Scans in a pig's eye (2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008a, 2008b, & 2008c) All real. All original. Sorry...no "fringe" benefits. Well...let's compare apples to oranges. It would help to point out the difference in resolution between the images that you claim are scans (I believe you and that they are scans) and the published Zero image (still being debated). Of course the published image looks crappy compared to the the images in your post! (That's post 307, above.)
Questions:
(1) Is this "problem" of green/halo in the "scan" really even an issue? (or is it more likely a black hole that should have been avoided from the start?)
(2) If it is, isn't it the LEAST important COLB authenticity issue?
No one can prove that the image hasn't been manipulated. It just isn't logically possible.
The corolary: Anyone can claim an image has been manipulated, and be relatively safe from disproof.
You’ve almost twisted the issue around enough to fit the Alinsky methodology, but you missed a thing or two: Polarik has shown why the document is to be considered a forgery. You tried to twist it around to ‘can’t prove a negative’ but in reality an expert like Polarik can show why it is not a valid document. And his assessment has been seconded by an FBI document expert now retired who has also stated the document is unacceptable as proof of anything! Go read a few of obamanoid ‘mlo’ posts reagrding the agreement of the now registered with the Keyes suit retired FBI expert azs she affirmed that Polarik’s work has shown the docuemtn to be suspect.