Belief that the CoLB scanned and published on the internet is a forgery is a matter of faith.
***There’s a heckuva lot more evidence that it’s a forgery than that it is genuine, and it has to do with the electronic versions of the documents presented. Focusing on this one little tidbit is an attempt at obfuscation. For one thing, the expert was right, there was no reason to obliterate it on the fightthesmears website and you even point out that several weeks later, the number is shown on the in-the-tank media Factcheck site. Now, at that point what is a matter of faith is that Obama & team didn’t go and GET a number. And all the other evidence that the fightthesmears CoLB and the Factcheck CoLB are both forgeries is compelling, rather than a matter of faith. And that means the only evidence presented to date for his qualification has likely been a forgery, and he does not meet the standard. Any other person presenting forged evidence towards qualification would not get the job desired and would likely be facing criminal charges.
Affidavit Supporting Polarik’s Evidence in Keyes vs. Lingle
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2159775/posts
01/06/2009 11:52:38 AM PST · by Kevmo · 381 replies · 3,689+ views
Keyes vs. Lingle ^ | 12/4/2008 | Sandra Ramsey Lines
The image published on the internet is not the document, it is a digitized "picture" of the document.
For one thing, the expert was right, there was no reason to obliterate it on the fightthesmears website and you even point out that several weeks later, the number is shown on the in-the-tank media Factcheck site. Now, at that point what is a matter of faith is that Obama & team didn’t go and GET a number. And all the other evidence that the fightthesmears CoLB and the Factcheck CoLB are both forgeries is compelling, rather than a matter of faith.
It is more likely that the document was scanned and the black box applied to the digitized image, not the document - at least that's what it looked like to me. Why? Because the black box is too black, the color too even, and the edges too crisp.
And that means the only evidence presented to date for his qualification has likely been a forgery, and he does not meet the standard.
It could be a forgery, and then again not. Heres what Sandra Ramsey Lines (Affidavit Supporting Polarik’s Evidence in Keyes vs. Lingle), concludes: After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.
In other words, a document published on the internet can't be verified as to authenticity. She doesn't say its a forgery, nor does she say its not, only that it can't be determined one way or another. I have no argument with anything she wrote in her affidavit.