How are you going to prove which one is the forgery and which one is the fake?
Plutarch made the key point:
Wait a minute...i was thinking....this is so nuts...but perhaps the bomford certificate is a “created” red herring?
Nuts is right. The resolution is so good on the Bomford BC,that fakery would be real hard. In retrospect we see now why the resolution was poor on the Orly BC, and it was photographed at an angle. Higher resolution would have given it away.
It is possible that they are both fakes, but it would be impossible to conclude they are both legitimate.
Orly is going to have to tell us where she got the picture. At this point I can only conclude that the Obama BC is a fraud. She says it was from an "anonymous source"; well in light of the fact that the document NOW bears all the earmarks of a hoax, it is time she came clean.
Frankly I was hoping this document was a fake, as I dreaded the constitutional nightmare it could create. But most of the arguments against it were not concrete, so I was keeping an open mind.
But now that this picture has surfaced and the picture is clearer and less likely to have been tampered, the evidence is pretty clear that the Obama BC is a fraud.
The burden has shifted. It is now up to Orly and those who think it is legitimate to prove it is. A nice CLEAR picture of the document so that we can see the seal and the type would be nice.
It is just sufficiently blurry as to hide any evidence of tampering.
Look at the lack of distortion of letters, both from the form and typed, where they overlay the ‘fold’ marks on the Bomford BC. They are not deformed as they should be if the document was folded as suggested by the fold marks.