The photos were digitally manipulated between when they were taken and when they were posted online. They added at least the seal, since it doesn’t “bend” when the page is folded but remains almost entirely round.
I’d love to see what Polarik has that would clarify. But back when I didn’t know whether to trust Polarik or not I did my own experiments with circles on the fold of a page at precisely the angles and perspective that the Factcheck photos have - using only what Factcheck itself was presenting to the world. From the experiments I did, there is no way that the seal they’ve got on that photo was there when they photographed the paper it’s supposedly on.
I’d like to know whether Polarik finds that they added the BC# also, or whether the BC# was actually on the paper they photographed.
Has anybody here been able to see Polarik’s videos? Does he address this?
I haven’t watched Polarik’s videos. I’ve never put a lot of trust in his work because he’s a little erratic and too quick to jump to conclusions that aren’t fully supported. I think he might be right about some things, but his methodology is shaky and his explanations are a little convoluted.
I still think the certificate number is the key to this whole thing. When you discovered that the cert number used to be part of the official index data (and still is in other states), you exposed the biggest evidence of collusion IMO. Unlike Spokesbabe Okubo’s nonsense comment that cert numbers could be used to hack their system, the HI DOH has no real reason not to release the index data for whoever that cert number belongs. Since they refuse, then it’s very certain that the number does NOT belong to Obama. This would have been the quickest and easiest way for them to prove Obama is legit and was truly born in Hawaii, but they can’t — WON’T — do it. You propose a good explanation of who that number really belongs to. If the truth ever comes out, a lot of people would be going to jail.
I’ll have to watch his video. His opinions changed over time. Your own experiments are probably as valid. Anybody with even passing experience with scanning documents knew immediately that the Daily Kos “scan” was questionable.
What I notice on the FactCheck photo that shows the document, on its side, on a table, with a bright light in the background, presumably to highlight the embossing on the seal: There are black, foreshortened blobs representing the lines of text on the far side of the COLB. Where are the black blobs to correspond with the father’s information? You can triangulate where they SHOULD BE, based upon the other photos and by counting down from the blobs representing the other lines of text. But there are no blobs for the father’s information. Where are they?