Polarik claims, “The Obama Campaign, FactCheck, and Annenberg have committed a fraudulent act” regarding Obama Birth Certificate.



To: itsthejourney

It does look like there is some distortion of the seal near the fold. Shouldn’t the seal have been placed on it BEFORE it was folded thus resulting in zero distortion? Not that I know anything about Hawaiian birth certificates but if Hussein isn’t what he claims then I’m all for someone bringing it to light.

I’ve thought about this and I need to change my assertion about the Seal. I now believe that the photos of the reverse side were taken BEFORE the COLB was folded because all of photos taken of the front side show a fully folded COLB, and the entire Seal impression. Conversely, all of the photos taken of the back side show that the top of the Seal had been intentionally framed out of the picture right below where the lower fold would be seen. Thus, the photographer intentionally left out the entire fold line that should have been included in photos #7 and #8.

The fact that we have several photos of the entire front side of the COLB, but no photos of the entire reverse side. Instead of full shots, we got meticulously framed images.

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that FactCheck was deliberately suppressing information contained on the reverse side. Whether by framing a photo to leave off suspicious parts of them, or simply not showing any photos that would be embarassing, we want to know what do they want to hide? How about the absence of a second fold line? What else problematic could be on the back of the COLB?

What other photos is FactCheck not showing us? Did FactCheck plan on releasing these photos earlier, but panicked when their scanned image was being challenged from all sides?

FatchCheck chose to dismiss these challenges as “loopy” and part of a conspiracy, but some of the graphical anomalies, like the absence of a second fold line, the multiple font sizes used, and the odd pixel patterns between the letters, could not be so easily dismissed.

FactCheck, however, is still its own worst enemy, for presenting photos with all sorts of suspicious elements on them, such as deliberately overexposing some areas and underexposing others, having shadows that should not be there, and enhancing areas that do not need to be enhanced.

They also shot themselves in the foot with their August 26 update claiming that they had no idea about the “security paper” Hawaii uses on COLBs, after allegedly fondling them the week before.

18 posted on Monday, September 01, 2008 3:02:00 PM by Polarik

To: TheNewPundit

With all of the other issues to raise, why, on earth. do you even bother writing about Obama’s bogus birth certificate saga?

Why aren’t you writing posts about the “other issues?”

While you’re pondering that answer, why did FactCheck say, in its Aug 26 update to this article, dated Aug 21, that “they did not learn anything about the ‘security paper’ that COLBs are printed on,” when they were allegedly fondling OBama’s real COLB six days earlier?

86 posted on Monday, September 01, 2008 8:34:15 PM by Polarik

To: Kevmo

This sounds like a warped, tit-for-tat, vis-a-vis Philip Berg’s lawsuit against Obama’s qualifications.

McCain’s been certified to run, and not Obama.

McCain showed his birth certificate to the media, Obama has not.

51 posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2008 9:06:07 AM by Polarik

To: Cyropaedia

After two CoLB, vouched for by the Obama campaign, were shown to be fakes, it is obvious that it is now incumbent upon Obama, to actually prove that he meets the Constitutional requirements for President. He can no longer be given the benefit of the doubt.

He must sign a waiver, and allow journalists (not connected with Annenberg Foundation or its surrogates) to view all documents pertaining to his birth records that are kept at Hawaii‘s DoH.

Although the issue of either one or multiple citizenships, of which a US one, is most important, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Obama Campaign, FactCheck, and Annenberg have committed a fraudulent act — although I do not know which law would be applicable.

229 posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2008 10:16:18 AM by Polarik

%d bloggers like this: