Replies

Here's the rebuttal to AJ that I was composing before I saw yours.

It might provide you with some additional ideas for Part II.

-------------Rebuttal to AJStrata's strident statements----------

First, never trust a guy who cannot even spell your name correctly. It's POLARIK, not POLIRAK, Einstein. OK, let's review what AJ said,

"Days ago I looked into the forged Obama Birth Certificate Myth and realized it was all BS. ...let me point to one of these ‘experts’ who did a poor job of examining the documents in the first place, a person called Polirak over at Town Hall."

The gall of calling my work, "Poor," is the kettle calling the pot black. The dill weed cannot even spell my name correctly.

Next, let's look at his earth-shaking discoveries:

"Before we get into this I want to share what I discovered when I looked into these files, before I even began to look around the blogosphere. First I noted the certificate was a recent production that is made by a laser printer and is on a form put in place in 2001 (look at the lower right hand corner of any version of the certificate for this information)."

Wow...ya think? Congratulations, you can read at a fourth grade level.

He rambles on

"I also noted a stamped date from the back which bled through on the two version (one on the DailyKos and one on the Obama campaign site) which shows this modern version was produced around Jun 6 2007."

Has anyone NOT seen this?? BTW, what did AJ mean by "modern version?" "Modern version" of what, exactly? Remember, we're looking at a JPG that has been graphically altered, and not an original, duly certified paper document -- whose ownership has never been determined.

He continues...

"I discovered 2 dots from the laser printer that can be found on all three files (some folks just recently discovered the large one next to the image of the state seal)"

Well, there ya go. Two dots. Proof positive that something went through a laser printer. So far, you've failed to say what is that "something."

Back to the blob...er...blog:

I could detect the impression of the state seal stamp and signature area on two of the files.

With your naked eye? B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T! No way. Either he's lying through his teeth, he has Superman's vision, OR, he was looking at it under image enhancement like the rest of us. Yes, there are marks that can be seen, but to say that they conclusively belong to the Seal is pure speculation.

I'll skip the previous parts and get to the really POOR part:

In my analysis I find the Kos version to be the highest quality image file of the original document, produced in Jun of 2007 by the state of Hawaii.

Lastly, why is the first Kos image posting a direct reduction of their second, larger one?

Hmm...I should stop right here and just forget about answering this upstart. But, he cannot seem to stop cracking on me.

Now, his eyes are turning brown from this crap.

I have been putting off this posting on this matter because there has never been anything ‘discovered’ that proved a forgery, but simply proved people were running wild with their imaginations. Polarik provides the best example of this.

Oh, thank you, Obi-Wan...we are so freakin' orgasmic that you didn't put this matter off any longer.

On 6/20/08 the ‘expert’ Polarik claimed this certificate clearly produced a year ago was a forgery of an original from 1961, which Barack Obama claimed he had in one of his books from years ago.

I never said anything of the sort. Once again, he's dissing me. Also, like I said. There's no point in debating with someone who cannot even read what I wrote.

Anyway, Mr. AlStrata's post was dated July 6, more than two weeks after my post appeared, and apparently he never read any of the ten subsequent posts on my blog before he did his analysis, whether intentionally or not.

Had he bothered to check back frequently, he might have been able to see -- if he read it carefully -- that I corrected my statement about the OHSM 1.1 after talking directly with Vital Statistics at the Department of Health in Hawaii.

What I'd like him to explain is why, on GENUINE COLB images -- those from DeCosta, Tomoyasu, Smith, and a fourth I was sent in private, have green pixels between the characters, when none are found between the characters on the images he describes as "laser print?"

HINT: It ain't "anti-aliasing," to be sure.

AJ made the statement that "Inspection of the files shows consistent anti-aliasing across all letters and images (e.g., the state seal in the middle). Consistent anti-aliasing across the document tells me this was induced when the document was originally printed - not from later manipulation," and my response is him is that he does not know what the Hell he's talking about, and his credibility is seriously in doubt -- given the comment about "seeing the seal and the signature stamp mentioned above."

The bottom line is that ALL of the text fields, field headers and data, are NOT, repeat, NOT the result of any laser in existence. It is obvious that AJStridex (sic) has not seen the REAL COLB's mentioned on my blog.

The only thing AJ has "proven" is that he can be really annoying and condescending.