…in a box. Faster, please.
So I was looking at this thread from a few months ago, and realized that I hadn’t replied to a few comments. First, my apologies to Joe Triscari — I did indeed mistake his comment for Matula’s. But I’m amused by the people who thought that they’d uncovered a key clue to the fraud:
Just wondering why the paper looks wrinkled while the typed “content” doesn’t appear to follow any of the irregularities.
…the most damning evidence is something called “topical distortion”. All of those odd shadows in the background are from what appears to be crumpled and then smoothed paper. These small folds where the paper was crumpled should cause distortions in the smooth lines of the fonts but there are none … zero! Not on the big curves, not on the bold blocks and not on the thin lines. No distortions of any kind. This can only mean that the wrinkled paper is an image separate from the text. Probably added in separately on another graphic layer or else printed on the paper as an image along with the text.
Anyone can see this simply by simply zooming in on the image … in IE8+ or FireFox3+ just hold the Ctrl key and then press the equals key (=) a few times to zoom in. Press Ctrl and zero (0) to return to normal. They will also see a lot of “artifacts” (white “glows”) around the letters which also strongly suggest layers were used to create the image.
Full disclosure (and this is the first time I’ve ever commented on the genesis of this document). I generated it in Open Office Writer, printed it out, crumpled it, and scanned it.
So much for “digital forensic analysis.”
[Update a couple minutes later]
In fact, in looking at it more closely, I do in fact see a little distortion of the top of the “T” in “Transcript.” So it’s maybe more a fail of the analyst than such analysis in general.
I’ve had people tell me in comments here, “no, no, no, the housing crisis had nothing to do with the government pressuring banks to make dodgy loans.” But they’re still doing it:
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez has argued that bankers who don’t make as many loans to blacks as whites (because they make lending decisions based on traditional lending criteria like credit scores, which tend to be higher among white applicants than black applicants) are engaged in a “form of discrimination and bigotry” as serious as “cross-burning.” Perez has compared bankers to “Klansmen,” and extracted settlements from banks “setting aside prime-rate mortgages for low-income blacks and Hispanics with blemished credit,” treating welfare “as valid income in mortgage applications” and providing “favorable interest rates and down-payment assistance for minority borrowers with weak credit,” notes Investors Business Daily.
This is what happens when every single high-level appointment to the Justice Department is a leftist.
If they think that this is going to earn them any sympathy, they shouldn’t expect it from me. I’ll bet that no one is allowed to wear yarmulkes, either, but you’d never see Orthodox Jews rioting over it. And shame on the New York Daily News for deceptive reporting.
You don’t say:
Usually, the WH will work out a date in private with the Speaker & Majority Leader before going public with a request.
Well, that’s only for those White Houses that aren’t occupied by the Sun King.
Obama’s lucky he’s been offered a joint session at all. There is nothing in the Constitution or law that requires Boehner to give him one. He could have told the president to pound sand, and give an Oval Office address. It’s not like he’s going to say anything new.
The latest edition is out. The lead story is launch pad logistics problems for SpaceX.
Just for the record, I think he’s an idiot, but Megan McArdle poses an interesting question — how do Barack Obama’s reelection chances stack up against Herbert Hoover’s?