The first pic in the article is the original resized, all other ones after that are the punked versions.
Consider this the outside edge of the folded paper would wear the worst over time, and yet the punk version shows no wear at all.
The only ones punked are those that believe this is the same document, close but no cigar.
It’s even take it a step farther, a 1940 royal typewriter was not used to make this forgery, various bit were cut and pasted in photoshop to make it appear real.the reason the rust spot is lighter in color is because it was grabbed off another picture and pasted into the document they created as was the signature, cut and pasted.
Of course the best proof of all is that they had to destroy the evidence by ripping it up and writing “You Have been punked” all over it, had it been the real thing showing it to the press in an unaltered form would have been real proof of a punk.
The first pic in the article is the original resized, all other ones after that are the punked versions.
I disagree that the first pic is the original resized. Resizing can explain the much larger file size, but an enlarged photo has LESS resolution not more, and Photo 1 has much higher resolution and much greater detail. You can’t make that stuff up out of a lower resolution photo (can you?).
*The seal is much crisper in Photo 1.
*There is pixelation at 100% around the text in the Orly/Pacer Photo, but no pixelation (or dithering or whatever its called) around the text in Photo 1.
*The text itself is much crisper in Photo 1: you can see the indents made by the typewriter.
*The color is deeper (or richer) on Photo 1 (though I don’t know if that is relevant).
On the rust spots, I agree that that Photos 2&4 are photos of different documents that Photo 1/Orly’s Photo. On Photos 2&4, the stain spot is different and you can see the typo. Thing is, the stain on Photo 1 and Orly’s photo covers the typo exactly. That’s all just coincidence?