Replies

First: AJStrata is very confused. And way over his head. And evidently unable to admit it, in what is becoming a funny yet funny-sad way.

It seems to me that it is almost beyond any doubt that the Obama birth certificate is a forgery. And that all the other evidence presented either does NOT change that presumption or adds to it. What other evidence?

(1) That the cert # is blacked out.

(2) That the cert reads "Filed on" instead of "accepted on."

(3) The very stonewalling itself is an evidence -- why hasn't the campaign provided a reasonable high resolution version of the document, or better yet, authorized the HI DOS to release all pertinent records? After all, they do claim they provided something. The way the 1st amendment woks, as I understand, is that once a witness starts talking about a subject he just can't tell a part of the story, he has to tell the whole story, the whole truth.

The general rule is that it is wise for a reasonable person to take the blatant failure to provide a whole fact, as evidence that the partial fact that was presented does NOT accurately represent the whole. Why? Otherwise the whole fact would have been presented. The common saying on this ancient wisdom is "Put your best foot forward." That is, if one stocking has holes or stains in it, or one shoe is falling apart, make sure to stand or sit so that the good stocking and shoe show.

* * *

So then, what did you mean when you said "the preponderance of evidence"? What stack of evidence is so ponderous? What is it, what are they?

AJ says:

there is no way from an image to detect whether HI prints the background, borders and BC specific information all at once, or whether the background and borders are pre-printed on stock paper. Digital images cannot tell you that, only the original can.

That's wrong, I'm pretty certain. At least speaking as a non-expert, but just a educated person, I'd think that yes you can tell what was printed by one type of printer and what by another, what kind of printer was used and even make a good guess about what the ink was and what the paper used was. Even from a digital image. Why? Because you have repeating patterns and you can do an ensemble analysis and get orders of magnitude better resolution than the pixel count would indicate. Again -- I'm no expert!

No such thing has been proven or established. The BC on Obama’s website might well be legitimate, in fact the preponderance of evidence points in that direction.

Preponderance of evidence? Such as?

The FACT that the form is different than other known good copies of the same data and revision number?

The FACT that the border on the alleged BC IS ON A DIFFERENT LAYER in the posted document's image file?

The FACT that a host of artifacts in the posted "blank document" exactly match the alleged BHO BC?

The FACT that document has different text in the form than known good documents?

The FACT that the time and location of birth just happen to be EXACTLY the same as on the posted 'fill in the blanks and make your own' "blank document".

What koolaid drinker are you trusting for the Gospel Truth here?

Trust me on this one, when someone asks you to ignore the evidence of your own eyes, they are up to no good.