The intent, Polland explained, was to enable critics to point to the anomalies as evidence of forgery, so Obama supporters could refute the objections by explaining that the anomalies could be produced, for instance, by running various optimizing, sharpening and adaptive compression procedures resident in Adobe software.
In other words, he's blaming some hypothetical forger because people made themselves look like idiots.
If there was a forger, he was trying to recreate the actual look of a document of the era. If somebody was dumb enough not to know what traces fountain pens or manual typewriters left it wasn't because some forger was diabolically trying to draw them in, it's because they were just that dumb.
It would have been better for Polland not to comment on those earlier mistakes. Say we could understand and excuse those earlier missteps -- bringing them up all over again attributing them to some devlishly clever forger means Polland loses all credibility from now on.
Is this is the guy who says:
I created Obama’s short-form birth certificate in 2008, and now I made Obama’s long-form birth certificate. My recreation of the short-form was so convincing, the White House posted it on the White House website, claiming it was the real deal
In August 2008, I successfully duplicated the short-form in what I believe is the only way it could have been made. Now I have re-created the long-form with a forgery of my own that I believe most people will find hard to distinguish from the forgery the White House released.
If so, he's more of a kook than anybody imagined.