Here is your deceitful dismissive response: "This is not true. The expert did not endorse any forgery allegations."
Below are the actual words of the document expert. You chide researchers opposing the ascendancy of fraudulent Obama with accusations that they are misstating and repeating falsehoods to make the statements appear accurate. Well, you are doing exactly that. You state flatly that what I asserted is not true, but have you actually read the material or are you just yet another obamanoid agitprop spittling for confusion at every opportunity? I think you're as big a fraud as the man you're working so hard to cover for.
For the benefit of the thousands of readers zipping through Freerepublic, below is an excerpted portion from the experts testimony filed in California court: [found on FR thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2155990/posts ]
[[ However, the bigger story to this lawsuit is the fact that forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines (pictured) has documented in an associated affidavit (PDF) the following:
2. I have reviewed the attached affidavit posted on the internet from “Ron Polarik,” [PDF] who has declined to provide his name because of a number of death threats he has received. 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. 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.
3. Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No. That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, “Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?” It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for oliterating it.
4. In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all. ]]
You are an agitprop working FR for amusement and perhaps to ofuscate the actual facts as they arise regarding this affirmative action fraud now president-elect. Your game is disgusting, deceitful, and becoming quite obvious.
Don’t waste you time MHGinTN.
This guy would swin through a mile of Obama excrement to kiss its source.
"Here is what I wrote: "A government document expert has gone on court record in California attesting to Polarik's exposure of the forgery aspects, agreeing with his assessment."Let's see who is being deceitful."Here is your deceitful dismissive response: "This is not true. The expert did not endorse any forgery allegations."
"Below are the actual words of the document expert."
She says, "Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm."
Great. What issues doe she mean?
"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."
Document Examiner 101. A scanned image can't be authenticated. Usually a document examiner will not authenticate even a paper copy. This doesn't confirm any allegation of forgery.
"Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No."
Does blacking out the certificate number mean forgery? No. It's a redaction. And the later photographs included it. She's still not supporting any forgery allegations.
"In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness."
Document Examiner 101 again. It's not the original it's a scan.
There is not one word here where she confirms a single allegation of forgery. None.
"You are an agitprop working FR for amusement and perhaps to ofuscate the actual facts..."
Since what I said was true, and what you said was not, you seem to fit the bill better than me.
The color distortion of the pixels around letters alone is enough evidence that Obama’s COLB is a forgery. When you superimpose writing over a background image it causes discoloration.
“Ignoring minor annoyances is an effective but often underutilized weapon in the fine art of political debate.”
447 posted on Sunday, January 11, 2009 4:19:19 PM by Jim Robinson
(The last time I posted this comment by JimRob, one freeper was infuriated, and asked to be removed from the Ping List.)
Looks like mlo has been ZAPPED.
Nice find MHGinTN