IMO it's the same old forgery but now there's a faint impression of a seal - and Presto! Now we have a number...and the folds that were not there before have been carefully folded after the event.
Furthermore, if you go to the website (FACTCHECK-ANNENBERG!) and view the enlarged version, (see LHS) you'll see that the seal impression appears to have been made with a dry stamp - no ink.
I wonder what Polarik might have to add to enlighten us?
No number, no folds, no seal...
One real piece of additional information is the number 10641. I assume that the certificate number tells us that he was birth number 10641 in 1961—so how reasonable is that for August 4, 1961? Can we a get a July and later August certificate to bracket the number?
Yes. The seal is a metal model of the Seal of the State of _______.
It is impressed into the paper creating a crimped in pattern that is easy to see, easy to feel, and difficult to copy.
Interesting that the document number is in a larger and bolder typeface than all the other data entered on the document.
I suppose they could be pre-serialized.
I can’t help but think that someone overcompensated for hiding it in the first place, though...
good grief, what don't I have? These bird-brains dissed some of my early analyses thatare as true today as they were two months ago. Of course, they gave us the old line about the gray pixel halos being only "artifacts from the scanner." Yeah, right. Here's what I've found on FactCheck's original SCAN that do not match their counterparts on this "new" COLB PHOTO, and/or on my 2007 COLB photos and images: WRONG PATTERN AND DEFINITION OF BORDERS ON SCAN WRONG SHAPE AND CONSISTENCY OF BORDERS ON SCAN WRONG LOCATION OF SIGNATURE STAMP ON SCAN NEARLY INVISIBLE SIGNATURE STAMP ON SCAN WRONG IMPRESSION OF SIGNATURE STAMP ON SCAN WRONG LOCATION OF DATE STAMP ON PHOTO DATE STAMP TOO FAR FROM BOTTOM OF SEAL ON PHOTO EMBOSSED SEAL IS MUCH LARGER ON PHOTO EMBOSSED SEAL IS CLEARLY DEFINED ON PHOTO ONE BARELY VISIBLE FOLD ON SCAN WRONG LOCATION OF LOWER FOLD ON PHOTO "ANY ALTERATIONS..." TOO WIDE ON SCAN More to come. Stay tuned..
Let's try this again.
Good grief, what don't I have? These bird-brains dissed some of my early analyses thatare as true today as they were two months ago. Of course, they gave us the old line about the gray pixel halos being only "artifacts from the scanner." Yeah, right.
Here's what I've found on FactCheck's original SCAN that do not match their counterparts on this "new" COLB PHOTO, and/or on my 2007 COLB photos and images:
WRONG PATTERN AND DEFINITION OF BORDERS ON SCAN
WRONG SHAPE AND CONSISTENCY OF BORDERS ON SCAN
WRONG LOCATION OF SIGNATURE STAMP ON SCAN
NEARLY INVISIBLE SIGNATURE STAMP ON SCAN
WRONG IMPRESSION OF SIGNATURE STAMP ON SCAN
WRONG LOCATION OF DATE STAMP ON PHOTO
DATE STAMP TOO FAR FROM BOTTOM OF SEAL ON PHOTO
EMBOSSED SEAL IS MUCH LARGER ON PHOTO
EMBOSSED SEAL IS CLEARLY DEFINED ON PHOTO
ONE BARELY VISIBLE FOLD ON SCAN
WRONG LOCATION OF LOWER FOLD ON PHOTO
"ANY ALTERATIONS..." TOO WIDE ON SCAN
More to come. Stay tuned..