It just keeps getting better and better.
Stay tuned for more.
Posted on 08/29/2008 5:37:16 PM PDT by Polarik
What do you do when you have to remove evidence that does not support your claims?
Easy. I provide other evidence that does support my claims...
It just keeps getting better and better.
Stay tuned for more.
interesting
I can’t view some of the pictures, nor do I know what your analysis means completely, but I encourage you in this endeavor. Keep up the good work.
CertifiGate keyword added, looks like it could be an interesting thread over here for your ping lists.
It does look like there is some distortion of the seal near the fold. Shouldn’t the seal have been placed on it BEFORE it was folded thus resulting in zero distortion? Not that I know anything about Hawaiian birth certificates but if Hussein isn’t what he claims then I’m all for someone bringing it to light.
bttt
Thanks, Kevmo.
Trying not to cause anyone a double ping.
Don’t worry about me. I’m on a low-bandwidth wireless connection and I don’t need to see the pictures just yet.
Thanks, LucyT.
I meant to say that the COLB was folded BEFORE the embossed Seal stamp was applied.
This caused a tear in the COLB which they taped up with Scotch tape before taking photos of the front side of the COLB.
It is the reason why all of the photos of the reverse side of the COLB only show the Seal below the tear.
It is also why all of the in-focus photos of the front side of the COLB show it with the folds at 90 degree angles, why the one photo of the expanded COLB is out of focus, and why the close-up of the lower fold on the front side was excessively lightened to hide the tear.
Check my correction on Comment #12 below. I originally said that the Seal was placed on the COLB before it was folded, which is standard operating procedure for placing an embossed seal on a document.
What I wanted to say was that the Seal was applied AFTER it was folded, which required the person who applied the stamp to use excessive force so that the Seal would show up on the Seal.
The depth of the impression left on the paper is highly unusual given that the other 2007 COLBs and the 2008 COLB I looked at had a much lighter impression from the Seal.
This excessive pressure caused the COLB to tear where the fold meets the Seal, and is the It is the reason why all of the photos of the reverse side of the COLB only show the Seal below the tear.
It is also why all of the in-focus photos of the front side of the COLB show it with the folds at 90 degree angles, why the one photo of the expanded COLB is out of focus, and why the close-up of the lower fold on the front side was excessively lightened to hide the tear.
Also, for what it's worth, the rough texture of the paper on which the COLB was printed is not found on 2007-08 COLL=BS.
In my response above, I should have said that because of the fold, the embossed Seal was applied with excessive force to ensure that the Seal impression lookedwas evenly through the fold., I should have said said ...the Seal was applied AFTER it was folded, which required the use of excessive force so that the Seal would be clearly visible through the fold.
Thank you Lucy.
He needs to be nailed on this. There has got to be someone out there with the guts to hunt this story down in the MSM.
I agree...not someone, but someones..as in fellow FReepers bombing the MSM with th4e message.
I've thought about this and I need to change my assertion about the Seal. I now believe that the photos of the reverse side were taken BEFORE the COLB was folded because all of photos taken of the front side show a fully folded COLB, and the entire Seal impression. Conversely, all of the photos taken of the back side show that the top of the Seal had been intentionally framed out of the picture right below where the lower fold would be seen. Thus, the photographer intentionally left out the entire fold line that should have been included in photos #7 and #8.
The fact that we have several photos of the entire front side of the COLB, but no photos of the entire reverse side. Instead of full shots, we got meticulously framed images.
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that FactCheck was deliberately suppressing information contained on the reverse side. Whether by framing a photo to leave off suspicious parts of them, or simply not showing any photos that would be embarassing, we want to know what do they want to hide? How about the absence of a second fold line? What else problematic could be on the back of the COLB?
What other photos is FactCheck not showing us? Did FactCheck plan on releasing these photos earlier, but panicked when their scanned image was being challenged from all sides?
FatchCheck chose to dismiss these challenges as "loopy" and part of a conspiracy, but some of the graphical anomalies, like the absence of a second fold line, the multiple font sizes used, and the odd pixel patterns between the letters, could not be so easily dismissed.
FactCheck, however, is still its own worst enemy, for presenting photos with all sorts of suspicious elements on them, such as deliberately overexposing some areas and underexposing others, having shadows that should not be there, and enhancing areas that do not need to be enhanced.
They also shot themselves in the foot with their August 26 update claiming that they had no idea about the "security paper" Hawaii uses on COLBs, after allegedly fondling them the week before.
Polarik, I need to send you something. Please advise how to get info to you on the fact-check pics. Or, how do I attach photos to my post?
Thanks for the exchange,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.