“You mean like with Damn Blather and C?BS!. Yeah, the media jumped all over that, right from the top. As I said, if you doubt Polarik’s analysis, take it up with him. If, by your reference to ‘911 truthers’, you are referring to Berg, well, sir, you are mistaken about my position.’
Dunno if I am or not. I question ‘Polarik’s’ analysis for reasons posted previously. Dr. Neal Krawetz is a verifiable identity with a real reputation on the line. This Polarik shows up with a blotted-out face, a fake name and a voice only a Cylon could love.
No reflection on you, I just won’t believe it’s fake without more and better evidence. Also, that the Obama campaign would try to pass off a fake rather than simply deny access to everything—which was their MO all campaign—requires a better developed suspension of disbelief than I can currently muster.
In the case of Rather, his being hoodwinked (or trying to purposely pass off BS documents as legit) caused a firestorm that eventually cost him his job. In this case, everything I find questioning the legitimacy of the posted BC leads back to Techdude, Polarik or Berg eventually. Since the first is discredited by even his former adherents now, and the last is a 911 truther kook, that leaves Polarik, who might or might not be one of Berg’s ‘experts’ anyway. I would sure expect a much more varied and professional response from the vast multitude of netizens than *that* if the document were actually fake! :)
I can understand the fury of you and others regarding the absolute free pass Obama received—and continues to receive—from the mass media. It would certainly delight me to no end to find he was actually ineligible for the position; which would explain why he was hiding his life so obsessively the entire campaign. However what I’m finding is the case amounts to about the same as the Palin baby ‘controversy.’ Wishful thinking, willfully forgetting in the case of negative evidence that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and outright speculation. There’s just not much here, and the trail ultimately leads back to very dubious sources.
While it might be fun to tweak him a little, (which might well be CT’s motive here) kinda like carding him for beer at his age, in the end it amounts to the part of his life I’m least interested in—the one he had no control over. I wanna know what he did with all the money from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, what he was doing at Columbia, and for that matter what he was up to as an Illinois state senator. This clown is a complete cipher! :(
I base my opinion of Polarik (Ron Polarik, PhD) work on some personal background that I have in electronic documents, fonts and such. That being said, I do not claim to be an expert, and I do not rely on Polarik’s work to support my position regarding Obama’s eligibility, only Obama’s credibility. I do find credible the evidence and analysis that Polarik has done, and at least he is around to answer questions about it right here (unlike this P.A. Madison that has been repeatedly cited).