>>If his analysis is flawed, then you should be able to say how.
>
>A digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is a forgery.
It CAN be used to determine if the image itself was manipulated/created. In that case, the digital picture is suspect [in regards to the original].
Because there is nothing other than the digital image with which to work it DOES make sense to question the authenticity of the source (that is verify it).
Just the fact that the document was scanned makes it manipulated. If the scanned product is cropped to exclude everything but the document itself, it is manipulated again. If the image resolution is changed, it is manipulated, etc. That is why no one who understands the process would attempt to pass off the kind of analysis that Polarik has done as legitimate.
Because there is nothing other than the digital image with which to work it DOES make sense to question the authenticity of the source (that is verify it).
Question by all means, but don't make stuff up if you want to be credible.