Polarik is not credible. His analysis is flawed.
In your expert opinion, what is wrong with it?
OK, if so, I would welcome more insight on his analysis...
I can’t say whether his analysis is flawed or not. But I can say that the Hawaii Department of Health has admitted 2 key facts which, when analyzed, confirm that the Factcheck COLB is forged.
An admission against interest is one of the strongest forms of circumstantial evidence there is. Their having admitted this shows not only that the Factcheck COLB is forged, but that the HDOH has known all along that it is forged - which means they are admitting to committing misprision of felony.
Powerful stuff.
Take Polarik’s stuff however you want to, but when the HDOH officially confirms the key facts necessary to prove the COLB a forgery (as they have).... it makes Polarik’s claim of forgery not so far-out as Obama would like you to believe.
>>First, if the FactCheck COLB online image is not a forgery, how do you refute the evidence given by Polarik here?
>
>Polarik is not credible. His analysis is flawed.
If his analysis is flawed, then you should be able to say how.