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.
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.