The image published on the internet is not the document, it is a digitized “picture” of the document.
***POTO. Doesn’t address the contention.
It is more likely that the document was scanned and the black box applied to the digitized image, not the document - at least that’s what it looked like to me. Why? Because the black box is too black, the color too even, and the edges too crisp.
***And that is an excellent description of “obliterate”. And, again, it doesn’t address the contention.
It could be a forgery,
***Pretty much the only thing you’ve gotten right.
and then again not. Heres what Sandra Ramsey Lines (Affidavit Supporting Polarik’s Evidence in Keyes vs. Lingle), concludes: After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine.
***Sounds a lot like what I just said. And this time it’s an expert signing her credibility away in an affidavit.
Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.
In other words,
***why do you need other words? Her evidence is quite damning.
a document published on the internet can’t be verified as to authenticity.
***And that is EXACTLY what I said. It’s the only evidence offered towards Obama’s eligibility and this expert says it’s basically worthless.
She doesn’t say its a forgery,
***She says it cannot be relied upon.
nor does she say its not, only that it can’t be determined one way or another. I have no argument with anything she wrote in her affidavit.
***then... don’t.
I'm not, but then I'm not reading any more into what she's written than what's actually there either.