It's not "straw" to explain to you what the document says.
"The image on the internet is a forgery."
So says "Polarik".
"The expert with the affidavit says it’s unreliable and backs up Polarik’s analysis."
"Unreliable" does not mean "forgery". Nor does it have obvious implications of forgery. It means exactly the the expert said it meant. You're the one trying to avoid that. She does not back up the entirety of Polarik's analysis.
"And yes, Polarik definitely calls it a forgery in his testimony."
Yes he does. The expert doesn't, but he does. Remind me, what is Polarik's expertise again?
"You keep goin’ round & round on this and never seem to learn."
Somebody is having trouble, that's for sure.
It’s not “straw” to explain to you what the document says.
***It is when it’s used as an argument that is a hyperbolic misrepresentation of what was actually argued. That’s what she’s been doing all along.
“Unreliable” does not mean “forgery”. Nor does it have obvious implications of forgery.
***And what color is the sky on the planet you’re on?