You have mistaken the intent of Polarik’s post. He is not endorsing these views. I beleive that he is merely assmebling the observations of others. He has told me that he cannot form ANY opinion on the authenticity of the document without another like it, of known provenance, that can be used for valid comparison.
Do you mean at #4121 where he says “However, the bottom line is that it’s another BOGUS BIRTH DOCUMENT. It’s not a birth certificate at all.”
“He has told me that he cannot form ANY opinion on the authenticity of the document without another like it”
Sorry, it looked to me as if he supported those views.
You are right, if it not consistent with other known copies it’s validity would be in serious doubt.
The only analysis he, and I, could do is what we observe from the picture. To get much beyond that would take expert analysis (have no idea what his level of expertise is) of the original document (paper, type, & indication of alteration).
It would seem, to me at least, to be silly to go to that much trouble (especially since the document in question doesn’t seem to be readily available) when other avenues, that would remove all doubt, are readily available... Or at least should be.
The best wall to get this all sorted out is to get it into court and see who has what.
What would you estimate is the likelihood of being able to reverse engineer a suitably fictitious document, with dates that correspond roughly with timeline of key events as currently revealed?
He has told me that he cannot form ANY opinion on the authenticity of the document without another like it, of known provenance, that can be used for valid comparison.
John, I agree with you almost 100% of the time, but on this, you are mistaken. Polarik clearly called this document a forgery (in bold text, no less) in his very first post to this thread.
I had seen his post earlier in the thread, and didn't comment, but Horry's reply to Polarik made me go back and take another look.
If you look at Polarik's statement, it doesn't even include one iota of digital image analysis, which is what he's built his reputation on here.
I've got to say that I'm mighty disappointed in Polarik for prematurely stating that this document is a forgery before issuing a complete finished report. I told him so tonight, as a matter of fact.