Hold on.
Here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2509238/posts?q=1&;page=142#141
you also stated:
A digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is a forgery. The only exception would be if the information on the internet image were demonstrably false. Just the fact that Polarik would attempt such an analysis is a red flag.
Therefore you seem to be asserting that the FactCheck online COLB image is in fact "his" (presumably meaning "Obama's") COLB. Are you not making a logical leap of faith here? Where and when did Obama swear on penalty of perjury (in which jurisdiction) that the FactCheck COLB image is an authentic COLB? If you are claiming that a digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is a forgery, then it seems as if it should follow that a digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is authentic, either. An image is just that, an image. It seems to me that this is the reason why, when stopped for a traffic violation, most of us can't get away with "just kindly look at my driver's license on the internet, officer, for prima facie evidence of my identity and my license to drive an auto."
What concerns me is the evident proclivity to presume unverified information is correct until proven otherwise:
The only exception would be if the information on the internet image were demonstrably false.
Exactly how does one determine if non-independently verifiable information is "demonstrably" true or "demonstrably" false, given that the fundamental issue is verification of the alleged information itself?
In general, your logical arguments here seem to suffer from assuming your conclusions as fact. In other words, your syllogisms tend to reduce to tautologies. If you disagree, I would welcome it if you provided logically lucid argument to the contrary.
You're assuming I'm assuming.
Are you not making a logical leap of faith here?
Only if you're assumption is correct.
Where and when did Obama swear on penalty of perjury (in which jurisdiction) that the FactCheck COLB image is an authentic COLB?
Strictly speaking, the FactCheck COLB image can not be an authentic COLB because it is not an official document, it is a picture of a document.
When has Obama been ask by a court to swear to the authenticity of the internet image, or the document from which the image was taken, for that matter?
If you are claiming that a digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is a forgery, then it seems as if it should follow that a digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is authentic, either.
Of course.
Exactly how does one determine if non-independently verifiable information is "demonstrably" true or "demonstrably" false, given that the fundamental issue is verification of the alleged information itself?
Alleged Obama birth certificates have been produced and proven forgeries by checking information on the certificates against known facts.
In general, your logical arguments here seem to suffer from assuming your conclusions as fact.
That would be true if your assumptions about my arguments were correct. It pays to read carefully.
Therefore you seem to be asserting that the FactCheck online COLB image is in fact “his” (presumably meaning “Obama’s”) COLB. Are you not making a logical leap of faith here? Where and when did Obama swear on penalty of perjury (in which jurisdiction) that the FactCheck COLB image is an authentic COLB? If you are claiming that a digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is a forgery, then it seems as if it should follow that a digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is authentic, either. An image is just that, an image. It seems to me that this is the reason why, when stopped for a traffic violation, most of us can’t get away with “just kindly look at my driver’s license on the internet, officer, for prima facie evidence of my identity and my license to drive an auto.”
Do you really think that any court of law would use the factcheck.org image of Obama’s COLB as opposed to getting a copy of the ORIGINAL COLB directly from the state of Hawaii since that state has already verified that Obama was born there?
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”—July 27, 2009
If any court of law ever wants to see Obama’s birth doucments for themselves, Obama will give his permission for the state of Hawaii to forward a copy to that Court along with a sworn and notarized statement from Dr. Fukino, Director of the State Health Department.