Edge919 This paragraph pretty much sums it up. This falls under the “too good to be true” category. Follow the timing by overcomplicating the explanation, which is just intended to confuse enough people to create doubt about Zullo’s investigation. Even with the multiple blogposts worth of “explanations,” there’s a problem if there was ANY kind of manipulation after the original scan. And there’s a second problem when the layers and manipulations can be EASILY explained by the process of creating a PDF from a digitally fabricated documented, such as through InDesign and then converted to PDF. Nothing offered in the new explanations can rule that out.
True, nothing can rule out manipulations that mimic a Xerox WorkCentre, but that is not at issue right now. What I have shown is that the claim of forgery was based on what is known as argument from ignorance: we do not know how it could have happened so it must have been forger. What I have shown is how simple processes explain most if not all of the artifacts. This of course complicates any meaningful forgery claims. One can hand wave that a real forger could have done this while at the same time arguing that the forger is both incompetent and a master forger.
But the workflow explains it so much better without the need of ad hoc explanations. That’s what makes it so powerful: A simple workflow that explains it all, versus an ad hoc explanation involving some forger(s).
So shall we see where the evidence leads us, or are we committed to never accepting that the artifacts needed not have involved a forger?
As to Zullo, he complicated his own ‘investigation’ by ignoring the tell tale signs of Mixed Raster Compression and is now reaping the rewards. If he and his posse had only followed the leads… So far I have been not too impressed by what his ‘experts’ found. Are you? What impresses you? I am curious.