The post explaining chromatic aberration can be seen two different ways. The first way is there is one set of ink, and it explains why it seemingly shifts from black to blue. The second way is that there are two sets of inks, and it explains why one of them looks looks despite both looking very similair in color when viewed straight on. I believe the later is the better explaination given all available evidence.During the recreations (refering to the photos in the above post) the part of the line that's out of focus because it's too close to the lens is light purple, then transitions to black the further away from the lens the lines go. The CNN photo doesn't do that. Well, it might. To my eyes it looks like the "D.A." and "House" looks closer to black than the "M" in Moore does. Now obviously I don't know enough about this effect, but it would make more sense if it went from light blue to black the further from the lens the writing was. And if it did go from black to blue I would expect the "D.A." and "House" to be a lighter shade of blue than the "M" in Moore. Conclusion: Without any more information it's most likely two sets inks, one of them going from blue to black.When I look at the highest resolution photo of a signiture head on to me it looks like two different inks to me. The effect is extremely subtle, and I have to turn the saturation full blast on my monitor to see it well. The way it looks to me the "R" in Roy is more like a shade of deep navy blue, and the "M" and "D.A." look like a shade of charcoal. The difference is so subtle that I doubt anyone would be ever be enough to overcome political biases alone. I'm sure many will call me crazy. pic: https://i.imgur.com/Aaq3zKe.png [off topic material removed]