P F Tinmore,
et al,
You simply cannot make that level of a determination based on these images. The quality is not good enough.
(COMMENT)
First, you cannot tell if the staples are in the document, or removed. You see an imprint of stapling, but the coloration of the imprints suggests the staples were removed and the shadowing appears.
If you zoom in on the image of the first staple mark, you will notice that the accent bar intersects the imprint of the staple. I say imprint, because where they intersect forms a box much like a number sign "#" with a definite square in the center. If the staple was still in the cover, you would not see the two vertical lines go through the staple imprint.
Second, you cannot tell if the document was in a pressed glass evidence case, or merely laid on the glass as is. Usually exhibits are encased; you simply cannot tell in this case due to the resolution. However, if the document was encased, it would flatten the creases and the text would be straight.
Third you cannot evaluated the exact cause of the damage in the right-upper-right side of the document. That is, you don't know if the actually captured document was an original print, or a photocopy of a damaged print to start with
(which is very probably given the images we see). Many such documents found in counterinsurgency operations are copies of copies.
The vertical shadow to the left of the staples, which runs vertically down the length of the page, is NOT a fold mark. It is usually an image outcome of a dirty print roller (many of you may have experienced that on your own printers, but it is very common among heavily used printers and copiers). This suggests that it is not an original but a copy (how many generations we do not know).
Immediately to the right of the first and second staple imprint, there is an obvious "blacker-than-black" elongated/stretched right triangle that runs from the upper righthand corner to just below the second staple imprint. This does not appear to be a fold that would alter the image of the paper. If you look immediately to the right of the second staple imprint, you will see a "white shadow" running through the black zone diagonally from left to right. This actually shows that there is paper still there and a definite edge of the paper. Again, this indicates that it was a copy, and highly suggests there was excess ink on the roller.
----------------------------------------------------------------
What you do see that is different is:
The first image has evidence of staples imprints, the second image has none. There are a number of ways to account for this, but it is an anomaly seen at this resolution. One way, of course, is that the second image was not a page stapled together with the cover. We simply do not have enough information on how the evidence was collected. It could be the case that both images were found on a computer as individually scanned documents. We just don't know.
The first image appears to be very centered; not unusual for document covers. The second image is, more than noticeably, off the horizontal center, but on vertical center. Again, this could be accounted for in a number of different ways, but more often then not, suggests that the document was a copy of a copy that was at some point scanned.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The suggestion that it is an IDF forgery is unfounded. There are anomalies, yes, but we simply do not have enough information on where and how the documents were found, and what processing they underwent before they were scanned and presented on the
IDF Website. The amateur sleuths and conspiracy theorist are always in abundance to challenge anything and everything to fit their agenda. But I'm hear to tell you, that based on that presentation, I am not convinced. While the presentation was interesting, any real squint or Question Documents professional would blow him out of the water.
There is simply insufficient information to suggest that the material is anything other than what it is represented to be.
Most Respectfully,
R
