Posted By:
davidkevin
I don’t get how placing the thin layer of the back of a card over a printed image proves anything other then you ruined a t206. And I assume the printed image was the exact same ink, applied to t206 stock and used the application method as the united cigars stamp, correct? You know the types of controls that make experiments valid. The believers in this card still have not provided a rational explanation as to how the stamp appears OVER the back damage. Am I really suppose to believe that a rouge printer/paper maker randomly stamped the back of a thin layer of paper which was then used to make the paper stock of a card which then just then happens to be on the fully printed back of a t206, stamp fully shown. This is not a printer’s scrap or a proof, for such random acts to be plausible. There are no proof lines and the card is not hand cut. There are too many 'just' statements for this to be a plausible scenario.