“there is always the chance that Taitz will be allowed to see the document.”
Like there’s a chance that I’ll be boxing’s next heavyweight champion of the world.
That said, the point of the article is that if even if Taitz gets access to the original, she needs a competent forensic document examiner, not just some folks who worked in printing. The one legitimate expert Taitz has been citing is Sandra R. Lines, and what Lines said was that to make a determination she’d need the original document. Great. If Taitz thinks she has a valid command to produce the document, hire Lines to do what she does.
Lines is expert in examining physical documents. The only plausible expert in forensic image analysis that I’ve seen comment on the eligibility evidence is Neal Krawetz, who debunked fake expert “Ron Polarik”. P turned out to non-expert, and in this case liar, Ronald Polland. Dr. Krawetz had published on forensic image analysis before Obama’s eligibility was an issue.
The rest is a clown act. What work on forensic analysis can all these other “experts” cite, from before they decided to turn their talents to President Obama’s birth certificate? Near as I can tell — and if I’m wrong please cite — there is none. They are pretending to be experts at forensic analysis on their first try at forensic analysis. I don’t get that. How can one be an expert at doing what he or she has never yet done?
Sandra R. Lines and Neal Krawetz have legitimate claims to expertise; they had published on forensic analysis before they stated their opinions on the issue here. The rest is nonsense.
The rest is a clown act. What work on forensic analysis can all these other “experts” cite, from before they decided to turn their talents to President Obama’s birth certificate? Near as I can tell — and if I’m wrong please cite — there is none. They are pretending to be experts at forensic analysis on their first try at forensic analysis. I don’t get that. How can one be an expert at doing what he or she has never yet done?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do not see a claim as a *Forensic Expert*
Mr. Irey has 50 years in and is considered a Graphic Expert. There are many experts who’s willingness to expend the time and effort in each facet of deciphering this joke of of a BC is needed and certainly appreciated.
I am guessing you would like to know if this copy or abstract is legit. Why would you call it a clown act?
Now if I asked my Grandchildren to look at it and testify it is a sham, that MIGHT be a clown act. I am pretty sure the 7 and 8 yr olds would even say *yep* when they saw TXE smiley face. Of course 7 and 8 yolds are not experts, a man with 50 yrs in Graphics is.