So why did it take until 6 days ago for them to come up with this FactCheck.org detail when this issue has been stewing on the net since mid-June? And why the delay, too, when the certificate was prepared on June 6, 2007?
I'm still puzzled by the fact that the border pattern doesn't match another document of the same version (OHSM 1.1 Rev 11/01), but the information provided is very persuasive.
The fact that the EXIF data shows the photos were taken in March is interesting, but seems like a bit of straw-grasping, since that timestamp depends on the camera's clock being set correctly.
I'm still puzzled by the fact that the border pattern doesn't match another document of the same version (OHSM 1.1 Rev 11/01), but the information provided is very persuasive.
The fact that the EXIF data shows the photos were taken in March is interesting, but seems like a bit of straw-grasping, since that timestamp depends on the camera's clock being set correctly.