Originally Posted by Pawnmower
I mean has anyone with a working knowledge of photoshop/adobe/images come forward to defend this document or do we just have the JAJAJAJAJAAJAJAAJAJ crowd with some emoticons tossed in??
I have far more than a working knowledge, hell my first major project written in C (WAY back in 1991) was an image editor/viewer. I won't necessarily defend the PDF file but I will say that the "evidence" presented to discredit it is not at all accurate and (at least based on the youtube videos) I can explain away the so called "anomalies".
Let's examine the process just a bit.
The paper doc is scanned. Now this alone presents a ton of questions...what settings, what software, what image format? Now was it scanned directly as a PDF or did it the image then get converted or printed as a PDF? This is where I stop... because there are more than enough variables for me to be able to reproduce the same results with a legit doc. The problem with the YouTube videos are that they fail to follow the CORRECT procedure which is to TRY to recreate the doc itself... not to create one differently, then point out what is different and claim FRAUD.