[Polarik]

Publicity is key. We both know it is a forgery. Others’ speculating and reporting that it is a forgery, regardless of the precision of their particular technical analysis (or lack thereof) is welcome.

I agree that publicity is needed, but the problems are that (1) faulty research is being publicized, and (2) much more is required than the precision of one's analysis.

The difficulty to replicate his work is one factor that casts a dark shadow on his results, as are the facts that run counter to his theory.

The reason why replication and validation are critical here, is because if any part of his work is disproved, then the entire process for finding forgeries is permanently damaged.

This is a case of one bad apple spoiling the whole bunch.

[pissant]

I do not agree that the barrel is spoiled. Techdude has some good analysis along with his not so good analysis. It certainly is not helpful to claim to find Maya’s name there if no one else can replicate it, but if Techdude’s continued analysis helps publicize the fact that it is a forgery, then good.

Similar to the NE and Edwards. Even if the ‘lovechild’ is not Silky’s, the fact is the Enquirer KNEW they were having an affair, and the term lovechild, accurate or not, helped publicize the story. So they may have got some of the details wrong, they still nailed him.

I assumed the COLB was a fake even before your analysis proved it based on two things: The crappy way the border misaligned, and the fact that it did not look like any scanned document I’ve ever seen, rather it looked like it was created via computer. That would not be possible since the DOH does not email such documents and would therefore have had to be a scanned jpeg, which it wasn’t.