Note that the last digit was scanned at a different resolution and contrast than the bulk of the document.
I cannot attest to the scanning resolution of a digit of the document.
We were told that the Department of Health created 2 copies of the document and it was given to a representative of the White House who flew to HI to pick it up. To me that means a printed copy.
If it is a printed copy of the document it will obscure any editing done by the Department of Health.
Now if it is scanned by Obozo’s techies there is another opportunity for manipulation. The document I saw was 100 dpi resolution and not that good of quality (the color version). The B/W version seemed cleaner, but I read that that document was created by the press from a printed handout they received at a briefing.
No one is going to accept an “abstract” as equivalent to a certified copy.
But ultimately it makes no difference, we are dealing with liars.
If the gang at Langley can't do better than that its no wonder that the intel we get is so damned poor. What a bunch of amateurs.
Your one post is proof solid.
The flat, B/W image versus the gray scale “1”.
That’s it.
End of debate.
Scanners can be set for:
Color OR GreyScale OR B/W.
Not two of the three.
Could this serial number be from another birth ? could they have used a birth certificate from another birth ?
If, as some have claimed, the final “1” in the serial number was simply not recognized by the OCR software as text, rather than some other graphic element, the question is why? The OCR software should not have had ANY problem with it, as it might if the number had been stamped on top of some other part of the image, such as one of the boundary lines, or if there had been a stain or smear in that spot. It looks as well defined and clear as any of the other characters.
Will the 1 get The One?
Do you think through degenerative scans you could produce a downward hooking serif from the rightmost 1 that resembles the leftmost 1?