Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: InterceptPoint
This has been addressed elsewhere, but to prevent confusion I would like you to review this post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307402/posts?page=1482#1482.

The basis for doubting the authenticity of the Australian document is not whether PE removes sections, but the actual side by side of the elements. Please give me your professional opinion. Thanks
1,994 posted on 08/04/2009 3:22:39 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the occupation media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1967 | View Replies ]


To: PA Engineer
The basis for doubting the authenticity of the Australian document is not whether PE removes sections, but the actual side by side of the elements. Please give me your professional opinion. Thanks

I'm not sure what you mean by "side by side of the elements". The Photoshop Elements routine that was used just tries to break the image apart along what look (to a Photoshop software programmer) as lines in the jpeg. I don't think there is anything meaningful to be learned by that. But I could be wrong.

As to Post 1482 I have looked at that part of the Australian BC in Photoshop. There is no doubt that the printed "Deputy" looks like it is a layer above the a signature layer that was not blended properly nor merged properly. This would be pretty good evidence of a fake if it weren't for the fact that the signature is clearly on top of the printed word "registrar". That's very strange. The "Deputy" looks as fake as it can be. And "registrar" looks good as gold. Go figure. I don't know what to make of it.

2,030 posted on 08/04/2009 6:28:35 PM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1994 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson