[Cyropaedia]

However, there's nothing in the link that I could see that substantiates "Dr." Polarik's assertion that the state of Hawaii had a policy of using a different seal for documents issued in 2007 than for those issued in 2006 or 2008.

Yes there is. He posts photos from an actual 2007 CoLB and compares them with the FactCheck photos. Go back and look at them.

[curiosity]

He posts photos from an actual 2007 CoLB and compares them with the FactCheck photos.

His argument rests on the assumption that all 2007 COLB seals look exactly like the one he posted. This assumption is not substantiated.

I also don't take his word for it that the 2007 COLB he posted and claims to be authentic is in fact authentic.

[mlo]

"Yes there is. He posts photos from an actual 2007 CoLB and compares them with the FactCheck photos. Go back and look at them."

Substantiation of Hawaii's policy isn't provided simply by comparing a few photos. How do you know that whatever differences exist in those photos are not in keeping with the policy?

This is actually the major repeating flaw in Polarik's entire work. What he does is present two versions of something and then assert that differences (even when they are really there, which isn't always true) mean forgery. But differences don't necessarily mean forgery. That leap must be proven just as much as showing there are differences in the first place. That doesn't happen. Polarik's entire analysis ultimately rests on him saying the COLB is forgery just because he says so.