Replies

I’ve stepped right into nothing. I’m looking at what has been put forth, and questioning the significance of the visible information contained within the image.

It’s no different from the laughable, gold-plated “analysis” from a now-discredited psychologist who apparently loves to take on spurious online identities to manipulate people, who had no discernable knowledge regarding file formats used in the graphic arts, despite presenting himself as possessing an advanced degree that would require such knowledge. I’m talking about Ronald Polland, of Florida. I’m not going to use any FR screen name, because I don’t even want to ping the b-tard, even though he’s opused and claims never to sign on again, under that FR screen name.

You accepted that, hook line and sinker. Do you know for a fact, that this image, at it’s base, is somehow a “forgery?” No, you don’t. You won’t know that until the subject of the photo of the scan is presented, and even then there is reason for suspicion.

This sort of crap is the reason I’ve tried to avoid any discussion directly relating to the whole, nonsensical “birth certificate” thing. It’s an intentional house of mirrors, filled with smoke, that’s gotten a lot of otherwise decent, intelligent people, such as yourself, stuck to a deliberate tarbaby, at the expense of applying the considerable knowledge and resources of FR to the known facts of the matter, relating directly to Constitutional eligibility, instead of some tangential snipe hunt.

Now, I apologize for the rant. You and I have had quite reasonable, even entertaining exchanges before, but you and I have had some that weren’t, back in the fall of last year, regarding this very online persona.

I told myself then, that I was quitting the “birth certificate” thing, to concentrate on the Constitutional aspect, and I should have listened to myself, this time.

But, I didn’t, and here we are, again.

Good luck, with whatever it is, that you hope to prove, with a JPEG of a photo of a scan of whatever it is you believe it to be.

You spittle out, as if somekind of authority: "You accepted that, hook line and sinker. Do you know for a fact, that this image, at it’s base, is somehow a “forgery?” No, you don’t." Um, yes oabamnoid, I do know it was a forgery, a layering of data to build a jpg which lacked the raised seal identity of an authentic CoLB when enlarged to the max. And because this was caught by folks like Polarik, the subsequent images of the same forgery had added to them a visible raised seal. But the false date of June 2007 remained on all the earlier forgeries you seem to want FR to embrace! You've outed yourself, Obamanoid!

Odd that you revert to assassinating Polarik's character when you avoid the FACT that there was no raised seal on the forgery as first represented by Obam's website, Daily KOS, and factcheck.

Your loyalties are coming more into focus as you work stealthily to shore up the lies of Barry Soetoro and his henchghouls. Attack Polarik all you like, but his work in exposing the forgeries has been verified as accurate. That must really frost your obamanoid butt. ZDoes it show on your messiah's face when he's told of it?