Replies

Palmer, since you insist on being in the fray, won't you please read all the way to the end of this thread, then go back to 2000 and read the remainder if it. It does no good to squabble, if we are all on the same side. Where do you stand on this issue? What exactly are you trying to prove? Who are you defending?

We are a loosely associated group of independent CONSERVATIVE grassroots activists working together to expose government corruption, abuse, tyranny, unconstitutional expansion, or trampling on our rights, freedoms or liberty and it is our express intention to freely do this unimpeded and unrestricted by government or liberal intruders. DO NOT TREAD ON US!

If you don't support or agree with the work that has been done by the FReepers in this thread, then maybe you should stop hindering their progress, by continuing to defend the fraudulent BC.

Might I suggest that from here on out, we ignore any further postings from palmer in this matter and focus our attention to something more meaningful? I myself cannot wait to see Polarik's Part II report that will hopefully be published tomorrow!

Where do you stand on this issue? What exactly are you trying to prove? Who are you defending?

I've shown that Polarik was wrong about the border, specifically in post 42 in his thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2123682/posts?page=42#42 compared to the border here: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg (they are the same)

In the same post 42, Polarik claimed:
Once they shot the printout, they superimposed the Seal over the photo and used Photoshop to create various lighting effects to make the Seal stand out.
which I pointed out time after time was not possible. Finally by post 68 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2123682/posts?page=68#68 he admits:
The printout was embossed. Very easy to do with even a straight pin, ballpoint pen, or a regular engraver.

But it is certainly not easy to create an embossing with a pin or pen, although I said (many many times) that a forger could steal or create an embosser.

It is my effort that improved Polarik's efforts, no longer could he ignore that fact the factcheck documents were created differently (not just with photoshop, but requiring an actual seal pressed on a real piece of paper. I will repeat again, a forger could steal or create such a sealer, no doubt about it. But any analysis of a potential forgery must start with that the fact that the seal was created in reality not in photoshop.

Hopefully you can see that I am defending reality, not some person or party or political principle. I believe that this issue has been a major distraction and 6000 posts over 4 months could have produced a lot better quality work than it did.