Her point is that only an original can be used to determine whether a document is a forgery:
"In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness"
Nowhere does she come to Polarik's conclusion that the image posted on the internet is a forgery. She simpliy says it is impossible to tell.
Oh, and she complains about the fact that the certificate number was redacted, but that's a moot point since it was revealed in the factcheck photos.
The key word is, "document." Sandra's specialty is finding forgeries in physical paper documents, and not document images -- especially with COLB document images. That's my specialty, and it's lonely in here.
I do not need to see the specific, original document that allegedly was scanned and saved as an image file to prove that the image is a forgery. An image can be forged to look like a document that does not actually existent: for example, Obama's bogus COLB image. When an image is actually a composite of two or more images, the evidence of that is not hard to find if you know where to look and for what you seek.
However, you do need a comparable document to validate what can and cannot be produced as a consequence of the document scanning process and the subsequent image processing that occurs when saving the image to disk.
People who never sanned a real COLB in their lives have made all sorts of claims about why this COLB document image looks the way it does. Yet, all of these claims are false and unsubstantiated by the evidence.
Someone on this forum stated that "Anyone could claim that an image was altered without any fear of being disproved."
If only. That's exactly what my detractors have been trying to do.
What happened was that many people claimed Obama's bogus COLB was real simply by saying, "I don't see any signs of forgery," or "it looks real to me."
I found it quite amazing, really, hearing some "experts" say that that they did not find any traces of what my five months of research identified. Sort of live the Church vs. Galileo
If someone says that the pixel patterns I found in this bougs COLB image are scanner artifacts or JPG artifacts, then they just ruled themselves out as an authority on both. The color dropouts in the pixels are telltale, but they are just one of dozens of significant anomalies I found that are manmade. and not the result of any naturally-occurring phenomena.
I have news for the "It isn't a forgery" crowd. Try clicking your heels four times and say, "There's no trace of COLB," "There's no trace of COLB," "There's no trace of COLB," "There's no trace of COLB." You'll be back in Kansas in no time