very, very reluctantly I am going to disagree with you about the fold. I don’t know about counting pixels but I do know how to count the visible pattern in the background design made up of 2 horizontal lines and 2 vertical lines.
Using Photos 2 and 4 from the Fact Check site: The first row of pattern begins with the vertical lines meeting the border. There are 4 sets of verticals and 4 sets of horizontals down to the fold line. This is the same on the FC scan you have posted in your comparison to the other 2007 COLB.
The border is not printed straight in terms of the pattern because on the right side the pattern shows part of the the row that is just above the row that the border starts at on the left.
On the right side of the photo image there are 3.5 verticals until you hit the fold and also 3.5 horizontals. This is starting at the same row that was on the left side not including the little bit extra at the top by the border. On the scanned FC image the count is the same. So I am not convinced that the fold in the photo is “diagonal”. I really wish I was because I want you to be right.