That is something we need to be careful about assuming. It was not 'proven', as it was an examination of an image of a document, not the actual document. Polarik(sic) also hasn't proven he is who he claims to be. He admits his name is not really Polarik and he hasn't given anyone documented proof he is an 'expert', he hasn't even produced the affidavit he claims he signed. Nor have has his charges been examined on the source document in a court. It is not 'proven' just 'alleged'. For all we know, he is a guy who works at Kinkos (thus assumes he is an expert) who made all this up like all the bogus structural engineers on truther sites claiming fire doesn't melt steel. We need to examine our evidence and experts as much as we do Obama's to make sure we have an air tight argument.
That is something we need to be careful about assuming.
***It’s not an assumption. I examined the evidence and came to a conclusion. Polarik’s 160 page report was just the latest analysis that generates devastating point after point.
It was not ‘proven’, as it was an examination of an image of a document, not the actual document.
***True enough, using ‘proven’ as a fact in a court of law. But that’s just because it has not yet been examined by the courts, rather than it not being compelling enough evidence to call it “proof”.
Polarik(sic) also hasn’t proven he is who he claims to be.
***Ron Polarik was invited to an Interview on TV, so who was the masked man that showed up in his place? Your line of inquiry here is ridiculous.
He admits his name is not really Polarik and he hasn’t given anyone documented proof he is an ‘expert’, he hasn’t even produced the affidavit he claims he signed.
***We’re all from Missouri on that item: SHOW US.
Nor have has his charges been examined on the source document in a court. It is not ‘proven’ just ‘alleged’.
***Is it “proven” that a rock accelerates due to gravity at the rate of mg^2, even before a court of law says so?
For all we know, he is a guy who works at Kinkos (thus assumes he is an expert) who made all this up like all the bogus structural engineers on truther sites claiming fire doesn’t melt steel.
***You need to amend your statement to “for all I know” because Polarik has proven his mettle here on FR. You haven’t.
We need to examine our evidence and experts as much as we do Obama’s to make sure we have an air tight argument.
***I agree. And I try my best to do so. You, however, have just delivered false accusations about a fellow freeper and you’ve made several logical fallacies in your libelous statements.