Replies

This author is factually correct on every one of his points, and as a computer software engineer with experience in creating imaging software I agree 100% with his conclusions.

He has presented his arguments elegantly and coherently, with video and photo proof.

Show us proof of your statements or STFU

If he was factually correct on every one of his points, and I am "full of shit," as you eloquently and professionally claim, then you will EASILY be able to factually and convincingly refute every single one of my follow up posts regarding many of his points.

In some of those points, I have indisputably proven that he is factually INCORRECT, and (therefore) so are you.

In others, I have merely demonstrated that his point is less than convincing, and therefore, his "proof" is NOT proof, but a dubious theory.

1) See post #144 for indisputable visual proof that the text on the typed certificate curves downward at left, and is not straight as the author erroneously claims.

Swordmaker attempts to dispute this fact in post 168, and while he makes a couple of excellent observations, he fails to disprove the claim, and my reply, which deals with his objections and further strengthens the claim, is in post # 174. See also 186.

2) For a disproof of the "the fact that it has layers means it's a fraud" theory, see post # 147.

3) For a REFERENCE to the failure of the "to the pixel duplication of characters means that it was edited by a human" theory, see post # 153. William Tell posts a follow-up in 163.

In fact, the evidence supplied by William Tell & Gleon (we now have earlier-posted, known-scanned documents such as "Alice in Wonderland" at Google Books that show the exact same effects in character duplication AND different pixel sizes in the same document) now shows that we have good evidence of the exact opposite: that these effects imply the result of a machine process.

I have not, to this point, typed up the proof of that, but anyone can investigate for themselves and see that it's so.

4) For a disproof of the "kerning" hypothesis popularized by Karl Denninger, see post # 161. For further discussion of the point, see 173 and 184.

5) A disproof of the "certificate number means the document is a fraud" theory begins in post # 165. See also 166, 167, 182, and 190, where I produce visual proof of the point. Unfortunately, I made a couple of mistakes along the way, erroneously reporting Waidelich's birth date as August 6, and the document-filed date as August 6. We now know from the visual and publicly-reported evidence that he was born on the 5th, and the certificate was filed by the Registrar on Tuesday the 8th. I was basically corrected by TheCipher in post 204, and have taken my beating for that in post 254.

As for whether or not the certificate is forgery, I cannot at this point tell you. I am 100% willing to believe that it's a forgery, if anybody can provide proof of the fact. I can also tell you a bit about how a forgery would have been done.

It would have to have been done with the collusion of the Hawaii Department of Health.

It would have to have been done at least at the resolution of the high-resolution document, not at the resolution of the PDF.

The layers in the PDF have nothing to do with any such forgery; it would have to have been done before the layers ever entered into the equation.

It would have to have been done in such a way as to accurately simulate the subtle curving of the text at the left of the page. This is not easy, and would have to have been the work of someone who was careful to the level of being a professional.

It would have to have been done in such a way as to keep the typewritten letters authentic to those on other certificates of the era.

Now, having pinged everybody to where I've basically proven the points I've made, I will heed the advice of my wife that I need to do other things with my time (I am trying to stay off of here for the next day or two), and will let you guys further discuss things as much as you like.