Your original doesn't show that clearly at all. That original was on a very long thread yesterday with multiple discussion of the 47,044 # and the "E.F." I don't think there's any difference between the two you're showing here. The top one is just lower resolution.
Get some new glasses dude. the “k” is quite clear.
still defending I see
No. If you don’t know what resolution means you shouldn’t talk about it. The top image is smaller pixel dimensions, whereas the bottom image is enlarged and cropped (look at the red weave behind the paper). They are both the same low resolution (72 dpi), the top image is a PNG and the bottom is a JPG.
Neither of these images really matter though, all that matters is the paper document itself and where it came from.
I posted the original image on post #52 on the first thread on the Kenyan BC taken from the link on the thread. There does not seem to me to be any differences.
The claim of E.F. Lavender being K.F. Lavender is not the case. Both are E.F. As for the claim the font is Schmutz is someone's claim that has been pretty much debunked as the 4s on Schmutz are open but these are closed. As for the use of "O" for "0" (zero) many typewriters of the period did not have the numeral "1" or "0" and typists were trained to use the letter "l" and "O" for those numerals.
I can see the 47,644 on Calpernia’s original quite clearly.
saquin
This account has been banned or suspended.
Okay
-____________________________________
Is that Ozone I smell?