One last try, and I’m dropping all this again: I’m going to point out that the FReeper in question has been questionable all along, outside of FR, possibly Town Hall, and a few other blogs. He was being questioned and mocked last summer, because he had an odd habit of exploding whenever anyone questioned his blossoming resumé and his increasingly grandiose claims. His identity has now been disclosed, and his efforts were themselves an apparent fraud. He’s reportedly withdrawn from FR and ceased using the screen name in question, out of fear of being served a summons due to a lawsuit.
As far as the value of any, purported “forensics” on a JPEG, you should consider just why you believe anything to be genuine, within such an image, that you’ve deemed a forgery. “Bleed through” on a JPEG? Really? You accept that as genuine, because you were led to accept it as so. I work with PhotoShop myself, daily, and can tell you that it’s entirely possible to create such an image from whole cloth, given a reasonable amount of time to accomplish such a thing, but you accept that there is some paper original, that has been modified and therefore falsified. Think about that.
But, as far as the legalities of the matter are concerned, the visible, legible, printed information, presented as factual, contained within this JPEG image of a purported Hawaiian birth document poses another level of difficulty, if it’s falsified outright. Think about that, too.
So, looking at and questioning the significance of “African” on this thing is very likely more valid than following the lead of a now-known serial manipulator, a psychologist with a string of strange online efforts, such as being an “online dating expert,” who claimed at one point to have a PhD in typewriters.
Now, flame away with your patented, personal style. I’ve found it highly amusing, myself, whenever it’s not being directed at me. You’ve been wrong in doing so, whenever you have, though.
You make claims that I cannot possibly know the forgery is a forgery, yet I can easily refute your sycophantic whine with just a magnification which shows no raised seal on the first forgery placed on line for your messiah.
In contrast, hoosiermama put up an image of what she called a blank BC, but it is obvious it had data that was removed to make it look blank, yet the raised seal is visible when magnification is used on the jpg! You're here spinning for your disgusting affirmative action liar.
Now, spittle on and expose yourself some more, obot! Have a few more punches at that 'attack the source and misdirect from the object' methodology. You go out of the way to smear Polarik when he isn't the issue. And you know he's not the issue, so you're disgusting in the main.