Obama Citizenship

HI COLB: Verified Non-Credentials versus (Partially) Unverified Credentials

By Phil

In a recent posting, I stated that the FactCheck.org blog — the site that claims to have had on hand an alleged Hawaiian certification of live birth purported to come from Mr. Obama — has on staff certain individuals that appear to have excellent credentials… in things other than document forensics or a professional examination background.

If you go to my referenced link, you will see quite the discussion in the comments section — and apparently Loren who posts at the barackryphal site caught wind of what I had to say, as they devoted an entire posting to what I quoted and said.

I’m going to address certain main points of their posting.

However, as a quick thought before I start, I want you, my dear readers, to keep a general theme in mind. This theme is really about whether you (and I) are supposed to be trusting the “verified non-credentials” of FactCheck.org staffers or the “unverified credentials” of individuals who have produced work that claims that any image of a HI COLB is deficient for the purposes of determining presidential eligibility.

Or, to put it another way, we allegedly know (if the FactCheck.org web site is to be trusted with their bios being made public) that certain staffers have excellent credentials that can be verified, but those credentials are in the “wrong” area for the topic, and we also know that there are unverified (partially; I’ll explain that in a moment) individuals who claim to have potentially required credentials that allow them to make educated guesses as to document authenticity (but with no immediate means to verify their claimed credentials).

Quite a pickle, eh? Just wait — here we go:

Phil at ‘The Right Side of Life’ recently wrote:

“[Facebook's employees] may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics ? like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been -”

Phil’s link goes to Parker “Beckwith” Shannon’s TheObamaFile, where the four “credentialed examiners” who are “trained in the science of document forensics” that Phil mentions are: “Dr. Ron Polarik,” Sandra Ramsey Lines, “a genealogist,” and “MissTickly — aka TerriK.

Note that three out of four of Phil and Parker’s “credentialed examiners” don’t even have real names. TechDude thankfully isn’t listed, but Shannon still falsely claims that Polarik/Polland “specializes in computer graphics,” which everyone but Shannon has known to be flatly untrue for months.

I continue to stand by my statement. And do you know why? It’s very simple, really. I had documented back on December 29, 2008 that, as a part of the Keyes v. Lingle case, two affidavits were filed: one for Sandra Ramsey Lines and another for “Ron Polarik.”

What I have just linked to bears some important explanations, because much of this information goes a long way in helping to determine why individuals like myself continue to question this President’s eligibility:

First of all, Ms. Lines claimed the following RE: the HI COLB image:

2. I have reviewed the attached affidavit posted on the internet from ?Ron Polarik,? [PDF] who has declined to provide his name because of a number of death threats he has received. 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.

…

4. 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. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all. [emphasis mine]

To reiterate, she is specifically saying that nobody can trust an Internet-based image to be legitimate. And as many readers already know, there have been several illegitimate document images that have been floating around the Internet claiming that Mr. Obama was born in various places. Therefore, it is only actual, physical documents that should be examined to determine their authenticity.

Secondly, isn’t it interesting that Ms. Lines isn’t castigated for her work, even though she explicitly affirms the results that “Ron Polarik” came up with?

Thirdly, as you can clearly see for yourself, “Ron Polarik” has already “affixed his mark” to an affidavit wherein he states what he claims to be his credentials. If he’s lying, then that could be very easily revealed on any sort of cross-examination were his credentials formally questioned.

The posting goes on for several paragraphs essentially attempting to make the point that if an individual who posts their work on the Internet chooses to remain anonymous (hello! that includes me!), that must necessarily mean, according to their logic, that said individuals cannot be trusted. If this were truly the case, then we should immediately throw out roughly 98% of everything anyone sees on the Internet, because how often can any of us, with 100% statistical certainty, verify all things that we observe on this international network?

However, let’s remember that the proverbial pendulum swings both ways: while we may not be able to immediate verify the credentials of individuals who claim to have document analysis or forensics backgrounds, we can more easily verify the credentials of individuals who have zero document analysis or forensics backgrounds. So — pick your proverbial poison! Trust those who claim no formal documentation substantiation training, or trust those who have an unverified background but have produced results of their theories to be disseminated.

Nevertheless, even with having said all of that, let’s not forget to see the proverbial forest from the trees:

There is still no direct source that explicitly says that the Hawaiian Department of Health has verified the alleged HI COLB to be that of Mr. Obama. There is also no known receipt of the transaction that allegedly procured this document, nor has anyone with verified analysis or document forensics backgrounds actually inspected the physical document alleged to be on hand with FactCheck.org.

Once again — are you going to trust the individuals with verified non-credentials, or are you going to trust the individuals with partially unverified credentials? If you want to pursue the question, you have to weigh both sides of the argument.

And remember: just because someone claims that another individual with partially unverified credentials isn’t worth trusting, isn’t that simply yet another unverified opinion on the subject? Yes, of course it is.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

• The background:
  • Obama?s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
  • Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
  • Obama Citizenship Facts
  • What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate
• The questions:
  • Leo Donofrio Affirms FightTheSmears.com?s Obama Citizenship Admission
  • Fallible FactCheck.org: TheBirthers, Donofrio Cause Change on Obama Citizenship
  • Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
  • Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
  • The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
  • Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on December 02, 2009 (boomark / email).