[tired_old_conservative]

“In a rare moment of clarity or a little truthfulness, the DoH spokesman Janice Okubo said,

“I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents””

She's simply making the common sense and correct observation that no one can state that an Internet image alone is valid or not. That indicates a sense of professionalism that con men like Polarik completely lack. Her other comments indicating that Obama was born in Hawaii are clear enough to anyone who wants to read them with an unbiased eye.

[Red Steel]

She's simply making the common sense and correct observation that no one can state that an Internet image alone is valid or not.

The operative word you used was "remotely," and she did make the correct call there but the moonbat Okubo let herself get used in other public statements that contradicts this one.

Furthermore CON, Obama lawyer(s) have cited that Internet image as a genuine document as to have noted a hyperlink to it in their court briefs, but have not given an authentic copy of Obama's COLB to any court of law. Why is that - CON? Because that thing is a forgery.

[BP2]

She's simply making the common sense and correct observation that no one can state that an Internet image alone is valid or not.

(facepalm) Look ... I know we've been over this before with you guys, but new lurkers are always popping in seeking the Truth, and there's always hope that ONE of you will snap out of Obama's trance for common sense to prevail ...

Obama's abbreviated "birth certificate" has never, EVER appeared before a Judge nor has it appeared in a Courtroom, neither after nor before the Inauguration. NOT ONE TIME!

Obama's abbreviated "birth certificate" has never appeared in public, other than to be temporarily "inspected" by Obama's hand-picked partisan FactCheck "reporters," ONE week before the DNC Convention.

It is sheer and utter stupidity to TRUST the Chain of Custody of a "document" given BY the LIAR-in-chief TO his 2008 Chicago Presidential Campaign partisan hacks, then TO hand-picked partisan hacks at FactCheck.org on Aug. 21, 2008, to then be accepted BY LIARS Nancy Pelosi and the DNC, to certify the Constitutional Eligibility of their candidate on August 28, 2008.

From to to by

ALL of whom had custody of a "birth certificate" which has NEVER
actually appeared in Court to be accepted by a Judge as a legal "FACT".

[El Gato]

She's simply making the common sense and correct observation that no one can state that an Internet image alone is valid or not.

In principal, it's not possible to determine if an image represents a real valid document. But the same is not true, in general, about an image being a fake or fraud. You may not be able to do that either in any particular case, but in many case you may be able to do so. For instance, if the form number or the format of the form is wrong for the time period it was supposed to have been produced. Or if the seals are obviously wrong, or the signatures are from the wrong people. Lots of other things could mark a forgery for what it is.