Why in the hell is it OK for FactCheck to get its hands on a copy of Obama's CoLB but NOT OK for an actual Court of Law to obtain a certified copy of the long form...??? Well....?
Excellent point, and one I also raised in reference to the real COLB that Michele sent me, "If a total stranger can do it, then why not Obama?"
FactCheck is Annenberg. Annenberg is linked to Obama and Ayers.
I'm not sure who's COLB Factcheck got its "hands" on, but my money is on FactCheck and Annenberg being the souce of all the forgeries, both scanned and photographed..
It should be no surprise that the offices of Annenberg were used for their phony photo shoot, so why not the scan as well.
Yep. FactCheck has both the means, the opportunity, and the motive for manufacturing Obama's COLB from someone else's scanned original.
I've said that FactCheck most likely made the other two copies of it and sent them to the Kos and FTS, respectively. In fact, I'd bet that they sent the Kos a copy that was already cropped, with Certificate Number redacted, and with a moderate increase in JPG compression, just so that they could release the "original scan" (just a less compressed version) when the time came for it.
Sure enough, that's exactly what they did. That's the reason why the same Exif data is in both copies.
Then they basically waited to see what sorts of responses they would receive on the Kos and FTS websites. However, they did't wait for long because they issued their "higher res" forgery copy on June 16.
What I'd like to know, for sure, is why they decided to do the photo shoot in mid-August after everyone else's research had been discredited.
I mean, I can make a compelling case for myself being the thorn in their side that prompted it because I kept pressing the issue, keeping it alive when they thought that they were in the clear, and that it had rolled over and died.
But, in reality, FactCheck, like so many of their dishonest breed, do really stupid things thinking that nobody is going to question them.
It's what they say that gave them away.
It should be no surprise that the offices of Annenberg were used for their phony photo shoot, so why not the scan as well. And it should REALLY be no surprise that as usual you're absolutely incorrect.
The photos were taken at Obama's campaign headquarters in Chicago. Not at Annenberg.
Here's a Chicago Sun Times article about Obama's new (at the time) headquarters:
Obama's new HQ has room to move
If you click on the image with "PHOTO GALLERY" above it, you'll find among the photos, this one, in which you can see the carpet pattern:
And here is photograph 3 from FactCheck's website. The gamma has been adjusted to bring out details from the very dark background of the original image.
As you can see, the carpeting is the same as that in Obama's campaign headquarters in Chicago.
Polarik's been trying to feed people similar nonsense for months, and sadly most people don't have the wherewithal to know any better.
I said previously that I'd wasted enough time on his nonsense, but since he decided to post in this thread and try feeding you even more nonsense, I thought I'd just give a quick example of how easy it is to shoot down this sh... stuff.