The two main autopens that I generally run into have completely different characteristics. They are: a) Too good and b) Too bad signatures. In this article, I am going to go over the type of autopen that produces the “bad” signatures. You can tell this type of autopen by closely examining the signature for specific “stopping” points in the machine. When the machine is programmed, it has to learn the entire signature, so that means that each loop needs to be considered by the machine. Think of it as plotting out the signature on a very fine piece of graph paper. Then, connect the dots.
That's the point I was trying to make. Obama's autopen signs perfect copies of Obama's signature and is one of the "too good" ones he describes. There are several dozen of them on the Internet. But, the second signature, the one that does not follow the loops, the one that makes horrible loops, and the one that is totally made up of individual pixels: THAT was made by man, and not by machine.
I know what an autopen does: it is exactly like a plotter, and if someone cannot tell the difference between raster graphics and a vector graphics is not going to know the difference.
I maintain that what's shown on WND's letter is an added graphic of Obama's signature, irrespective of who or what made the signature. Same-same for the Seal. How exactly does one get an alleged ENLARGEMENT of the Seal on that letter look perfectly formed and raised, with absolutely no distress marks in the paper? How does one take a photo of a letter that looks perfect in every respect, when it's not?