> They look trustworthy to me. parsy
Posted on 02/24/2010 6:02:13 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
Leni
They look trustworthy to me.
parsy
They look trustworthy to me.
parsy
And of course, none of the perps are new born babies attempting to put one over on the State of Texas.
I wonder if a bunch of them graduated from West Point, like Piggy Wiggy and his little friend on Oahu who chatted up the ladies at the DOH when it was closed.
Dr. Ron Polarik hasn’t been seen much in these parts since the outing.
The outing of what?
Sorry.
I meant: “Why aren’t dental records on your list?”
Did you just sign up to make these claims? Bam-the-flim-flam-man could in one instant really open up for all to see whatever it is he is hiding.... Obviously it matters a great deal to him to hide whatever it is he is hiding...
No need, Sherlock. That would be overkill.
We already have an imprint of his canines.
Well, one never knows. Even young, I hear the Kenyans are pretty sneaky.
But I hope people see my point on how these people like the author twist logic and law to get some twisted output.
If he had said simply, “Well, someone COULD have got one by fraud, so none of these COLBs can be taken at face value” most people would have seen right thru it. But NOOOOOO...He’s got to go sugar coat this big pile of manure so nobody will notice it. I kinda feel sorry for the birthers sometimes, being fed this plateful of doo-doo.
parsy, who thinks they swallow it all too fast
I know what you meant.
Forensic Examiner Says It's Bogus
| A second expert forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines has filed an affidavit [.pdf] associated with one of the lawsuits stating the following: 1. I am Sandra Ramsey Lines, With an address at... I am a former federal examiner and law enforcement officer. I began training as a forensic document examiner in 1991. I am a Certified Diplomat of Forensic Sciences, a member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, a member of the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and a member of the Questioned Document Subcommittee of the American Society of Testing and Materials. My background and credentials are set forth in Exhibit I attached hereto. 2. I have reviewed the attached affidavit [.pdf] posted on the internet from "Ron Polarik," who has declined to provide his name because of a number of death threats he has received. After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the "Daily Kos," the Obama Campaign, "Factcheck.org" and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document. 3. Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No. That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, "Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?" It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for obliterating it. 4. In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all. |
If you read carefully, Sandra Ramsey Lines doesn't validate his work at all. She says "Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm." What exactly are those issues? She says, "Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document." Plainly put, she "affirms" that the authenticity of a document published on the internet can't be established. period.
She also plainly affirms the “issues that Ron Polarik raises.” Those were her exact words were they not?
Knock it off!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.