Hey gang,

Finally getting in after seeing the drops on qanon.pub at work today.

>>7535766 (Q PB) references a twat that talks about Comey being changed to Corney by changing the m to a really closely kerned r and n.

https://twitter.com/LizzyBelleFox/status/1204346472545882114?

>>7535884 (PB)

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

But it's not kerning. And the original document actually does have it written out correctly as Comey. Notice the m in pic 1 and the rm in pic 2. If the left half of the m was actually an r, it wouldn't curve downward toward the right half of the m (or n) the way it does.

The document isn't a direct PDF conversion. Instead, like many gov't docs, it's a scan of a printout. Scanners use OCR technology so that scanned text can be copied, read by screen readers etc. OCR technology isn't perfect and can sometimes yield misspellings or unusual results. Fortunately there is software that can be used to override the OCR auto-generated text where there is an error.

Most people would use that software to correct errors. I am convinced that it was used in the IG report to create the error. I have seen OCR text show m instead of rn (if the r and n are too close together and the scanner doesn't recognize the gap between them) but there is no way it would show rn instead of m.

MESSAGE SENT

MESSAGE RECEIVED

>>7542505

It's not kerning. You can try it yourself in Word. The font is Verdana. See pic related.

Line 1 is "Comey" with an "m".

Line 2 is "Corney" with the r and n squashed together.

Line 3 is "Corney" with default Word kerning.

Now go back to >>7542490 and look at the yellow highlighted sections.

In "Comey", if the first half was an "r", it wouldn't curve down the way it does.

>>7542555

Those m's look identical to me, subject to minor variation due to the fact that it's a low-resolution scan. Try and figure out which one of these is from "Comey" and which is from "document".

But even if you were correct that the original was printed as a squashed "rn", that's besides the point, because OCR is based on what the scanner thinks it is. If it looks like an "m" to the scanner, that's what the OCR text will say.

It would only go the other way (say "rn" instead of "m") if there was a visible gap between the first and second humps.