[usmcobra]

What it demonstrates is that there are no missing green pixels. The green between the letters is exactly what should be expected once you take into account the background and the fringe around the letters.

if you start with an image with a halo and you paste a copy of that same image along with it's halo how could you not get anything but an image with a halo?

the two BIRTH's are identical right down to the exact same grey pixels in the bottom of the B and the top of the R.

You have proved for us what I have suspected all along the entire text was first typed out on a white background , selected where the white halo would still appear around the entire text because of the small size of the lettering and pasted intact onto a blank form.

[Polarik]

Give a troll enough rope, and he’ll hang himself. But, only after we tell them how to make the noose first. Trolls are so-o-o dumb.

[mlo]

"if you start with an image with a halo and you paste a copy of that same image along with it's halo how could you not get anything but an image with a halo?"

You are missing the point. Remember, Polarik does NOT say the halo is the sign of forgery. I specifically asked him that.

He says there are missing green pixels between the letters, between the halos, and that these missing green pixels prove forgery.

What I did was select the letters and the halo, but NOT the space between them, and paste them onto an otherwise clear part of the background. From that I got an image with green pixels in the same places, and missing from the same places, that Polarik says were forged. It disproves his contention that there were missing green pixels. The green pixels look just like they should look.