Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: tired_old_conservative

Actually, I would contest as a matter of fact, your statement that an image on the internet cannot be used as proof of fraud. I felt Polarik’s breakdown quite compelling, especially the last portion of his analysis, in which Factcheck’s photographs clearly show the text of the “COLB” not following the same angles as they should be. Also, pixelation issues/distortions, detailed color analysis... None of these discrepancies are explainable, thus far, except for an electronic manipulation of the data.

I agree with you on one point, however - Document fraud is a risky move to take.

I recommend reading this freeper post, for an answer to the “why would he do this question:”

Long story short- the docs he likely posesses, shows his COLB was applied for in a manner that doesn’t prove birthplace.

Common sense gave up the ghost long ago, in terms of Barry’s refusal to release his Birth Certifcate.

485 posted on 12/18/2009 1:05:19 PM PST by mills044 (God bless the 9/12 DC marchers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies ]

To: mills044
With all due respect, his own resume makes clear that Mr. Polarik has neither the specific education nor the kind of experience requisite for a forensic examination. There are detailed critiques available on the web as to why many of his conclusions are simply wrong, but I will simply stand with the obvious: No reputable forensic examiner would purport to state a definitive conclusion from examination of a second hand Internet image only (absent, of course laughable errors self-evident to the untrained). I've had to use such professional experts on multiple occasions, and that's not how it works. For obvious reasons.

And again, here is what most people see as common sense.

(1) When you request a standard birth certificate request, Hawaii issues a COLB.
(2) The COLB is an electronic printout of database information populated by the original source documentation.
(3) The data on a COLB printed out says whatever it says because that's what the original documentation said.
(4) The certificate Obama produced looks like what Hawaii issues.
(5) Hawaii isn't disputing it.

So from a common sense perspective, Obama produced a legal record of birth. A small segment of the population has gone over the top theorizing every answer but the obvious one staring them in the face, most likely because they emotionally will not accept the proposition that Obama can be President. So why should he waste any time on that? Nothing he produces will ever satisfy the people who want to see his baptism records.

486 posted on 12/18/2009 2:44:49 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson