[cynwoody]

I can't recall ever seeing antialiasing in a laser printed document. Since even the cheapest laser printer is going to be in the 600 dpi range, to be able to see it you you need a scanned image at least twice that resolution or in the range of 15,000 pixels per side.

Just for fun, I scanned several print samples at 1200 dpi. It turns out that laser-printed text looks pretty good at high magnification. Here they are:

HP Laser Printer

Epson Ink Jet Printer

Bureau of Engraving and Printing

All three samples look pretty crisp to the naked eye. I was surprised at the poor quality of the ink jet output.

[dalight]

All three samples look pretty crisp to the naked eye. I was surprised at the poor quality of the ink jet output.

The processes that use ink experience some amount of bleed due to capillary action whereas the Laser Printer uses an electrostatic process to cause the toner particles to stick to the paper and this is fused (melted) to the paper with heat.

[dalight]

Frankly, this is why Stata's analysis is so off of the mark because he has focused on the letters rather than the anti-fraud markings behind them. The zone of disturbance around the text in all of these images is huge.

Anti-aliasing reflects what is printed but not what is not printed such that you wouldn't see a band of disturbance extending well beyond the letters in the background image because the background image is green on white vs the black on white of the lettering. Any anti-aliasing effects in the background would be uniform across the whole image. This is clearly not the case.

This is all well documented in Polarik's posts at Townhall.com

Was Obama's "Certificate of Birth" manufactured?

I don't see anything in Strata's commentary that deals with this in any substantial way.