?????
I do not see how that applies to Paul Irey’s forensic conclusion the the WH pdf BC is a forgery. That is a positive assertion of fact directly backed by evidence, not proof of a negative.
Irey does not prove that Obama does not have a BC in the HI archives, but rather that the claimed pdf image is not a genuine HI 1961 BC typed on a single typewriter of the era, as it should be.
Obama is doing exactly what Inspector Smith did.
Both of them produce a document and swear its the real thing.
Then the experts show up and the people who have good reasons to doubt that the document is real.
Smith just says “no you dont have real evidence that my document is not real”
The reply is “yes I have evidence”
to which Smith replies “This or this or this could have happened ( for instance the misspelled name) and he challenges those who doubt to PROVE that their assertions are correct.
No matter what, Smith questions your “PROOF”
Obama will do the same and he will simply ignore any evidence (such as this) for the next year. The burden of proof is shifted to those who question.
And nothing gets answered.
The correct way to ascertain if something is real is to meet the criteria established that proves something is real .
If it is real the other BC in this article has a paper trail and a provenance ....(you can trace it back to its source)
Obama will not allow anyone to check the provenance of his BC.
Neither would Smith