You work has proven no less than one undeniable fact: The Obama campaign published a forged COLB on their “Fight the Smears” site. (and for the hundredth time - why and what is he hiding???)
Koyaan - whatever Factcheck is trying to undo with the latest “real” Obama COLB just cannot be treated with any credibility whatsoever. If they faked it once, there is no doubt that they are capable of trying to do a better job of covering their hind ends with a better “fake”.
Phil Berg may be a loony Clinton supporter, but he certainly makes one, very powerful point in one of his latest interviews. To quote his exact words:
“Sen. Obama really owes it to everyone to confront this. He should threaten me. “Berg,” he should say, “here are the documents and, if you do not withdraw the suit, I will sue you.” Right now, he has no basis to sue me. If he does have the documents, he should show them, and I’ll walk away. I’ll withdraw the case. But, again, he must show me a certified vault copy of his birth certificate and must show me a certified copy of the oath of allegiance taken between the time he was 19 to 21 at a Consulate, U.S. Embassy or the like. If those documents can be presented, again, I’m out of here. But I don’t think he can, I don’t think he will, and I think it is a total disgrace on his part.”
For the love of God, Allah, or who or whatever the hell Obama may worship, JUST RELEASE A GENUINE, CERTIFIED VAULT COPY OF THE REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE(s) AND STOP PLAYING STUPID GAMES WITH THESE COLB'S AND GET THIS CRAP OVER WITH! Because it ain't going away until this happens.
I've yet to see any credible evidence that it was faked the first time.
I will say however that in spite of my being critical of the so-called "analysis" showing it to be fake, I have had one lingering question about the Obama COLB. And that was the border pattern. It was unlike any of the two other border patterns that were known to exist.
And I must thank Polarik for finally putting that one nagging question I had to rest. He did so by way of the first image he shows in his post. In that image, he shows another COLB which has the same border pattern as the Obama COLB.
And speaking of that image, I would like to address what Polarik claims it reveals.
To wit:
Furthermore, the two vertical borders on each side of the FactCheck COLB image were not drawn as long, parallel rectangles, but as divergent ones! When comparing them to real 2007 borders, the border on the left side went from being narrow at the base to being wider at the top. Conversely, the border on the left side went from being wider at the base to being narrower at the top. These disparities show up when the FactCheck COLB is made semi-transparent and laid on top of a genuine 2007 COLB image (as shown below).
I assume he meant left side and right side instead of left side and left side. However in any case, this is absolutely incorrect. The two vertical sides of the border in the FactCheck image are not divergent.
They only appear at first glance to be divergent due to the underlying border of the "new 2007 COLB" being skewed counterclockwise. The width of the border in the FactCheck image is the same at the bottom as it is at the top. There is no divergence.
So now the question is whether this image was produced due to laziness or incompetence, or was it done in order to intentionally mislead readers into believing something about the FactCheck border which simply wasn't true?
Given what Polarik had said on my blog back around mid-August regarding deskewing borders before comparing them, the latter would seem to be the case here.
Please remember to deskew them counter-clockwise...
You didn’t deskew the borders.
So why didn't Polarik deskew the borders in this instance? It seems rather obvious that he didn't do this because it would have shown a much better match between the FactCheck image and the "new 2007 COLB" than he wanted to portray to readers here.
And finally I'll note once again that Polarik still hasn't offered an explanation as to why he claimed that the date stamp is never placed above the signature stamp on any existing COLBs when he knew this wasn't true.
Do any of you reading this actually care whether or not what Polarik claims is true? Or do you unquestioningly accept that it is true because it's something you want to be true?
As I said previously, I'm neither a Democrat nor will I be voting for Obama. But if you're going to make a case against Obama, or anyone else for that matter, it should be based on fact, and not lies, misrepresentations or fabrications. Otherwise, you'll find yourself showing up at a gunfight without so much as a pea shooter.
k