re: #553 Charles

Yep, they changed it a little bit - apparently just enough to fool some people into believing it isn’t related.

I don’t know who has been arguing that these images are not “related”. Can you point to one or two comments that imply that the images are not related (as opposed to not identical?)

They obviously *are* related (indirectly) - and the FAQ at the 9-12 site confirms that - thank you for unearthing that.

All I’m saying is that they are not the same image (i.e. your statement). Others here have said the same , and they have gotten your downdings for daring to.

This is not the attitude of the Charles Johnson of Rathergate - it’s a new, defensive attitude.