[
link to conservativefactcheck.com]
The Birth Certificate: We Were Wrong.
Chuck Rogers | December 27th, 2012 | Tagged: COLB birthcertificate Obama
Over the holiday break we've been taking another look at all the evidence, and I've come to the conclusion that the claims that Obama's birth certificate are just that -- claims.
To be clear: it might be fake. And, it might be the case that scientists have genetically engineered a cat that looks, acts, and talks like a dog. Both are possible, but unlikely. If it looks, acts, and barks like a dog, it's usually a dog.
Our reversal from our earlier claims is based on three observations:
The experts... aren't.
We recently had to part ways with a contributor named "Techdude." It began with serious questions over whether his stated credentials are accurate. At first he appeared to have copied them from one Mr. Adam Fink; upon further investigation we learned of the possibility that TechDude was Adam Fink. And there's the very real question that "our" TechDude was the same one who published the original analysis of the COLB as featured on Atlas Shrugs. At this point we have no way of knowing; our TechDude has stopped replying to our emails, perhaps for very good reason.
But about those credentials: he claimed to be a member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners and the American College of Forensic Examiners. But here's the thing: we can't find another member of these groups who's backed up these claims. There is, however, lots of evidence that TechDude has been behaving in a manner that's contrary to the ethical standards of these organizations, and a detailed analysis of the analysis makes the claim that TechDude actually manipulated the data to support his theory.
So perhaps TechDude is just a bad apple, right? Perhaps he meant well, and was simply operating under the misguided notion that it was acceptable to fudge here, exaggerate there in pursuit of what he saw as the greater good (as Sheriff Joe Arpaio's posse was caught doing). There must be efforts by other experts that support the forgery theory, right?
Well... no.
All of the articles we've seen can be sorted into two groups:
Those that rely on TechDude's analysis
Those that are based on a misunderstanding or false assumption (a common one is a lack of understanding of how automatic layer generation works).
Previously we had criticized Orly Taitz for apparently failing to secure the services of qualified expert witnesses, apparently relying on random people whose sole qualification appeared to be an interest in appearing in court. But in that criticism we failed to consider the possibility that there are no actual experts who will testify in support of the forged birth certificate -- because the actual experts don't consider it to be a forgery.
----> [
link to conservativefactcheck.com] read the rest here
United States
United Kingdom
