Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: GregNH
All of this assumes there was a paper original. One has not been seen.

Apparently these guys had a pristine original to work with.

They're claiming to have gotten exactly the same results by using the same starting conditions and equipment...

13 posted on 08/07/2013 6:58:33 PM PDT by null and void ( Ignorance and arrogance are a deadly combination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: null and void

I don’t understand the computer stuff so I don’t mess with it too much, but if they started out with a document with halos it seems to me a bit disingenuous that they are ecstatic to come up with a scan that has..... halos. And when they separate out the layers and move them to the side they end up with... layers off to the side. But why would anybody do that? Why would anybody put a clipping mask on it? Why would anybody refuse to let Obama hold the stupid thing, or let the press crew see and videotape it?

There’s actually an easier way to know this is a forgery: the security background doesn’t have one of the features of the security paper the HDOH uses.

And there’s a legal way to find out if the claims on the forgery meet the standards to be prima facia evidence: ask the state registrar to verify those facts. What’s that you say? Ken Bennett already did that? And Onaka refused to verify any of the facts? Well, I guess we’ve got our legal answer then, huh?


23 posted on 08/07/2013 8:28:49 PM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson