Main Menu

New Polland video casts shadows

Dr. Ron Polland (aka Ron Polarik, PhD) has made another pass attempting to persuade folks that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery with a short video attacking the certificate photographs taken by the respected political analysis web site, FactCheck.org. Forget the fact that the Hawaii Director of Health confirmed that the birth certificate on the Obama Fight the Smears campaign web site is “his birth certificate” and her press release saying Obama was born in Hawaii.

Let’s watch the video and then examine it critically.

The Polland video “zooms in” on the birth certificate and points out what he calls shadows under some of the letters. Polland explains these so-called shadows in a most bizarre way. He claims that the birth certificate is not on the security paper, but on a plastic sheet pasted onto the paper. I invite the reader to examine all the FactCheck photos and see if this is even remotely credible! The first picture should be enough.

What Polland has actually done is to point out the places where the darker basket weave pattern of the security paper appears next to the letters and calls them shadows. He magnified the image to the extent that the pattern of the security paper is blurry, making it more difficult to recognize the pattern and easier to fool the viewer. If you look at other letters, where they don’t lie on top of the darker security paper pattern, there are no “shadows”. Even in the comparison shot in Polland’s video you can see the “shadows” pointed out on the right are actually on the “real certificate” on the left too. The only real difference is that the image on the right is overall darker than the one on the left making the darker areas more pronounced.

It has been pointed out that the two FactCheck staffers who photographed the document were not forensic document analysts. That’s right; their job was to take pictures, not examine documents. Dr. Ron Polland is not a forensic document analyst either; his job is to smear Barack Obama. The only question remaining is whether Polland’s video is a fraud, or just inept.

, , ,

162 Responses to New Polland video casts shadows

  1. avatar
    Tarrant February 23, 2011 at 9:30 am #

    I always wonder this. So, according to this theory, Obama’s “people” and accomplices were smart and organized enough to fool and/or bribe/threaten his primary and general election opponents, numerous courts, his opposition in Congress, the entire Republican government of the state of Hawaii, and the entire mainstream media, including outlets that do little except oppose him on every other substantial issue…

    AND they had access to blank sheets of security paper…

    But they didn’t bother springing for a few extra bucks for a printer, instead just using overhead projector-style plastic sheets and placing them on top of the paper?

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2011 at 10:01 am #

    Tarrant: But they didn’t bother springing for a few extra bucks for a printer, instead just using overhead projector-style plastic sheets and placing them on top of the paper?

    I can’t think of any reason a document forger would print the image on a plastic sheet instead of the paper. It adds an unnecessary level of complexity, and degrades the image.

    I don’t know about how hard it is to get this particular basket weave security paper. Often, states use serial-numbered security paper with other security features such as intaglio printing, color gradients, thermal change ink, microprinting, watermarks and things they keep secret. Hawaii’s security paper does not appear on the surface to be all that special, but then I haven’t handled the real thing.

    I had a local registrar show me their security paper and said that there were twenty-something security features. She pointed out a few but said that if she showed me the rest she would have to kill me.

  3. avatar
    Lupin February 23, 2011 at 10:01 am #

    Mind you, we see the very same type of “inept” logic here all day.

    Polarik probably needs money, I suppose.

  4. avatar
    Bovril February 23, 2011 at 10:37 am #

    Never mind the oh so boring and mundane items like debris and detritus in the printer head and drum will lead to print artifacts from a heavily used printer.

  5. avatar
    chufho February 23, 2011 at 10:39 am #

    Mike Evans

  6. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 23, 2011 at 10:44 am #

    chufho: Mike Evans

    What about him?

  7. avatar
    Black Lion February 23, 2011 at 10:50 am #

    chufho: Mike Evans

    You mean the guy that got caught lying about what the governor of HI actually said? Yes, what about him?

  8. avatar
    Black Lion February 23, 2011 at 11:14 am #

    From the freeper site discussing the Polarik video, there are some real winners. The commentary is out of this world with implied racism and pretending words mean something other than the obvious meaning….Obama derangement is a serious sickness…

    Here is an Inspector General report on Birth Certificate Fraud from 2000.

    http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf

    Some good tid bits that apply or could apply to the infamous COLB computer image are in here….

    Page 5:

    It was the consensus of those we interviewed that a number of State practices create opportunities for fraud. Those practices include the following:

    – delayed, amended, and midwife birth registrations that are based on affidavits of personal knowledge, include no documentary evidence, and are not often marked or overlaid accordingly;

    (The date filed is 4 days after the fact in the COLB. Considered a late submission.)

    Also page 5:

    “Virtually all of the Federal and State agency staff we talked with indicate birth certificate fraud is seldom prosecuted unless it can be linked to large dollar losses or other punishable crimes. Most staff also indicate that many prosecutors are reluctant, or refuse to take birth certificate fraud cases in which the only charge is attempting to obtain another individual’s birth certificate, or counterfeiting or altering a birth certificate. At the same time, misconceptions exist surrounding the security and integrity of birth certificates.”

    (So much for that prosecution a frequent poster here keeps calling for.)

    “Birth Certificates Alone do not Provide Conclusive or Reliable Proof of Identity”

    (maybe all those state bills need some beefing up.)

    Page 12:

    “A Birth Certificate is Proof Only that a Birth Occurred and was Recorded. It is important to recall the intended purpose of a birth certificate — to certify that a birth was documented and recorded. For that purpose, it is not unreasonable that State laws allow public access to these records. Efforts to restrict access to birth certificates would diminish their value for the purpose they were originally designed to serve.”

    (So why the secret Hawaii? The IG says that when done properly the public SHOULD have access to a BC.)

    Page 20:

    “Not all States include information with birth certificates about the documentary evidence they accept as proof a birth occurred, and upon which delayed registrations are allowed, with delayed birth certificates. Likewise, the documentary evidence required to register delayed births is inconsistent among States. Forty-seven States accept affidavits of personal knowledge as proof a birth occurred, and 14 include no abstract of documentary evidence when issuing delayed birth certificates.”

    (47 States accept affidavits of personal knowledge! Swear it happened – get a BC, or COLB. Hawaii is probably in that 47.)

    Page 22:

    “With the exception of one State (Connecticut), primary vital records registrars responding to our survey say their offices match death and birth registrations and that they send information regarding deaths occurring in their State to the States in which the deceased individuals were born.”

    (Remember where Obama’s primary (he has a lot) Soc Sec number came from – Connecticut. The ONLY state that does not match death/birth registrations with other states.)

    Page 31:

    Number of States issuing full photocopy of Birth Record – 51

    (since they cite more state than states this shows – HAWAII WILL ISSUE A REAL PHOTOCOPY IF YOU WANT IT. To say they ONLY issue a Computerized copy (i.e. COLB) is a lie.)

    Number of State issue computerized abstract – 37

    (Yes, a lot of states will issue their version of a COLB also.)

    There is table of security features and there use by state.

    Here is the list and the number of state using the feature for computerized abstracts as list above (a total of 37 states issue computerized abstracts.)

    Watermarks – 25
    Intaglio -20
    Serial Numbers – 34
    Steel Engraved Borders – 19
    Ultraviolet Ink – 13
    Security Threads – 13
    Micro-Line Printing – 28
    Substrate Paper or Ink – 14

    (Does Hawaii use ANY of these techniques? It appears not.)

    74 posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 8:14:42 PM by bluecat6

    Legal Weasel Words by the State of HI=>
    Dr. Chiyome Fukino

    -Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    It did not say that there was a birth certificate, it said that there was a “record” of a birth certificate….

    That record was most likely a result of a “late filing” by Obozo’s grandmother, without presenting a birth certificate. There is no hospital record of his birth in HI (it is very unlikely he was born in HI). There is no record of Barrack H. Obama, Sr. ever living with Stanley Ann Dunham in HI. The only way that Obama could be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen is if Barrack H. Obama, Sr is not his father.

    There is NO long form Birth Certificate for BHO in HI. None… Look at the dance the authorities have been doing to avoid admitting it.
    Here is the statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Health Department of the State of Hawaii:

    “I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,” Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in a brief statement. “I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

    (note- she said a “natural-born American citizen, NOT natural born United States Citizen.)

    Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii State Health Director, has issued a second statement Monday, July 27th confirming President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, HI.

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

    (note- she said a “natural-born American citizen, NOT natural born United States Citizen.)

    I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago,” Fukino said, in hopes of ending the controversy surrounding Obama’s citizenship.

    Nowhere did she say that she had seen the original “birth certificate”

    129 posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:11:09 PM by Texas Fossil

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2678076/posts?q=1&;page=101

    There is only 1 way that Obozo is Constitutionally qualified for the office of President of the United States.

    If his father is someone other than Barrack H. Obama, Sr, and that person was a U.S. Citizen at the time of Obozo’s birth. It that were the case, it would not matter where he was born because both parents would be U.S. Citizens.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________

    Technically and legally, he is stuck with Obama Senior as daddy. And there is no practical way to change that.

    The 1964 divorce establishes Obama as the birth father. There is a page missing from this set of documents. It is likely the original BC. It is also likely missing due to at least one and possibly up to 3 adoptions that would have resulted in legal redaction of copies of the original BCs. With that divorce decree in place Obama is now and forever the legal father of Obama Junior. Even if DNA test showed otherwise, it would not legally change the situation unless the administrative wheels went into action.

    The likely 3 adoptions or guardianship actions were:

    1. 1965: Lolo Soetoro – this according to Michelle Obama her self and as established by available Indonesian records. At this point Obama is likely considered an Indonesian Citizen.
    2. 1971: Obama Senior claims guardianship of Obama Jr. resulting in termination of Indonesian ciizenship according to Indonesian citizenship laws. The adoption by Lolo Soetoro is reversed resulting loss of guardianship of Obama by Lolo AND Stanley Ann. For a short time, possibly only days, custody is granted to Obama Senior. At this point Obama is Kenyan citizen.
    3. 1971: The Dunham grandparents assume guardianship of Obama Junior and possibly legally adopt him. This terminates Obama Senior’s legal guardianship and legal responsibilities. It also makes Obama a naturalized US citizen.

    So with up to 3 international guardianship transfers / adoptions the original records were probably sealed somewhere along the way. It is almost certain there are no actual original records that are not under court ordered seal at this point. They were not destroyed, nor did Gov Lingle order them sealed. They are probably sealed as part of the transfer of legal guardianship that must have happened in 1965 or 1966 and again in 1971.

    There is no way the Dunhams take responsibility for a young 10 year old Obama without clean paperwork’ for both guardianship and citizenship. It would be like buying a car or a house without a verified title. With their flaky daughter and absentee father they probably wanted it all correct before those left to opposite ends of the world. This is why Obama and Stanley Ann had to hang around Hawaii until it was done before they left for Kenya and Indonesia in early 1972. There was a reason for the entire Dunham/Obama clan to be together in late 1971. It was not to sing some family Christmas carols around the Christmas tree as some released photos would have you believe. It was get Barry/Barack back into a normal American life with his new legal guardians – his grandparents.

    122 posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:53:24 PM by bluecat6

  9. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 23, 2011 at 11:18 am #

    Wait a second black lion:
    Number of States issuing full photocopy of Birth Record – 51

    51? Do they count the state of insanity?

  10. avatar
    Black Lion February 23, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Wait a second black lion:Number of States issuing full photocopy of Birth Record – 5151? Do they count the state of insanity?

    Regarding the birthers, definately….To be one of them you really have to have some serious mental problems….The hatred of Obama is strong and causes some to go crazy…

  11. avatar
    elid February 23, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    That “three guardianship” thing is seriously, seriously bent. What are these people smoking?

  12. avatar
    Tarrant February 23, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    I believe the 51st one is the District of Columbia. Generally for things like records and such it’s treated identical to a state. (I live in the District).

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2011 at 12:03 pm #

    Black Lion:
    From the freeper site discussing the Polarik video, there are some real winners.The commentary is out of this world with implied racism and pretending words mean something other than the obvious meaning….Obama derangement is a serious sickness…

    Here is an Inspector General report on Birth Certificate Fraud from 2000.

    http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf

    Some good tid bits that apply or could apply to the infamous COLB computer image are in here….

    Page 5:

    It was the consensus of those we interviewed that a number of State practices create opportunities for fraud. Those practices include the following:

    – delayed, amended, and midwife birth registrations that are based on affidavits of personal knowledge, include no documentary evidence, and are not often marked or overlaid accordingly;

    (The date filed is 4 days after the fact in the COLB. Considered a late submission.)

    This is ridiculous. A late filed certificate in Hawaii is one submitted after ONE YEAR. Four days is not “late” in any sense. Hawaiian law requires delayed certificates to be marked to indicate this. Obama’s COLB has no such mark, and therefore is not a delayed certificate.

  14. avatar
    Sean February 23, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: This is ridiculous. A late filed certificate in Hawaii is one submitted after ONE YEAR. Four days is not “late” in any sense. Hawaiian law requires delayed certificates to be marked to indicate this. Obama’s COLB has no such mark, and therefore is not a delayed certificate.

    State agencies are not McDonald’s. 4 days is quite speedy for a state agency.

    I waited over 6 weeks for my new Driver’s License.

  15. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 23, 2011 at 12:51 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The only question remaining is whether Polland’s video is a fraud, or just inept.

    This is the crucial distinction to make with all birthers, in my opinion. The questions of Vattelist or Kenyan birth or Indonesian adoption or Pakistani travel or Kryptonian ancestry are merely superficial – the real question is whether birthers are lying or ignorant (or more accurately, what combination of the two…).

    Is it just me, or does this latest video seem pretty lame, even by birther standards?

  16. avatar
    Sean February 23, 2011 at 1:33 pm #

    Rahm Emanuel just said Obama’s home town is Chicago!

    HA! GOT HIM!!………….wait.

  17. avatar
    Tarrant February 23, 2011 at 1:36 pm #

    I think it’s mostly a case of ODS – they dislike Obama to the point that anything that seems to cast him negatively, or that agrees with their belief that he’s such a terrible person that it’s impossible for him to have won in any legitimate way, is believable despite the argument being full of holes.

    Butterdezillion’s assertions that Hawaii has “indirectly confirmed” practically everything birthers believe by using “code words” placed with statements that otherwise directly contradict what birthers believe, or some people in the freep

  18. avatar
    Tarrant February 23, 2011 at 1:40 pm #

    Sigh, misclick…

    Comments in the freep thread saying that when Fukino says he’s a “Natural born American citizen” that she didn’t say “Natural born United States citizen” and therefore is leaving herself an out because he could be a natural born Brazilian citizen (and yes, that’s in the thread) are equally ridiculous.

    One poster even complained about the use of a hyphen, saying that there is no hyphen in Article II of the Constitution and considered it a “gotcha” moment, as if adding a hyphen would allow someone to say “I said he was natural-born, not natural born!” and have people go “Oh, ok then”, completely ignoring the fact that the statement in question was spoken and the hyphen was added by whomever wrote it down.

  19. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 23, 2011 at 1:43 pm #

    Tarrant:
    I think it’s mostly a case of ODS – they dislike Obama to the point that anything that seems to cast him negatively, or that agrees with their belief that he’s such a terrible person that it’s impossible for him to have won in any legitimate way, is believable despite the argument being full of holes.

    Butterdezillion’s assertions that Hawaii has “indirectly confirmed” practically everything birthers believe by using “code words” placed with statements that otherwise directly contradict what birthers believe, or some people in the freep

    I’d love to see someone do an epidemiology of ODS…

  20. avatar
    Black Lion February 23, 2011 at 2:36 pm #

    The stupidity shown by the birthers in that freeper thread is astounding. Their hatred of Obama has caused them to make up wild scenarios like trying to claim that natural born American citizen somehow has a different meaning than natural born US citizen. You really have to wonder about those people. Everytime we think that the birthers can’t devolve any further, you read their comments and discover that it is not the case.

  21. avatar
    Bovril February 23, 2011 at 2:55 pm #

    Ah,

    The document referenced, at the end has a set of appendices including “states”.

    They actually have 53 “states” recorded which includes DC, NYC and Puerto Rico.

    OMG there must be a diabolical NWO/Illuminato/Marxist-Fascist-Socialist plot in hand…

  22. avatar
    Tarrant February 23, 2011 at 3:12 pm #

    Yes. The people making the argument I made in the first post in this thread (that an argument based on Obama having access to security paper and a printer but he decided to print onto clear plastic sheets instead of, you know, onto the paper, is a ridiculous one) are being slammed as usual as Obots and more; with none of the standard birthers being able to admit the argument is ridiculous because they think it would mean agreeing with Obama (rather than just admitting that Polarik is an idiot).

  23. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 23, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    Tarrant: none of the […] birthers [are] able to admit the argument is ridiculous because they think it would mean agreeing with Obama (rather than just admitting that Polarik is an idiot).

    To me this is the birther’s most endearing quality – it makes them completely inept and certain to agree with (many) things that are easily debunked to any rational person…

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2011 at 4:08 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Is it just me, or does this latest video seem pretty lame, even by birther standards?

    The one impression that I got from Polland’s Polarik days was that he thought he was a lot smarter than everybody else. An attitude like that doesn’t lead to high standards when trying to fool others.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Ron Polland February 23, 2011 at 7:30 pm #

    Now that you watched the 2-minute trailer, see the whole series for the same price:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbpjYeZXaVs

  26. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 23, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    Dr. Ron Polland:
    Now that you watched the 2-minute trailer, see the whole series for the same price:

    [link deleted in hopes of saving other people the 10 minutes of their lives that I’ve sacrificed]

    I notice you’ve got just over 3,000 hits on that video since last May – you’re going to have to make up some better lies if you want to bilk money from the birtherstani – even amongst birthers there can’t be too many people gullible enough to believe this crap…

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2011 at 8:04 pm #

    Slartibartfast: you’re going to have to make up some better lies if you want to bilk money from the birtherstani

    I always understood that Dr. Polland’s motivations were political rather than monetary.

  28. avatar
    Sean February 23, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    Dr. Ron Polland:
    Now that you watched the 2-minute trailer, see the whole series for the same price:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbpjYeZXaVs

    Why would he forge a document he wasn’t require to disclose in the first place?

    It’s a more believable scenario that the COLB is legit like the State of Hawaii says it is.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I notice you’ve got just over 3,000 hits on that video since last May

    I serve three times that number of pages on an average day here.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 23, 2011 at 9:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I serve three times that number of pages on an average day here.

    keyboard cat gets 3 times that an hour

  31. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 23, 2011 at 9:44 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I serve three times that number of pages on an average day here.

    So what you’re saying is that a good week for you is better than a good decade for that incompetent, lying propagandist… I wonder how many of his hits come from Obots looking to debunk him (and finding it no challenge whatsoever) – I know I’ve visited at least twice…

    You’ve also demonstrated far more scholarship on this blog than this fake forensic analyst is likely to in his entire lifetime, PhD or no…

  32. avatar
    SluggoJD February 23, 2011 at 10:30 pm #

    Man, that PooPoo Polarik nutcase sure has a sense of humor!

  33. avatar
    chufho February 24, 2011 at 1:59 am #

    Black Lion: You mean the guy that got caught lying about what the governor of HI actually said? Yes, what about him?

    He was caught lying trying to cover his *ss

  34. avatar
    E. Glenn harcsar February 24, 2011 at 8:17 am #

    O-Bot Command Directive OB-08-878 (Revised)
    TO: All O-Bots

    No O-BOT will make death threats either orally or in writing. Is thus understood?

    I don’t know which of you posted that illiterate death threat over at Obami.com: “if u dare harm obama or his family u will be hunted and slaughter u will wish u was never born”. Continue Reading β†’

    –from the archive internal use only. ( found by link in the super Sekrit)

    Dr C, a guy with a blog who is not a lawyer, your slip is showing.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2011 at 8:42 am #

    E. Glenn harcsar: Dr C, a guy with a blog who is not a lawyer, your slip is showing.

    Yes, that was a joke posting from a long time ago.

    The fellow who posted those nasty comments on the Orly Taitz site actually showed up here and discussed his motivations, although some months later..

  36. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 24, 2011 at 8:46 am #

    chufho: He was caught lying trying to cover his *ss

    He was caught lying period. Who would have thought that entertainment gossip “journalists” wouldn’t exhaggerate and lie on a story?

  37. avatar
    The Magic M February 24, 2011 at 9:27 am #

    > O-Bot Command Directive OB-08-878

    It’s a fake! The number is out of sequence!!!one!!!eleven!!!!

    *scnr*

  38. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 24, 2011 at 9:29 am #

    The Magic M: > O-Bot Command Directive OB-08-878It’s a fake! The number is out of sequence!!!one!!!eleven!!!!*scnr*

    That’s a delayed directive! It can’t be real

  39. avatar
    Bovril February 24, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    Tut tut, forgot to include the SHA-1 hash, patently bogus…….

    Message passed to Central Command to distribute fresh certificates through the usual channels.

    bd 7d 41 5b 39 d8 8b 59 5d 70 bf a9 c3 74 87 5b a1 7e ab f5

  40. avatar
    Black Lion February 24, 2011 at 10:18 am #

    chufho: He was caught lying trying to cover his *ss

    Hilarious….You guys are so pathetic that you think that somehow an entertainment reporter who got caught in a lie is somehow evidence. You clearly forget that he never could support his original claim and when questioned had to tell the truth. Only a fool would believe his original story. It was as believable as the infamous Race Bannon story or that somehow Tim Adams had access to birth records. Birthers are willing to believe any sort of nonsense….

  41. avatar
    Dr. Ron Polland February 24, 2011 at 10:49 am #

    This message Is directed towards anyone who knows how to conduct a science experiment.

    You don’t have to believe a word I said – but you do have to replicate the tests I ran which included downloading the files that Factcheck posted on its website – the original files, not their replacements.

    Download Factcheck photos, #4, #5 and #6 – which are the sequence of shots taken of the top third, middle third, and bottom third of the COLB under incandescent light (hence the yellowish-orange tint).

    Open them up in your graphics viewer. Look for the text fields like HONOLULU, MOTHER’S NAME, CERTIFICATION NO. that are not washed out by the direct light and zoom in to at least 400%.

    You will see the same raised, off-the-paper,shadow-casting letters that were shown in the video.

    Now, take a real paper COLB and photograph it with a digital camera, at 7MP, angled in the same way and similarly illuminated.

    Compare the letters on the real COLB photos to the Factcheck COLB photo.

    Present your evidence here.

  42. avatar
    Bovril February 24, 2011 at 11:09 am #

    Assuming this is the “real” fake Ron….

    You do understand that your pathetic little experiment has precisely zero use or validity as you are making up imaginary details from a low grade IMAGE of the original COLB.

    Tell you what, go and run this on the REAL COLB and then….well, people, even in Freeperville will STILL ignore you.

  43. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 24, 2011 at 11:10 am #

    Dr. Ron Polland: This message Is directed towards anyone who knows how to conduct a science experiment.You don’t have to believe a word I said – but you do have to replicate the tests I ran which included downloading the files that Factcheck posted on its website – the original files, not their replacements.Download Factcheck photos, #4, #5 and #6 – which are the sequence of shots taken of the top third, middle third, and bottom third of the COLB under incandescent light (hence the yellowish-orange tint). Open them up in your graphics viewer. Look for the text fields like HONOLULU, MOTHER’S NAME, CERTIFICATION NO. that are not washed out by the direct light and zoom in to at least 400%.You will see the same raised, off-the-paper,shadow-casting letters that were shown in the video.Now, take a real paper COLB and photograph it with a digital camera, at 7MP, angled in the same way and similarly illuminated.Compare the letters on the real COLB photos to the Factcheck COLB photo.Present your evidence here.

    Science experiments don’t start with a predetermined conclusion and then the fitting of the data around the conclusion

  44. avatar
    elid February 24, 2011 at 11:18 am #

    Dr. Ron Polland:
    This message Is directed towards anyone who knows how to conduct a science experiment.

    You don’t have to believe a word I said – but you do have to replicate the tests I ran which included downloading the files that Factcheck posted on its website – the original files, not their replacements.

    Download Factcheck photos, #4, #5 and #6 – which are the sequence of shots taken of the top third, middle third, and bottom third of the COLB under incandescent light (hence the yellowish-orange tint).

    Open them up in your graphics viewer. Look for the text fields like HONOLULU, MOTHER’S NAME, CERTIFICATION NO. that are not washed out by the direct light and zoom in to at least 400%.

    You will see the same raised, off-the-paper,shadow-casting letters that were shown in the video.

    Now, take a real paper COLB and photograph it with a digital camera, at 7MP, angled in the same way and similarly illuminated.

    Compare the letters on the real COLB photos to the Factcheck COLB photo.

    Present your evidence here.

    Why should I believe you? You’ve lied about your background, your name, your methodology, your qualifications, and your conclusions. There is no more reason to test your ridiculous theories than there is to debate a creationist.

  45. avatar
    Lupin February 24, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    Dr. Ron Polland: You don’t have to believe a word I said

    This is indeed good, because frankly, we don’t. Not a word.

    I might add your methodology is completely batsh*t crazy.

  46. avatar
    BatGuano February 24, 2011 at 11:41 am #

    Dr. Ron Polland: You will see the same raised, off-the-paper,shadow-casting letters that were shown in the video.

    i don’t see what you claim to be “shadows” from a transparency.

    but my main question has been asked ( and unanswered ) earlier in this thread…… what possible benefit, from a forging/printing point of view, is there to printing on a transparency instead of printing directly on the paper?

  47. avatar
    Sef February 24, 2011 at 11:46 am #

    BatGuano: i don’t see what you claim to be “shadows” from a transparency.

    but my main question has been asked ( and unanswered ) earlier in this thread…… what possible benefit, from a forging/printing point of view, is there to printing on a transparency instead of printing directly on the paper?

    Plus the simple fact that there would be specular reflections from the plastic. There are none.

  48. avatar
    BatGuano February 24, 2011 at 11:55 am #

    Sef: Plus the simple fact that there would be specular reflections from the plastic.There are none.

    yep.

  49. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 24, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    Sef: Plus the simple fact that there would be specular reflections from the plastic. There are none.

    But Factcheck was obviously using some magical camera when they took the pictures and they obviously brought Industrial Light and Magic in to touch up the photos with “special effects” so there was no reflection.

  50. avatar
    Sef February 24, 2011 at 12:00 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): But Factcheck was obviously using some magical camera when they took the pictures and they obviously brought Industrial Light and Magic in to touch up the photos with “special effects” so there was no reflection.

    If they did all that, why not eliminate the “shadows”?

  51. avatar
    Sef February 24, 2011 at 12:02 pm #

    My last comment is in moderation. What did I trigger?

  52. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 24, 2011 at 12:35 pm #

    Sef: If they did all that, why not eliminate the “shadows”?

    Aha the shadows were there for the ambiance

  53. avatar
    The Magic M February 24, 2011 at 12:43 pm #

    > You will see the same raised, off-the-paper,shadow-casting letters that were shown in the video.

    I checked this document:

    > http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/image3-factcheck1.jpg

    and cannot possibly call these letters “raised” or “off-the-paper” by any “scientific” standard.

  54. avatar
    Reality Check February 24, 2011 at 1:21 pm #

    OK let’s do some geometry boys and girls. If the letters in question are 16 point font the height of the letters is 16/72″ or 0.222″. If they are printed on 4 mil mylar (3 or 4 mils is common so I am being conservative) that means it is 0.004″ thick. If the light is at an angle of 30 degrees off vertical the length of the shadow is 1/sqrt(3) x the thickness of the mylar or 0.0023″. That means the shadow would be 1% of the height of the letter. The so called “shadows” in Pollands video are more like 1/10 of the height of the letter. This would imply a mylar film thickness of 40 mils or equal to 10 sheets of what is sold for ink jet and laser printers. Just for reference a standard sheet of copier or printer paper is about 3 mils thick.

    Of course, you could also just look at the photos on Factcheck and see that Polland’s theory is complete nonsense.

  55. avatar
    Thrifty February 24, 2011 at 2:08 pm #

    Hey all. Just found this site while doing a Google search on “Obama social security number”. I have this morbid fascination with Birthers. They have this weird tendency to reverse-engineer reality, to start with a conclusion (Obama is ineligible to be president) and attempt to hammer the facts into it when they can, and find some nonsense reason (that’s liberal media it’s unreliable! or some such rot) to dismiss any clear contradictions. It’s a beautiful train wreck.

    I don’t know any Birthers, but I do have an uncle who is a 9/11 Truther. He likes to pester my mom and my other aunts and uncles trying to sell them on the Truther thing. I found a couple great sites for refuting Trutherism, but nothing comparable for Birtherism. Until I found this site. I will hungrily devour its archives and look forward to the updates.

  56. avatar
    Reality Check February 24, 2011 at 2:16 pm #

    Thrifty

    Welcome to the fun! There are some connections between Birthers and 911 Truthers. Phil Berg, the first Birther attorney, is also a 911 Truther, It should be no surprise that mental midgets like Birthers fail for other conspiracy theories like Chem Trails and the New World Order.

  57. avatar
    Bovril February 24, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

    Welcome to the Obot Collective…..we have cookies !!!

  58. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 24, 2011 at 3:08 pm #

    Thrifty:
    Hey all.Just found this site while doing a Google search on “Obama social security number”.I have this morbid fascination with Birthers.They have this weird tendency to reverse-engineer reality, to start with a conclusion (Obama is ineligible to be president) and attempt to hammer the facts into it when they can, and find some nonsense reason (that’s liberal media it’s unreliable! or some such rot) to dismiss any clear contradictions. It’s a beautiful train wreck.

    I don’t know any Birthers, but I do have an uncle who is a 9/11 Truther.He likes to pester my mom and my other aunts and uncles trying to sell them on the Truther thing.I found a couple great sites for refuting Trutherism, but nothing comparable for Birtherism.Until I found this site.I will hungrily devour its archives and look forward to the updates.

    For updates on what the birthers are doing, I think Bad Fiction and Oh, for Goodness Sake (under ‘THE GOOD’ links) are great as well. I find birthers pretty much the same as truthers (one group ignores the Constitution the other group ignores the laws of physics…). Anyway, welcome aboard.

  59. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 24, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    Bovril:
    Welcome to the Obot Collective…..we have cookies !!!

    I didn’t get a cookie when I showed up here… πŸ™

  60. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 24, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    Reality Check:
    OK let’s do some geometry boys and girls. If the letters in question are 16 point font the height of the letters is 16/72‘ or 0.222‘. If they are printed on 4 mil mylar (3 or 4 mils is common so I am being conservative) that means it is 0.004‘ thick. If the light is at an angle of 30 degrees off vertical the length of the shadow is 1/sqrt(3) x the thickness of the mylar or 0.0023‘. That means the shadow would be 1% of the height of the letter. The so called “shadows” in Pollands video are more like 1/10 of the height of the letter. This would imply a mylar film thickness of 40 mils or equal to 10 sheets of what is sold for ink jet and laser printers. Just for reference a standard sheet of copier or printer paper is about 3 mils thick.

    Of course, you could also just look at the photos on Factcheck and see that Polland’s theory is complete nonsense.

    Nicely done.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2011 at 3:12 pm #

    Sef: My last comment is in moderation. What did I trigger?

    Nothing is in moderation.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2011 at 3:22 pm #

    Dr. Ron Polland:
    This message Is directed towards anyone who knows how to conduct a science experiment.

    You don’t have to believe a word I said – but you do have to replicate the tests I ran which included downloading the files that Factcheck posted on its website – the original files, not their replacements.

    Download Factcheck photos, #4, #5 and #6 – which are the sequence of shots taken of the top third, middle third, and bottom third of the COLB under incandescent light (hence the yellowish-orange tint).

    Open them up in your graphics viewer. Look for the text fields like HONOLULU, MOTHER’S NAME, CERTIFICATION NO. that are not washed out by the direct light and zoom in to at least 400%.

    You will see the same raised, off-the-paper,shadow-casting letters that were shown in the video.

    Now, take a real paper COLB and photograph it with a digital camera, at 7MP, angled in the same way and similarly illuminated.

    Compare the letters on the real COLB photos to the Factcheck COLB photo.

    Present your evidence here.

    Real scientists consider alternate explanations for what they see, which is why you are not a scientist. Also, real scientists don’t bluster, on sidestepping substantive objections such as in my article as you have done.

    I agree that anyone can replicate your experiment. I disagree with your conclusions.

    In your video, you show two images, side by side. The one on the left you claim is “real” and the on the on the right some kind of pasted plastic. The image on the right has little arrows pointing to what you call shadows. In every case where you have an arrow on the right, there is a clearly seen darker green mark from the basket weave on the left.

    I showed the side-by-side image to my wife with no explanation except the caption you put on them in the video. She said, “there are shadows on the one on the left too.”

    You say: “Compare the letters on the real COLB photos to the Factcheck COLB photo.” You claimed to have performed an objective experiment comparing the two images, but there was a striking difference in the light level in the two images. Why is that? Why is the lighting of the security paper utterly flat in your “photo”, but the lighting of the security paper from FactCheck shows highlights of the texture of the paper. Obviously you didn’t even try to make an equivalent photograph.

    Any fool can see that your conclusion is wrong unless they be blinded by bias. As I said in my article, the only question is whether you are inept or lying.

  63. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 24, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Any fool can see that your conclusion is wrong unless they be blinded by bias. As I said in my article, the only question is whether you are inept or lying.

    Doc,

    Don’t discount the possibility that he is inept AND lying or inept AT lying, too…

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    Dr. Ron Polland: This message Is directed towards anyone who knows how to conduct a science experiment.

    Is this a “help wanted” ad?

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Don’t discount the possibility that he is inept AND lying or inept AT lying, too…

    We’ve talked here about the fact that folks who don’t know much overestimate what they know. I suppose this could be the case with Polland. It is hard to believe, though, that he actually believes his own analysis.

    It was widely reported that he faked his original analysis of the birth certificate, and I was able to find things in his images that weren’t in the originals; however, I also thought that these might be some kind of artifacts in the image programs he used rather than intentional fakery; i.e., there is an alternate hypothesis to the theory that he faked his images.

    The thing about the shadows is so obvious that it is hard to imagine that someone would deliberately put forward such an easily-blown theory. That would suggest that Polland is so passionately caught up in his forgery theory that he sees only what he wants to see, and is incapable of objectivity. That’s the nicest face I can put on this.

  66. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 24, 2011 at 3:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: We’ve talked here about the fact that folks who don’t know much overestimate what they know. I suppose this could be the case with Polland. It is hard to believe, though, that he actually believes his own analysis.It was widely reported that he faked his original analysis of the birth certificate, and I was able to find things in his images that weren’t in the originals; however, I also thought that these might be some kind of artifacts in the image programs he used rather than intentional fakery; i.e., there is an alternate hypothesis to the theory that he faked his images.The thing about the shadows is so obvious that it is hard to imagine that someone would deliberately put forward such an easily-blown theory. That would suggest that Polland is so passionately caught up in his forgery theory that he sees only what he wants to see, and is incapable of objectivity. That’s the nicest face I can put on this.

    Maybe he’s been staring at the images so long he’s starting to see some of those crazy 3D images that were popular during the 90s. Except they’re not really there.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

    Reality Check: Of course, you could also just look at the photos on Factcheck and see that Polland’s theory is complete nonsense.

    Yes, in Polland’s own image of the FactCheck photos, the pitted surface of the security paper is obvious, a pitted surface that a plastic sheet would not exhibit.

  68. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 24, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: That would suggest that Polland is so passionately caught up in his forgery theory that he sees only what he wants to see, and is incapable of objectivity.

    Confirmation bias is a powerful thing – as long as you don’t make reference to some objective standard there’s really nothing to prevent arbitrarily large cognitive dissonance…

  69. avatar
    Loren February 24, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    Dr. Ron Polland:
    Present your evidence here.

    Oh my gosh.

    Results

    I mean, the shadows are ALL WRONG. It’s plain as day; just follow the lines and arrows if you can’t tell.

    It’s irrefutable evidence of fraud, I tell ya. What other explanation could there be? Just look at the shadows! And given the universal government silence we’ve seen, and the ridicule heaped upon those who question the authenticity of the images, clearly there are some powerful forces high up who are doing their very best to silence those who don’t fall for their story and their ‘photographic evidence.’

  70. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 24, 2011 at 4:27 pm #

    Loren: Oh my gosh.ResultsI mean, the shadows are ALL WRONG. It’s plain as day; just follow the lines and arrows if you can’t tell.It’s irrefutable evidence of fraud, I tell ya. What other explanation could there be? Just look at the shadows! And given the universal government silence we’ve seen, and the ridicule heaped upon those who question the authenticity of the images, clearly there are some powerful forces high up who are doing their very best to silence those who don’t fall for their story and their photographic evidence.’

    Beware the Shadow a highly underrated movie made in the 90s with Alec Baldwin

  71. avatar
    BatGuano February 24, 2011 at 4:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Nothing is in moderation.

    are we para-phrasing oscar wilde ?

  72. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett February 24, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    What foolishness lurks in the hearts of Birthers?

    THE SHADOW KNOWS…

  73. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 24, 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    BatGuano: are we para-phrasing oscar wilde ?

    Very funny!

    Ασητα αγση! (A Greek motto that Wilde embraced – ‘All things to excess!’)

  74. avatar
    Reality Check February 24, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    I could be wrong I suppose. The forgers could have printed the letters on glass and the wrinkles at the folds are really broken glass. πŸ˜‰

    By the way, I printed the screen shot above in the article and pulled out my trusty micrometer. The length of the Polland imaginary shadows is actually 1/6 of the height of the letters so my guess was conservative. The mylar film would have to be thicker than I had estimated or around 60 mils or the thickness of 15 sheets of standard mylar.

  75. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 24, 2011 at 5:18 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I could be wrong I suppose. The forgers could have printed the letters on glass and the wrinkles at the folds are really broken glass.

    By the way, I printed the screen shot above in the article and pulled out my trusty micrometer. The length of the Polland imaginary shadows is actually 1/6 of the height of the letters so my guess was conservative. The mylar film would have to be thicker than I had estimated or around 60 mils or the thickness of 15 sheets of standard mylar.

    Way to embody your pseudonym! πŸ˜‰

  76. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 24, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    Reality Check: I could be wrong I suppose. The forgers could have printed the letters on glass and the wrinkles at the folds are really broken glass. By the way, I printed the screen shot above in the article and pulled out my trusty micrometer. The length of the Polland imaginary shadows is actually 1/6 of the height of the letters so my guess was conservative. The mylar film would have to be thicker than I had estimated or around 60 mils or the thickness of 15 sheets of standard mylar.

    I think I’ve seen this one some M. Night Shyamalan plot twist

  77. avatar
    G February 24, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Maybe he’s been staring at the images so long he’s starting to see some of those crazy 3D images that were popular during the 90s. Except they’re not really there.

    LOL! Hey, I loved those “secret” 3D images from the 90’s! Some folks could never figure out how to see them. Once I figured out how to properly adjust my vision focus, I found it relatively easy to see most of them fairly quickly.

    My favorite reference to them has to be the movie, “Mallrats”.

  78. avatar
    Judge Mental February 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: What foolishness lurks in the hearts of Birthers?THE SHADOW KNOWS…

    Hank Marvin is the oracle?

  79. avatar
    G February 24, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Doc,
    Don’t discount the possibility that he is inept AND lying or inept AT lying, too…

    Most likely yes AND yes.

    Slartibartfast: I didn’t get a cookie when I showed up here…

    *urp*…

    Sorry, Slarti… I got greedy and ate them all, before you could get yours. πŸ˜‰

  80. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 24, 2011 at 7:00 pm #

    G: Sorry, Slarti… I got greedy and ate them all, before you could get yours.

    Curses, foiled again! I guess I’ll forgive you since you came up with the inspired ‘Rick Rolling’ idea…

  81. avatar
    G February 24, 2011 at 7:39 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Curses, foiled again! I guess I’ll forgive you since you came up with the inspired Rick Rolling’ idea…

    πŸ˜‰

    Oh, and Slarti, sorry I haven’t responded to your other emails yet…super overloaded with some work stuff and other than escaping here and a few quick places every so often for a “sanity” break, I want to give the data you sent me “focused” attention…so I will get back to you eventually as soon as I catch a break from other data intensive stuff that’s draining my mind… promise.

  82. avatar
    Reality Check February 24, 2011 at 7:44 pm #

    I think the Polland videos are proof that Birthers suffer from “Lamont Cranston Syndrome”. Their minds have been permanently clouded.

  83. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 24, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    G:

    Oh, and Slarti, sorry I haven’t responded to your other emails yet…super overloaded with some work stuff and other than escaping here and a few quick places every so often for a “sanity” break, I want to give the data you sent me “focused” attention…so I will get back to you eventually as soon as I catch a break from other data intensive stuff that’s draining my mind… promise.

    As I said in those emails, I don’t have time to think about that stuff until next week anyway (I shouldn’t even be taking the time to write this ;-)) so no worries…

  84. avatar
    Sef February 24, 2011 at 9:02 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I think the Polland videos are proof that Birthers suffer from “Lamont Cranston Syndrome”. Their minds have been permanently clouded.

    But in this case, the shadow doesn’t know.

  85. avatar
    Wild Bill H February 25, 2011 at 10:14 am #

    “Forget the fact that the Hawaii Director of Health confirmed that the birth certificate on the Obama Fight the Smears campaign web site is “his birth certificate” and her press release saying Obama was born in Hawaii.”

    I don’t see what one has to do with the other. I don’t know and don’t care if the COLB is forged or not…but whether it is or is not – has absolutely no bearing on whether the DOH confirmed for denied anything. The two are not synonymous.

    Weird argument there Doc.

    He very well might have been born in Hawaii and it very well might be a correct representation of his BC – but that still doesn’t mean it isn’t a forgery, or was tampered with. The original (which the DOH DOES in fact have if he were born there) has much more information on it than the COLB…therefore, there could be some information contained on the BC that is not reflected at all on the COLB.

    I think the point being – we just really don’t know. I know you all ‘think’ you know – but I’m wondering just how many of you would be willing to actually bet some real money in a substantial amount on what you ‘think’ you know. I’m also wondering if, as a rule, you trust politicians to tell the truth? I know I don’t – NONE of them would know the truth if it bit them on the behind!

    I also know he has no obligation to show his original BC….but wouldn’t it be better to be safe than sorry? Trust but verify? Nahhh…I guess not since he is the great Obama – he would never lie about a single solitary thing…would he? Sad…just sad.

  86. avatar
    thisoldhippie February 25, 2011 at 10:36 am #

    “Dr.” Ron Polland’s photo “experiments,” (damn at the quotation marks), remind me of a trial we had about a year ago. The photo expert for the defense set up this elaborate reconstruction of the accident where our client ran into the rear of a parked bob-tail that was sitting in the middle of her lane. Right before trial we blew the recon photos up and the attorney I work for did a double take. The tractor our client hit was dark blue with a flat black bumper and flat black mudflaps. The tractor used in the recon was dark red with reflective tape on the rear of the tractor itself, a chrome bumper and chrome reflective strips on the mudflaps. No wonder the thing was so visible in the reproduction photos! The judge then promptly threw out their reconstruction photos and the “expert” photographer lost it on the stand. Polland’s photo experiments would just as quickly be thrown out.

  87. avatar
    The Magic M February 25, 2011 at 11:24 am #

    > but that still doesn’t mean it isn’t a forgery

    I think the singular question whether someone from Obama’s campaign “forged” a document that didn’t even need to be forged is pretty much a non-issue.
    If the DoH says its contents correspond to what’s on the COLB they issue for Obama, the eligiblity issue is moot. Everything else is about as interesting as “did someone from Clinton’s campaign steal money from the campaign fund”.

    > there could be some information contained on the BC that is not reflected at all on the COLB

    That’s very well possible given that the COLB only contains the information required to be used as an official document (for obtaining a driver’s license etc.).

    But how would that issue relate to eligibility or why would anyone be compelled to release such info? What, in your opinion, could such additional information possibly be that it would warrant public scrutiny? That the doctor was a woman? That the midwife was a Marxist activist?

    > I’m also wondering if, as a rule, you trust politicians to tell the truth?

    That doesn’t matter as I have to trust officials. If I didn’t, why would I accept any ID from someone who wants to buy my car if I considered it probable the authorities deliberately gave a false ID to that person? Where would I put the Full Faith And Credit Clause? At some point, there are things I have to believe if I want to live a normal life. Otherwise I’d still be checking my second girlfriend’s family history or my first employer’s tax records or the citizenship of the priest who ordained the priest who ordained the priest who married me to my 5th wife. πŸ˜‰

    > but wouldn’t it be better to be safe than sorry

    What would I have to be “safe” or “sorry” about? What information on the ominous “original long form BC” would possibly warrant such feelings?

    And if I didn’t find anything there, would I have to keep looking at the kindergarten records or his list of former clients to feel any more “safe” or “sorry”?

    > Sad…just sad.

    That’s what she said! πŸ˜‰

  88. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 25, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    Hoo boy, I can almost hardly wait ’til there’s a Republican President. Why?

    Because apparently it’s now OK to spread lies about him and his policies, make up fake documents showing he was born somewhere else, file harassing frivolous lawsuits against him, have major websites refuse to accept comments that refer to him as “President,” work to derail all his efforts and make his administration a failure, call him a liar on the floor of Congress, call him un-American, disloyal, a Fascist, a Nazi, disparage his family, say horrible things about his mother, hold gun-toting rallies against him, disrupt town-hall meetings, ignore threats against his life by nutbags, make sure schools don’t show his speeches lest he ‘indoctrinate’ them, pass State laws that question his legitimacy and countermand any Federal laws he passes, bend and misrepresent everything he says… and I’ll be right there, spending every dime I can to ruin him, to bring him down. My business is thriving, so I’ll have lots of money to spread around.

    And it will all be OK, because Republicans and their media backers have set the precedent for it. They’ve given us permission to do all the above if we want to.

    Hooray!

  89. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 25, 2011 at 11:38 am #

    Thomas Brown: Hoo boy, I can almost hardly wait ’til there’s a Republican President. Why?Because apparently it’s now OK to spread lies about him and his policies, make up fake documents showing he was born somewhere else, file harassing frivolous lawsuits against him, have major websites refuse to accept comments that refer to him as “President,” work to derail all his efforts and make his administration a failure, call him a liar on the floor of Congress, call him un-American, disloyal, a Fascist, a Nazi, disparage his family, say horrible things about his mother, hold gun-toting rallies against him, disrupt town-hall meetings, ignore threats against his life by nutbags, make sure schools don’t show his speeches lest he indoctrinate’ them, pass State laws that question his legitimacy and countermand any Federal laws he passes, bend and misrepresent everything he says… and I’ll be right there, spending every dime I can to ruin him, to bring him down. My business is thriving, so I’ll have lots of money to spread around.And it will all be OK, because Republicans and their media backers have set the precedent for it. They’ve given us permission to do all the above if we want to.Hooray!

    They set the precedent before it before when they were making up lies about Bill Clinton

  90. avatar
    BatGuano February 25, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    Wild Bill H: He very well might have been born in Hawaii and it very well might be a correct representation of his BC – but that still doesn’t mean it isn’t a forgery, or was tampered with.

    this is the oddest statement. you believe that there is the possibility that the campaign had no reason to forge the document…….. but did it anyway for spits-n-giggles? again, that’s just odd.

    as for additional information on the “long-form”…… the nordyke twins “long-forms” are available online. what possible information on there would affect presidential eligibility? the only one i can think of is parents occupation. if it listed either parent as a “foreign diplomat” or “member of invading army” then we’d have something. it is unlikely that we do.

  91. avatar
    Bovril February 25, 2011 at 12:00 pm #

    So, “Bill”,

    I also know he has no obligation to show his original BC….but wouldn’t it be better to be safe than sorry? Trust but verify? Nahhh…I guess not since he is the great Obama – he would never lie about a single solitary thing…would he? Sad…just sad.

    just what PRECISLEY is your issue..?

    Seriously I am confused.

    The current POTUS has shown the ONLY form of birth certificate that Hawai’i issues to ANYONE born there. There hasn’t been a mystical “long form” issued in over 10 years to anyone as Hawai’i doesn’t issue them anymore.

    So where exactly does the only available document that states date of birth (and therefore age) and place of birth (showing NBC status) fail to meet legal and Constitutional requirements…?

    So guess what…it’s been verified and in the eyes of the law and the Constitution its trustworthy.

    What additional requirements are there that another BC would provide?

  92. avatar
    Rickey February 25, 2011 at 12:05 pm #

    Wild Bill H:
    The original (which the DOH DOES in fact have if he were born there) has much more information on it than the COLB…therefore, there could be some information contained on the BC that is not reflected at all on the COLB.

    Of course there is information on the original birth certificate which isn’t included in the COLB. But none of that information is relevant to establishing that Obama was born in Hawaii. There are three eligibility requirements to be President, and the COLB satisfies two of them (age and country of birth). There is nothing in his original birth certificate which would help satisfy the residency requirement.

    Obama’s COLB actually contains more information than my birth certificate, which was issued to my parents a week after I was born in New York:

    1. Obama’s COLB shows the time of birth; my birth certificate does not.

    2. Obama’s COLB shows the county of birth; my birth certificate does not.

    3. Obama’s COLB shows the race of the parents; my birth certificate does not.

    4. Obama’s COLB has a certificate number; my original birth certificate does not (subsequent copies which I ordered years later show a local registration number, however).

    Given the paucity of information in New York birth certificates, can I assume that you will demand to see the original birth certificate of George Pataki if he runs for President? He sure has a foreign-sounding surname.

  93. avatar
    Dr. Ron Polland February 25, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    Yes or No:

    Have we seen both sides of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth?

  94. avatar
    BatGuano February 25, 2011 at 1:00 pm #

    Wild Bill H: Trust but verify? Nahhh…I guess not since he is the great Obama

    interesting choice of phrases. did you know that reagan ( the man that coined the term “trust but verify” ) wasn’t issued a birth certificate of his at home birth till he was in his 30’s? there is also no evidence that reagan released it to anyone before he was elected to office. that’s a whole lot of trust with almost zero verification in that case.

    the verification of obama’s birth to date:

    -the COLB published online.
    -physical verification of COLB by independent third party.
    -contemporaneous newspaper accounts ( available on micro-film in multiple libraries, including the library of congress).
    -statement from the hawaiian director of health confirming his birth in hawaii.
    -statement from the hawaiian director of health confirming the online image is obama’s birth certificate.
    -1967 state department report listing stanley ann dunham/sotoero’s “six year old son” as a US citizen.
    -lack of any evidence that he was born elsewhere.

  95. avatar
    BatGuano February 25, 2011 at 1:02 pm #

    Dr. Ron Polland:
    Yes or No:

    Have we seen both sides of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth?

    besides the stamp what else do you want to see?

  96. avatar
    Hawaiiborn February 25, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    Dr. Ron Polland:
    Yes or No:

    Have we seen both sides of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth?

    Yes we have. There is only the date stamp and the stamp signature on the back
    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg

  97. avatar
    Loren February 25, 2011 at 2:00 pm #

    BatGuano:
    -lack of any evidence that he was born elsewhere.

    Add to that list:

    – lack of any measurable doubt prior to 2008 that he was born in Hawaii.

    I haven’t seen a Birther do it in a while, but for a long time one of their common claims was that skepticism over Obama’s birthplace began prior to 2008, but all examples had been scrubbed. For once, it seems Birthers eventually tired of resorting to the ‘It was scrubbed’ defense.

  98. avatar
    Majority Will February 25, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    Bovril:
    So, “Bill”,

    just what PRECISLEY is your issue..?

    Seriously I am confused.

    The current POTUS has shown the ONLY form of birth certificate that Hawai’i issues to ANYONE born there. There hasn’t been a mystical “long form” issued in over 10 years to anyone as Hawai’i doesn’t issue them anymore.

    So where exactly does the only available document that states date of birth (and therefore age) and place of birth (showing NBC status) fail to meet legal and Constitutional requirements…?

    So guess what…it’s been verified and in the eyes of the law and the Constitution its trustworthy.

    What additional requirements are there that another BC would provide?

    Birthers want any possible dirt on the POTUS to satisfy their hatred, bigotry and political motivations? They must get easily bored harassing the same people over and over.

  99. avatar
    Majority Will February 25, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    BatGuano: if it listed either parent as a “foreign diplomat” or “member of invading army” then we’d have something. it is unlikely that we do.

    You know, Barack Sr. might have addressed the President’s mother as “hun”.

  100. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 25, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    Hawaiiborn: Yes we have. There is only the date stamp and the stamp signature on the backhttp://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg

    But you didn’t put the image under a Microscope, Hawaii it obviously says “We sure fooled Polland with this”

  101. avatar
    Majority Will February 25, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

    What’s next? Poll-lick puts the image under an electron microscope and declares it fake because there’s no pineapple pollen?

  102. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2011 at 4:20 pm #

    Loren: I haven’t seen a Birther do it in a while, but for a long time one of their common claims was that skepticism over Obama’s birthplace began prior to 2008, but all examples had been scrubbed.

    I made an attempt in February of 2009 to trace this back as far as I could, and found something from February of 2007. This is in my article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/where-did-born-in-africa-start-part-2/

    The 2007 link still works.

    http://thebritgirl.com/2007/02/11/obama-launches-presidential-bid/#comment-985

    A commenter, posting under the name of John Dean says he saw the claim made in mid 2007 by Beckwith (TheObamaFile).

    I don’t know how the Internet can be “scrubbed” anyway since it is a collage of business and personal web sites, none under government control.

  103. avatar
    Thrifty February 25, 2011 at 5:07 pm #

    Reality Check: Welcome to the fun! There are some connections between Birthers and 911 Truthers. Phil Berg, the first Birther attorney, is also a 911 Truther, It should be no surprise that mental midgets like Birthers fail for other conspiracy theories like Chem Trails and the New World Order.

    Well if you buy one popular conspiracy theory, you’re probably predisposed to buy most of them. He’s also got some stuff about how all cancer is curable through homeopathic means, but the medical establishment supresses the cures to make money.

    My uncle is pretty liberal though; I can’t see him falling for Birtherism.

  104. avatar
    Mike February 25, 2011 at 5:50 pm #

    BatGuano: besides the stamp what else do you want to see?

    He wants to see the disclaimer:
    This birth certificate (and any person associated with it) is not real. This document is issued for novelty purposes only by the Lizard People Corporation.

  105. avatar
    BatGuano February 25, 2011 at 7:59 pm #

    Mike: He wants to see the disclaimer:
    This birth certificate (and any person associated with it) is not real.This document is issued for novelty purposes only by the Lizard People Corporation.

    that’s good.

  106. avatar
    Rickey February 25, 2011 at 9:07 pm #

    Thrifty: Well if you buy one popular conspiracy theory, you’re probably predisposed to buy most of them.He’s also got some stuff about how all cancer is curable through homeopathic means, but the medical establishment supresses the cures to make money.

    The right-wing publisher Arlington House (now owned by Regnery) published a book in the 70s claiming that the medical establishment and the government had conspired to suppress laetrile (aka Vitamin B-17), which was then being touted as a cancer cure.

  107. avatar
    Reality Check February 26, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

    I noticed that Polland/Polarik has not shown up to defend his fraudulent video since I debunked his imaginary shadows. I will take that as an admission he knows he has been caught.

  108. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 26, 2011 at 9:48 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I noticed that Polland/Polarik has not shown up to defend his fraudulent video since I debunked his imaginary shadows. I will take that as an admission he knows he has been caught. [That’s the way I see it, too.]

    He’s clearly very brave – someone should write a song about him – something like…

    With abject apologies to John Cleese, et al.

    Bravely bold Sir Ronnie rode forth from Camelot
    He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Ronnie
    He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways
    Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Ronnie

    He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp
    Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken
    To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
    And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Ronnie

    His head smashed in and his heart cut out
    And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
    And his nostrils raped and his bottom burnt off
    And his penis…
    Well that’s enough music for now, lads…

    Brave Sir Ronnie ran away – No!
    Bravely ran away, away – I didn’t!
    When danger reared its ugly head
    He bravely turned his tail and fled – No!
    Yes, brave Sir Ronnie turned about
    And gallantly he chickened out
    Bravely taking to his feet
    He beat a very brave retreat
    Bravest of the brave, Sir Ronnie

    …and then they ate Sir Ronnie’s minstrels – and there was much rejoicing!

  109. avatar
    Reality Check February 27, 2011 at 10:43 am #

    Actually, Doc C deserves credit also for pointing out that the imaginary shadows are darker portions of the pattern in the security paper.

  110. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 27, 2011 at 10:51 am #

    Reality Check:
    Actually, Doc C deserves credit also for pointing out that the imaginary shadows are darker portions of the pattern in the security paper.

    For that and many, many other things… πŸ˜‰

    Sir Ronnie deserves nothing but scorn and humiliation while he stews in his own cowardice.

  111. avatar
    Reality Check February 27, 2011 at 1:12 pm #

    Slartibartfast: For that and many, many other things… πŸ˜‰

    I will second and third that.

  112. avatar
    Dr. Ron Polland March 1, 2011 at 6:26 pm #

    Reality Check:
    OK let’s do some geometry boys and girls. If the letters in question are 16 point font the height of the letters is 16/72‘ or 0.222‘. If they are printed on 4 mil mylar (3 or 4 mils is common so I am being conservative) that means it is 0.004‘ thick. If the light is at an angle of 30 degrees off vertical the length of the shadow is 1/sqrt(3) x the thickness of the mylar or 0.0023‘. That means the shadow would be 1% of the height of the letter. The so called “shadows” in Pollands video are more like 1/10 of the height of the letter. This would imply a mylar film thickness of 40 mils or equal to 10 sheets of what is sold for ink jet and laser printers. Just for reference a standard sheet of copier or printer paper is about 3 mils thick.

    Of course, you could also just look at the photos on Factcheck and see that Polland’s theory is complete nonsense.

    Of course, you can look at the Factcheck photos as I said you should do, and see that Reality Check is doing his best impersonation of Curly Howard going, “Whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop. Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk,” but in a much less intelligent way.

    The numbers you threw in there may work for a few bobble-heads in the audience, but when you put lipstick on BS, it is still BS.

    Why is it that schools spend so much money on science labs when we can have people like Reality Check here simply flap his gums and parrot whatever sounds “scientific” to him?

    PLEASE, do not do any hands-on physical experiments that produce concrete, verifiable evidence because (a) it is so much easier on your brain stem to simply make unsubstantiated statements that other liberals will dutifully parrot among themselves, and (b) you are terrified that the results of these experiments might prove you wrong.

    A five-year old can get the key point of the Lexmark’s laser printing video – but you missed it entirely.

    Hey, if anyone can reproduce these shadows on a real, laser-printed COLB, then, by all means, DO IT and post the video and photos here.

    If not, then keep those unsubstantiated coming. At least I know them already.

  113. avatar
    JoZeppy March 1, 2011 at 7:32 pm #

    Dr. Ron Polland: Why is it that schools spend so much money on science labs when we can have people like Reality Check here simply flap his gums and parrot whatever sounds “scientific” to him?

    Oh…there goes another irony meter.

  114. avatar
    JoZeppy March 1, 2011 at 7:36 pm #

    Dr. Ron Polland: Hey, if anyone can reproduce these shadows on a real, laser-printed COLB, then, by all means, DO IT and post the video and photos here.

    and for the record…I still don’t see any shadows. you’re a nutter and a fraud. get over yourself and your “scientific” experiments.

  115. avatar
    Daniel March 1, 2011 at 7:45 pm #

    So, “Dr” Polland….. just for our own reference, where did you get your PhD in forensics from?

  116. avatar
    Reality Check March 1, 2011 at 8:19 pm #

    Mr. Polland. I am sorry you cannot comprehend 9th grade level trigonometry. I really don’t see that as my problem. The shadows are only in your mind.

  117. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 1, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    Dr. Ron Polland:
    Reality Check:
    OK let’s do some geometry boys and girls. If the letters in question are 16 point font the height of the letters is 16/72‘ or 0.222‘. If they are printed on 4 mil mylar (3 or 4 mils is common so I am being conservative) that means it is 0.004‘ thick. If the light is at an angle of 30 degrees off vertical the length of the shadow is 1/sqrt(3) x the thickness of the mylar or 0.0023‘. That means the shadow would be 1% of the height of the letter. The so called “shadows” in Pollands video are more like 1/10 of the height of the letter. This would imply a mylar film thickness of 40 mils or equal to 10 sheets of what is sold for ink jet and laser printers. Just for reference a standard sheet of copier or printer paper is about 3 mils thick.

    Of course, you could also just look at the photos on Factcheck and see that Polland’s theory is complete nonsense.

    Of course, you can look at the Factcheck photos as I said you should do, and see that Reality Check is doing his best impersonation of Curly Howard going, “Whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop. Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk,” but in a much less intelligent way.

    The numbers you threw in there may work for a few bobble-heads in the audience, but when you put lipstick on BS, it is still BS.

    Why is it that schools spend so much money on science labs when we can have people like Reality Check here simply flap his gums and parrot whatever sounds “scientific” to him?

    PLEASE, do not do any hands-on physical experiments that produce concrete, verifiable evidence because (a) it is so much easier on your brain stem to simply make unsubstantiated statements that other liberals will dutifully parrot among themselves, and (b) you are terrified that the results of these experiments might prove you wrong.

    A five-year old can get the key point of the Lexmark’s laser printing video – but you missed it entirely.

    Hey, if anyone can reproduce these shadows on a real, laser-printed COLB, then, by all means, DO IT and post the video and photos here.

    If not, then keep those unsubstantiated coming. At least I know them already.

    Once again Polland scientific experiments don’t work the way you would have anyone believe. In your world you start with a conclusion and then try to fit the data around it. In the real world your conclusion is based on data gathered by the experiment where there is no starting bias.

  118. avatar
    Dr. Ron Polland March 1, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

    Reality Check:
    OK let’s do some geometry boys and girls. If the letters in question are 16 point font the height of the letters is 16/72‘ or 0.222‘. If they are printed on 4 mil mylar (3 or 4 mils is common so I am being conservative) that means it is 0.004‘ thick. If the light is at an angle of 30 degrees off vertical the length of the shadow is 1/sqrt(3) x the thickness of the mylar or 0.0023‘. That means the shadow would be 1% of the height of the letter. The so called “shadows” in Pollands video are more like 1/10 of the height of the letter. This would imply a mylar film thickness of 40 mils or equal to 10 sheets of what is sold for ink jet and laser printers. Just for reference a standard sheet of copier or printer paper is about 3 mils thick.

    Of course, you could also just look at the photos on Factcheck and see that Polland’s theory is complete nonsense.

    The film was 1.5 mil, or slightly bigger than your intracranial space.

  119. avatar
    Reality Check March 1, 2011 at 11:00 pm #

    Dr. Ron Polland: The film was 1.5 mil, or slightly bigger than your intracranial space.

    Do this experiment boys and girls:

    Take a sheet of protective film like a plastic sheet protector. Mine was 3 mils thick. Mark a 1/4″ wide stripe in the middle with a black magic marker. The length doesn’t matter. Place it flat on a sheet of white paper with a desk lamp shining on it about 30 degrees off vertical. You will not be able to see a shadow without lifting the film off the paper.

  120. avatar
    Dr. Ron Polland March 1, 2011 at 11:41 pm #

    Thanks for the shout-out, Dr. C., but I’m not much of a forum dweller.

    Before I go, though, I thought you might like to know of a few`more anomalies that were caused by the film composite COLB. Should give you ample opportunity to come up with some very creative explanations for them as well:

    1. Bubbles under the film.
    2. Buckling along the film folds.
    3. Scratches on the surface of the film, (see middle of #1).
    4. Cloth fibers stuck to the film, (see top of #4).
    5. Borders in different positions than shown in the scan image (see #2)
    6. Security paper does not match what is shown in the scan image (see #6)
    7. Reflectivity of film under direct light washed out a few features (in #1 and #3).
    8. White spaces between the “security paper” and the edges of the film (#2)

    BTW, the COLB shown in photos #7, #8, and #9 is not the back of this film composite, and, as yu know, only 2/3 of a Seal is shown in #7 & #8.

    In reality, there were 16 photos taken, not nine. Five of the missing seven come before and after photo #8, so, IMHO, the entire Seal was visible…which would have been a big no-no.

  121. avatar
    Reality Check March 2, 2011 at 12:11 am #

    Thanks for playing. Here is your lovely parting gift.
    http://blog.mixonline.com/briefingroom/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/obama_inauguration.JPG

  122. avatar
    Daniel March 2, 2011 at 12:14 am #

    Dr. Ron Polland:
    Thanks for the shout-out, Dr. C., but I’m not much of a forum dweller.

    Before I go, though, I thought you might like to know of a few`more anomalies that were caused by the film composite COLB. Should give you ample opportunity to come up with some very creative explanations for them as well:

    No need to explain anomalies that only exist in your head Mr. Pollard.

    BTW I must have missed where you answered my question previously. Where, exactly, did you obtain your PhD in document forensics?

    Or for that matter, where did you obtain any of the various Doctorates you claim to have earned. I’ve searched through pretty much everything I can find about you and simply cannot see anything that would substantiate your claimed expertise if document forensics, nor can I find any information on where, exactly, you obtained all your various degrees.

    I’m sure, like any PhD holder, you’re very proud of your alma mater and would be more than happy to tell us where your degrees hail from…. that is assuming you actually have any degrees at all….. right?

  123. avatar
    Dr. Ron Polland March 2, 2011 at 9:11 am #

    I forgot to ask you, Dr. C. Did you ever get beyond the thumbnail to actually watch the video?

    From what you said, below, it appears that you are simply putting a spin on the thumbnail:

    What Polland has actually done is to point out the places where the darker basket weave pattern of the security paper appears next to the letters and calls them shadows. He magnified the image to the extent that the pattern of the security paper is blurry, making it more difficult to recognize the pattern and easier to fool the viewer

    Now, if you had watched the video, then you would have seen the photos being enlarged, in real time, from fitting within a window, to 100% of its original size, to 200%, 300% and 400%. Blame the clear film for the fuzzies, not the enlargement process – which, if you don’t like, then you can use something other than Photoshop or Corel Draw or GIMP or even Xara Extreme. Does not matter.

    Now, what, exactly, is this “darker weave pattern” you’re talking about and where can I find it?

    Maybe you can see fit to include a portion of the actual Factcheck photo and draw a box around the parts that are this “darker weave pattern” or “patterns.”

  124. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2011 at 12:05 pm #

    Dr. Ron Polland: I forgot to ask you, Dr. C. Did you ever get beyond the thumbnail to actually watch the video?

    No, I have not yet watched the long version of the video. The short version impeached itself and so I lacked motivation to see the longer version. I will get around to it, but when I do, there will be another debunking article. While I would like to say that I could approach your video without prejudgment, the premise of the multiple fakes, and the plastic film is so absurd that I simply cannot take it as credible going in.

    The security paper consists of a dark green pattern on a lighter background, so when I talk about the “darker weave pattern” I am just referring to the basic pattern of the paper, not anything difficult to see. In your image, it appears as fuzzy green blobs. The patterns on security paper are designed to be difficult to reproduce so they aren’t all that sharp in images. The security paper Hawaii uses has been described as “basket weave” and that’s the term I use.

    What I would really like to see is physical example of a plastic coated certificate that I could photograph and see if it looks anything like the FactCheck example. I’d be happy to provide you with my mailing address.

  125. avatar
    Reality Check March 2, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    I proved that the claimed shadows are mathematically impossible and have confirmed it by experiment. It appears all that Polland has left is childish name calling. I am not surprised since he has been shown to have fabricated credentials in falsely claiming to be a forensic document expert.

  126. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 2, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I proved that the claimed shadows are mathematically impossible and have confirmed it by experiment. It appears all that Polland has left is childish name calling. I am not surprised since he has been shown to have fabricated credentials in falsely claiming to be a forensic document expert.

    It’s probably the best that a charlatan like Polland could come up with in response to scientific criticism of his analysis…

  127. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 2, 2011 at 8:17 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I proved that the claimed shadows are mathematically impossible and have confirmed it by experiment. It appears all that Polland has left is childish name calling. I am not surprised since he has been shown to have fabricated credentials in falsely claiming to be a forensic document expert.

    You also forgot to add in his previous videos he also falsified what was being shown in that he added artifacts to the images where they didn’t exist

  128. avatar
    Daniel March 3, 2011 at 12:46 am #

    Well again Mr Polland ignores my question about his supposed degrees and supposed expertise in forensics. The only reasonable conclusion is that he has neither.

    Somehow I’m not at all surprised….

  129. avatar
    The Magic M March 3, 2011 at 4:33 am #

    > The numbers you threw in there may work for a few bobble-heads in the audience, but when you put lipstick on BS, it is still BS.

    Now that is a “scientific” refutation worthy of a “Dr.”, isn’t it?

    I really wonder if your PhD thesis also contains childish remarks and hand-waving when dealing with actual facts. If I saw a math PhD thesis that said “All prime numbers are divisible by 2. First, 2 is. Then, OK, maybe a few of the next aren’t, but that may just work for a few bobble-heads in the audience, but if you actually wrote down all prime numbers that exist, you will see that I am correct, unless you are afraid to do so”, I would laugh and throw it in the bin.

    Polland, you’ve discredited yourself as an “expert” and even as an adult, for the purpose of discussion, much better than any “Obot” could have done it for yourself.
    Case closed.

  130. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 3, 2011 at 4:36 am #

    Daniel…

    Dr. Polland has a Ph.D. in “Instructional Media”. He does have a Ph.D., but it’s not in a field that is in anywhere close to Questioned Document Examination, Chemistry, or anything close to a hard science that would be needed to come close to the expertise that he’d need to classify him as an expert in court.

  131. avatar
    Reality Check March 3, 2011 at 8:16 am #

    dunstvangeet: Dr. Polland has a Ph.D. in “Instructional Media”. He does have a Ph.D., but it’s not in a field that is in anywhere close to Questioned Document Examination, Chemistry, or anything close to a hard science that would be needed to come close to the expertise that he’d need to classify him as an expert in court.

    Yes, but it does that make him qualified to produce YouTube videos set to music and chock-full of lies and deception.

  132. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 3, 2011 at 9:35 am #

    dunstvangeet: Daniel…Dr. Polland has a Ph.D. in “Instructional Media”. He does have a Ph.D., but it’s not in a field that is in anywhere close to Questioned Document Examination, Chemistry, or anything close to a hard science that would be needed to come close to the expertise that he’d need to classify him as an expert in court.

    Instructional Media? Did he go to the Video Professor’s school of media?

  133. avatar
    James M March 3, 2011 at 9:56 am #

    Dr. Ron Polland:
    Now that you watched the 2-minute trailer, see the whole series for the same price:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbpjYeZXaVs

    Have you ever testified under oath or in a sworn deposition as to the nature of this forgery and your precise knowledge of it?

    If not, why not?

  134. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Instructional Media?Did he go to the Video Professor’s school of media?

    Actually, I was wrong. He doesn’t have a Ph.D. in Instructional Media. He has a Ph.D. in Instructional Systems from Florida State University. His Bachelor’s is in Psychology, his Master’s is in Educational Research.

  135. avatar
    Reality Check March 3, 2011 at 12:55 pm #

    Here is what Ron Polland said about his qualifications to the Post and Email:

    My doctorate is in Instructional Systems with a focus area in Instructional Media. Scanning laser-printed documents and materials certainly qualifies as being media as well. Added to these are my experiences in photography that began in my childhood and continued on throughout high school and college in Photography classes. However, the research problem created by the COLB image goes way beyond the domain of document analysis.

    Here is where I need to explain why there is more to this image than meets the eye.

    To those who defend Obama’s birth certificate as being real, I remain an enigma. They do not believe that I am an expert qualified to analyze images because they define an expert according to the titles of one’s graduate degrees and their correspondence to his stated or imputed area of expertise. In other words, in the minds of the opposition, a person’s demonstrated knowledge, skills, and abilities has less to do with his expertise than the title of his degree program. Additionally, they may also insist that an expert must be “certified” by a professional accreditation agency for the same area of expertise, assuming that one even exists. In this case, there is no accreditation for image forgery experts.

    Here is where Obama’s apologists go astray: they believe that a person’s paper credentials imply both credibility and capability. The broader the title of the expert’s graduate degree, the broader are the expectations for that expert to meet. For example, the Obama defenders declared that Dr. Neal Krawetz is a “real” expert in image analysis based primarily (or solely) on the title of his PhD, which is “Computer Science.” They never visited his website and examined his credentials and any professional work products available, whereas I had. Basically, they have no idea where his expertise lies, but they automatically assume that having a PhD in Computer Science gives someone the ability to do anything involving computers.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/07/21/dr-ron-polland-speaks-with-the-post-email/

    Cutting to the chase he says his degrees have nothing to do with document analysis but he people in my area have probably run a scanner a bunch of times. While it is true that someone may become quite knowledgeable in a field without the degree to back it up one must have demonstrated that expertise. Dr. Polland has no body of work to claim any such expertise. He continues to demonstrate that lack with his videos and postings.

  136. avatar
    obsolete March 3, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    The fact that Polland is now claiming that Obama’s entire photographic past are all Photoshopped and CGI videos tells you all you need to know about his crackpot theories. He is down the rabbit-hole.

  137. avatar
    The Magic M March 3, 2011 at 7:30 pm #

    > Scanning laser-printed documents and materials certainly qualifies as being media as well. Added to these are my experiences in photography that began in my childhood and continued on throughout high school and college in Photography classes.

    Geez, I wonder what court would accept “expert testimony” from someone whose credentials are limited to “I took some classes in college” and “scanning roughly belongs to the stuff I graduated in”.
    The former is akin to accepting an “expert” on mass murderer psychology based on the fact he took some psychology classes in college.
    The latter is akin to accepting an “expert” on evolution to testify about human DNA traces because humans are part of evolution as well.
    Way to go, Polland!

    Then again, I think he has the perfect qualifications for the birthers’ mock trials such as Manning’s. Those from that parallel universe where real experts are “throwing numbers to bobble-heads” and self-taught dimwits are hailed as the next Stephen Hawking. Or, basically, the only question required for an “expert” to answer truthfully is “does your testimony support the anti-Obama case?”.

  138. avatar
    WAYK March 3, 2011 at 9:08 pm #

    “Forget the fact that the Hawaii Director of Health confirmed that the birth certificate on the Obama Fight the Smears campaign web site is “his birth certificate” and her press release saying Obama was born in Hawaii.” Dr C

    Here is the “confirmation” from HDoH Director Fukino that Dr C cites: “For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-mail inquiries a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate in spite of the fact that President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website.”

    Fukino’s “confirmation” was made in testimony supporting Hawaii bill SB2937 (against persons Fukino described as Freedom of Information “vexatious requesters”, literally “those requesters who madden” Fukino). Unfortunately Fukino was factually inexact about the number of UIPA (FOI) requests that HDoH was receiving every month concerning Obama: records supplied by HDoH itself proved conclusively that Fukino had overstated the numbers of FOI requests HDoH had received. Bearing in mind Fukino had already succumbed to factual inexactitude, notice in her testimony that Fukino did not enter into the record that SHE PERSONALLY had visited the Obama’s website and CONFIRMED WITH HER OWN EYES that the image SHE SAW THERE purporting to depict Obama’s COLB was genuine; and given Fukino’s ambiguous statement was never subject to cross-examination, she could claim (if challenged at a later date) that she had relied on “common knowledge” that Obama had posted images of his COLB and that it was not part of her job description to visit Obama’s website to establish the alleged COLB’s probity. Also problematic was Fukino’s specific reference to Obama’s campaign website as the location of his posted “birth certificate”: as Obama’s campaign website was essentially a political advertising vehicle it could not be held to legal standards of truth-telling and, inexplicably, the COLB it depicts does not contain a discernable seal.

    Prior to July 2009 HDoH Director Fukino (often through HDoH Information Director Okubo) had repeatedly issued unequivocal statements that it was illegal for any official at HDoH to confirm or deny, in part or whole, Obama’s vital records (except to those with a tangible interest). In July 2009 Fukino issued another statement as Director that Obama’s vital records were on file with HDoH and these records verified that “Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.” Fukino either uttered factual inexactitudes in her pre-July 2009 statements or was breaking the law with her July 2009 statement.

    In the later written testimony (“confirmation”) to which Dr C alludes, Fukino can have made this “confirmation” only if she had concluded that Obama had forfeited privacy when (as she indefinably believed) he posted online an alleged image of his COLB or that the Hawaii Senate Committee was “a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization [seeking] to confirm information about a vital event…in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization” (HRS 338-18); in either case Fukino’s mandated statutory duty was to fully disclose Obama’s vital records when requested by members of the public, or issue a confirmation (COLB) on request to any “private, social, or educational organization”, or in line with HDoH Regulations issue a non-certified vital record at anytime to anyone. Failing such disclosure or confirmation, Fukino was compounding the illegality or factual inexactitude surrounding her July 2009 statement with yet more illegality or factual inexactitude (concealing Obama’s records).

    “A late filed certificate in Hawaii is one submitted after ONE YEAR. Four days is not “late” in any sense. Hawaiian law requires delayed certificates to be marked to indicate this. Obama’s COLB has no such mark, and therefore is not a delayed certificate.” Dr C

    “…assertions that Hawaii has “indirectly confirmed” practically everything birthers believe by using “code words” placed with statements that otherwise directly contradict what birthers believe… ” Tarrant

    1. In 1961 a “delayed” Hawaii birth certificate was issued when a registration occurred 30 days or more after a birth. The term “delayed” was changed to “late” in 1972; from that year a delayed Hawaii birth certificate was issued following a registration one year or more after a birth; and a late Hawaii birth certificate was applied to a registration made between 30 days and one year after birth.

    2. Hawaii DoH has denied access to Obama’s delayed birth certificate upon a formal FOI request. Under Hawaii FOI (UIPA) agencies cannot arbitrarily chose how to answer UIPA requests. If a record doesn’t exist HDoH are required by law to state this fact, as they have done with various other requests for records pertaining to Obama; instead they chose to deny access to records of his delayed and amended birth registration, which were constructive admissions that such records exist. Skeptics may confirm for themselves that Obama’s vital records were delayed and amended; for well over a year I have advised them to make FOI-UIPA requests to HDoH and prove wrong information which is direct from HDoH. To date none has responded with evidence to the contrary.

    “Why would he forge a document he wasn’t require to disclose in the first place?” Sean

    “How would [Obama’s supposed long form information] relate to eligibility or why would anyone be compelled to release such info? What, in your opinion, could such additional information possibly be that it would warrant public scrutiny?” The Magic M

    Facts have changed since June 2008; so should minds. Even assuming Obama wasn’t required to disclose his vital records “in the first place”, under Hawaii law his authorized subsequent disclosure via alleged images posted on the internet forfeited any privacy concerns Obama had in the matter. Obama (and loyalists) hope that a non-existent right to privacy will conceal his HDoH-confirmed delayed and amended vital records, which under Hawaii law have no legal standing, force and effect unless the facts of birth have been determined by any and every judicial or administrative authority to whom such records are submitted as evidence. No such submission or determination has ever been made; consequently, all references to alleged online images of Obama’s COLB, which do not indicate amendment and delay, are mere rhetoric.

    “The current POTUS has shown the ONLY form of birth certificate that Hawai’i issues to ANYONE born there….[Obama’s COLB has] been verified and in the eyes of the law and the Constitution its trustworthy.” Bovril

    There is no authority in Hawaii statute for HDoH to establish partial birth certificates or certifications as equivalent to full birth certificates. HDoH are permitted by law to issue both partial birth certificates or certifications and full birth certificates, but Hawaii law does not deem these to be of equivalent legal validity: partial birth certificates or certifications cannot “be considered for all purposes the same as the original”. This is the law now (HRS 338-13) and was the the law in 1961 (HRL 57-16). Notwithstanding, HDoH are fully empowered to issue either type of record to a registrant and, most especially, when it’s not just “anyone”: we can be sure that US Senators and Presidential candidates will always receive extra consideration, particularly if their circumstances are in need of singular understanding.

    “the verification of obama’s birth to date:

    -the COLB published online.
    -physical verification of COLB by independent third party.
    -contemporaneous newspaper accounts (available on micro-film in multiple libraries, including the library of congress).
    -statement from the hawaiian director of health confirming his birth in hawaii.
    -statement from the hawaiian director of health confirming the online image is obama’s birth certificate.
    -1967 state department report listing stanley ann dunham/sotoero’s “six year old son” as a US citizen.
    -lack of any evidence that he was born elsewhere.” BatGuano

    1. Obama’s alleged COLB was published on his campaign website, an political advertising vehicle which is not subject to normal legal standards of truth-telling. Furthermore, our ever-reliable friends at Factcheck.org helpfully declared on June 3, 2004: “Candidates have a legal right [in federal law and upheld by SCOTUS] to lie to voters just about as much as they want.” See http://tinyurl.com/pols-lies In addition, Obama forfeits privacy by publishing “his COLB”.
    2. “Verification” in Black’s Law Dictionary is defined as “A formal declaration made in the presence of an authorized officer, such as a notary public, or (in some jurisdictions) under oath but not in the presence of such an officer, whereby one swears to the truth of the statements in the document.” Use of the phrase “physical verification” in the context of Factcheck’s night visit to Obama’s campaign HQ is meaningless. The best that BatGuano can invite us to accept is that Factcheck researchers were shown at around 10.30 at night something they were simply TOLD by Obama’s campaign was Obama’s genuine COLB (and, according to the Factcheck camera data, in actuality shown several months prior to when they claimed they were shown); as the researchers are now unavailable for comment, we don’t know if they had ever held a genuine Hawaii COLB in their hands before. Subjected to a forensic analysis the Factcheck story is risible and evidentially worthless; to account for it, see point 1.
    3. The birth announcements are not legally admissible as evidence because there are grounds for suspicion regarding their provenance; that is, members of the public have been allowed to handle all the micro-fiches from whence they may come totally unsupervised. See the Hawaii and Federal Rules of Evidence.
    4. Director Fukino’s statement July 2009 that Obama was born in Hawaii was illegal or was the cause of prior factual inexactitudes, given she had previously maintained it was illegal to make such a statement (until she made it). Moreover, if Fukino issued the statement on the basis that it was now legal to confirm Obama’s vital records she was derelict in her statutory duty to disclose every detail of those records; for example, she did not state in which year Obama’s birth was registered. A law-breaker, deceiver, or incompetent has no legal or moral or professional credibility.
    5. Director Fukino’s ambiguous “confirmation” to a Hawaii Senate Committee in 2010 that Obama had posted his birth certificate online was made on a basis that should have applied equally to other interested parties, or on the basis the Obama had forfeited privacy. In each case Obama’s vital records with Hawaii should have been made available on request. However Fukino formulated a policy that “incorrectly” cited Hawaii law to keep on concealing Obama records. A law-breaker, deceiver, or incompetent has no legal or moral or professional credibility.
    6. The State Department file that referred to Obama as “a US citizen” gave no legal or documentary source for that opinion. Direct quote from the State Department file of July 24, 1967: “There is NOTHING IN THE FILE TO DOCUMENT the status of the spouse’s [Dunham’s] son”. We can be certain, therefore, that references to Obama’s citizenship were noted solely from Ann Dunham Soetoro’s undocumented, uncorroborated, and unsworn word. Significantly, in this very same State Department file where Dunham is demonstrably able to document her own birth in the US, her divorce from Obama Sr., and her marriage to Soetoro, she failed to document her son’s birth in the US. Either BatGuano did not actually read the file or was BG sought to convey a factually inexact version of its contents — neither of which suggests genuine confidence in one’s position.
    7. The United States is not required to prove where an individual is born in order to deny citizenship; unless citizenship has first been legally established, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant to prove citizenship at birth or by naturalization.

    “Regarding the birthers…To be one of them you really have to have some serious mental problems…Black Lion

    Ron Polland has made serious accusations, based on his own research methods, citing HDoH, Factcheck, and the Obama campaign, accusations which some dispute; everything outlined by me above has been officially stated by HDoH and other authorities or is consistent with their statutory responsibilities under Hawaii and federal law. The comments made two weeks ago by Glenn Greenwald (constitutional and civil rights lawyer, “18th most influential liberal in the U.S. media”) at Salon.com (hardly central to the vast right-wing conspiracy) concerning the Obama Administration’s covert effort to get Wikileaks might be of interest to Dr. Polland:

    “The New York Times detailed [in January 2011 that Bank of America’s] ‘counterespionage work’ against WikiLeaks entailed constant briefings for top executives on the whistleblowing site, along with the hiring of ‘several top law firms’ and Booz Allen (the long-time firm of former Bush DNI Adm. Michael McConnell and numerous other top intelligence and defense officials)… The report prepared by these firms [HB Gary, Hunton & Williams et al]…suggested numerous ways to destroy WikiLeaks, some of them likely illegal — including planting fake documents with the group and then attacking them when published; ‘creat[ing] concern over the security’ of the site; ‘cyber attacks against the infrastructure to get data on document submitters’; and a ‘media campaign to push the radical and reckless nature of wikileaks activities’… [the report even] darkly suggested that ‘these [Wikileaks supporters] are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause’… perhaps most disturbing of all, Hunton & Williams was recommended to Bank of America’s General Counsel by the Justice Department — meaning the U.S. Government is aiding Bank of America in its defense against–attacks on WikiLeaks… [Greenwald concludes that] ‘Law’ is something used to restrain ordinary Americans and especially those who oppose this consortium of government and corporate power, but it manifestly does not apply to restrain these elites…crimes carried out that serve the Government’s agenda and target its opponents are permitted and even encouraged…Those with proximity to government power and who serve and/or control it are free from the constraints of law…” http://tinyurl.com/66rkkjm

    Or, as Dylan Ratigan asked Greenwald:

    “DYLAN: So if I was a headline writer, am I correct in understanding that substantial legitimate serious powerful private security firms were pitching Bank of America and the Chamber of Commerce a campaign for which they would be paid money, in which they would assassinate the reputations and intimidate and threaten the well-being of targeted private individuals. Is that true?

    GLENN: Yes, the journalists, activists, political groups, and the like.

    DYLAN: Whoever it may be. And that the law firm that brought these private security firms in was recommended by the U.S. Department of Justice. So it’s on a recommendation from the DOJ that private and substantial security firms are being brought in to pitch smear and intimidation campaigns against those who support transparency in information. Fair?

    GLENN: Yes, exactly.

    DYLAN: What you’re describing to me sounds like the sort of thing that we would report here at NBC as the dastardly scheme of a Middle Eastern dictator to annihilate the reputations of journalists who disagreed with him. Is that too much of a leap on my part?

    GLENN: I don’t think so…if you read the proposals…they talk about doing things like, for instance, one of the things they wanted to do to destroy WikiLeaks was they wanted to fabricate documents, create forged documents and then feed them to WikiLeaks pretending to be a source. So that when WikiLeaks publish them, they would then attack WikiLeaks and say, “Look, WikiLeaks just published fictitious documents, forged documents that you can no longer believe what they say.” http://tinyurl.com/GnGd2

    Greenwald must have some really serious mental problems.

  139. avatar
    Bovril March 4, 2011 at 8:34 am #

    Oh WAYK, don’t you pile poo on top of poo so very haphazardly.

    I’ll anwer my little quote and let others deal with you as they please shall we.

    ME

    “The current POTUS has shown the ONLY form of birth certificate that Hawai’i issues to ANYONE born there….[Obama’s COLB has] been verified and in the eyes of the law and the Constitution its trustworthy.” Bovril

    YOU

    There is no authority in Hawaii statute for HDoH to establish partial birth certificates or certifications as equivalent to full birth certificates. HDoH are permitted by law to issue both partial birth certificates or certifications and full birth certificates, but Hawaii law does not deem these to be of equivalent legal validity: partial birth certificates or certifications cannot “be considered for all purposes the same as the original”. This is the law now (HRS 338-13) and was the the law in 1961 (HRL 57-16). Notwithstanding, HDoH are fully empowered to issue either type of record to a registrant and, most especially, when it’s not just “anyone”: we can be sure that US Senators and Presidential candidates will always receive extra consideration, particularly if their circumstances are in need of singular understanding.

    Your first statement is utter crap.

    Look at the posted COLB and have a look at the teeny weeny little statement at the bottom shall we?

    This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceedings [HRS338-13(b) 338-19]

    Lets look at the statute references shall we

    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

    So, you lied didn’t you and not very well at that muppet, the COLB is a legal document and the only legal document.

    If you had ACTUALLY quoted my FULL quote you would also see that I state that there is a singular LONGER form only issued to establish native Hawai’in blood ancestry for specific state set aside provisons. As a non Native Hawai’in Obama can’t get one.

    Now, no other form is issued, none, and there is no evidence (magical word that Birfoons like you fail to grasp) to the contrary. In fact for the last 2+ years Birfoons have been trying and FAILING to get one…why…’cause it doesn’t exist.

    In fact the lying cowardly buddy f*cker Lakin, whose daughter was born in Hawai’i admitted, in his court martial, backed up by his brother in an interview that he tried to get a “long form” for his daughter and COULD NOT GET ONE.

    The only other details available are NON certified, non legally acceptable birth index data that has no value in law…see Danae passim at Freeperville.

    Come back with a fact or two next time you LSOS.

  140. avatar
    Reality Check March 4, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    WAYK: Facts have changed since June 2008; so should minds.

    Yeah, Obama was elected President, confirmed by the joint session of the Congress and sworn in to the office. No other facts matter.

    @ Doc C: Congratulations, you sure seem to attract them to your blog.

  141. avatar
    Bovril March 4, 2011 at 11:38 am #

    It’s your fault….8-)

    MichaelN has to go somewhere now he’s no longer welcome at Fogbow and where poo goes so do irritating blowflies…..

  142. avatar
    Black Lion March 4, 2011 at 3:44 pm #

    Dr. ron’s post over at the Post and Fail…Funny stuff….

    Dr. Ron Polland says:
    Friday, March 4, 2011 at 7:51 AM

    I have pointed out that lawsuits should be brought against the conspirators and perpetrators of criminal fraud in all 50 states and at the federal level: CHIYOME FUKINO, LINDA LINGLE & THE STATE OF HAWAII, ANNENERG FOUNDATION & ANNENBERG FACTCHECK, ST. PETERSBURG TIMES & POLITIFACT, OBAMA FOR AMERICA & ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA, PERKINS COIE, DAILY KOS, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, STAR-BULLETIN, HONOLOLU ADVERTISER, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, OCCIDENTIAL COLLEGE, PUNAHOU HIGH SCHOOL, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, and the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/03/how-to-indict-bho-for-criminal-cover-up/#comments

  143. avatar
    obsolete March 4, 2011 at 7:25 pm #

    Why doesn’t Dr. Ron Polland POS call the FBI and put his name to a criminal complaint if he is so sure of fraud?

  144. avatar
    James M March 4, 2011 at 7:41 pm #

    obsolete:

    Why doesn’t Dr. Ron Polland POS call the FBI and put his name to a criminal complaint if he is so sure of fraud?

    Shirley the vast Obot conspiracy would mobilize to crush the good Doctor. It’s perfectly understandable why he is forced to dwell in the shadows with the fungi and cockroaches.

  145. avatar
    Daniel March 5, 2011 at 2:07 am #

    dunstvangeet: Actually, I was wrong. He doesn’t have a Ph.D. in Instructional Media. He has a Ph.D. in Instructional Systems from Florida State University. His Bachelor’s is in Psychology, his Master’s is in Educational Research….

    Actually, I was wrong. He doesn’t have a Ph.D. in Instructional Media. He has a Ph.D. in Instructional Systems from Florida State University. His Bachelor’s is in Psychology, his Master’s is in Educational Research.

    Actually he has claimed both PhD’s at various times, and several different Masters, and scores of other undergraduate degrees.

    He’s tightened up his claims lately (apparently too many people were starting to ask) but the fact remains that, so far as I can find out, no one has ever been able to substantiate any record of any degree for Mr Polland.

    Considering his apparent difficulty with remembering exactly what his degrees are for, and his obvious penchant for dishonesty…. I think it’s reasonable to assume he simply has none at all.

  146. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2011 at 9:16 am #

    Daniel: so far as I can find out, no one has ever been able to substantiate any record of any degree for Mr Polland.

    You can find his PhD dissertation at Dissertation Express (http://disexpress.umi.com search for author “Polland”). His paper was:

    QUALITATIVE VARIABLES IN THE USE OF ANALOGIES TO FACILITATE RULE USING IN ELECTRICAL SCIENCE

    Florida State University, 1978,

    I’m not willing to pay the $42 to get a copy, though.

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2011 at 9:28 am #

    WAYK: “A late filed certificate in Hawaii is one submitted after ONE YEAR. Four days is not “late” in any sense. Hawaiian law requires delayed certificates to be marked to indicate this. Obama’s COLB has no such mark, and therefore is not a delayed certificate.” Dr C

    1. In 1961 a “delayed” Hawaii birth certificate was issued when a registration occurred 30 days or more after a birth. The term “delayed” was changed to “late” in 1972; from that year a delayed Hawaii birth certificate was issued following a registration one year or more after a birth; and a late Hawaii birth certificate was applied to a registration made between 30 days and one year after birth.

    Thank you for the correction. In 1961 a late filing was indeed one after 30 days (now it’s one year). However, the main point still stands. Barack Obama’s certificate, filed within 4 days, was not late or delayed.

  148. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2011 at 9:34 am #

    WAYK: HDoH are permitted by law to issue both partial birth certificates or certifications and full birth certificates, but Hawaii law does not deem these to be of equivalent legal validity: partial birth certificates or certifications cannot “be considered for all purposes the same as the original”. This is the law now (HRS 338-13) and was the the law in 1961 (HRL 57-16).

    That is a rather remarkable reversal of the truth. The current law says:

    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

  149. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 5, 2011 at 12:23 pm #

    DanielConsidering his apparent difficulty with remembering exactly what his degrees are for, and his obvious penchant for dishonesty…. I think it’s reasonable to assume he simply has none at all.

    I’m not going off of what he has claimed to have. If I did that, I would have included his reported Masters in Statistics, Masters in Experimental Psychology, and Doctorate in Experimental Psychology.

    The three degrees I listed before (Bachelor’s in Psychology, Master’s in Statistics, and Doctorate in Instructional Systems) have been proven that he has. I don’t take anything that he says to be worth the bits that compose it.

    If you want to know more about Ronald Jay Polland, I suggest that you go here: http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/07/meet-ronald-jay-polland.html

  150. avatar
    Reality Check March 7, 2011 at 8:07 am #

    Dr. Polland seems to have left for the safer confines of the Post and Email.

  151. avatar
    Reality Check March 8, 2011 at 10:04 pm #

    Polland isn’t even man enough to come here and admit he was completely wrong on the shadows and that they are physically impossible. My 15 cent experiment proves it. The math proves it without even spending 15 cents.

  152. avatar
    Daniel March 9, 2011 at 1:46 am #

    OK well given the existence of a dissertation, which by itself doesn’t prove a phd but certainly suggests he was at least a candidate for it, plus the information provided dunstvangeet, I’m forced to admit it’s probably likely that Polland does have a PhD.

    While nothing definative has been offered, the weight of evidence seems to be against me, enough so that it would be illogical for me to maintain my position.

    I concede

    Guess I wouldn’t make a very good birther.

  153. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 1:58 am #

    Daniel:
    OK well given the existence of a dissertation, which by itself doesn’t prove a phd but certainly suggests he was at least a candidate for it, plus the information provided dunstvangeet, I’m forced to admit it’s probably likely that Polland does have a PhD.

    While nothing definative has been offered, the weight of evidence seems to be against me, enough so that it would be illogical for me to maintain my position.

    I concede

    Guess I wouldn’t make a very good birther.

    *Sigh* Come on, Daniel – there is no ‘try’, there is only ‘do’ and ‘do not’. If you want to see an example of birhter denialism in action, check out MichaelN on the ‘Calvin’s Case’ thread…

  154. avatar
    The Magic M March 9, 2011 at 4:43 am #

    Daniel:
    OK well given the existence of a dissertation, which by itself doesn’t prove a phd but certainly suggests he was at least a candidate for it, plus the information provided dunstvangeet, I’m forced to admit it’s probably likely that Polland does have a PhD.

    Unless you apply birther standards which would require Polland to show us his real dissertation (not an “internet copy”) and the birth certificate of his professor before we even start considering the possibility he might actually have a PhD from anywhere (though it might still be from Mobasa University in Kenya or maybe a Buy-any-degree University in Indonesia). Remember no-one remembers studying with Polland or seeing him in any university lecture. Maybe he was in Russia instead and his buddies at the KGB faked his vita.

  155. avatar
    Keith March 9, 2011 at 5:38 am #

    Slartibartfast: *Sigh*Come on, Daniel – there is no try’, there is only do’ and do not’.If you want to see an example of birhter denialism in action, check out MichaelN on the Calvin’s Case’ thread…

    *Sigh*Come on, Slarti – that is a Star Wars reference, not a Hitchhiker’s Guide reference.

  156. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 11:15 am #

    Keith: *Sigh*Come on, Slarti – that is a Star Wars reference, not a Hitchhiker’s Guide reference.

    What, do you have the soul of a Vogon? (you probably write poetry like one…) Someone is just begging to be fed to the Total Perspective Vortex… Anyone got some fairy cake?

    Back off, man… I’m a scientist.

  157. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 11:16 am #

    Keith: *Sigh*Come on, Slarti – that is a Star Wars reference, not a Hitchhiker’s Guide reference.

    I’m not getting you down, am I?

  158. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 11:17 am #

    Keith: *Sigh*Come on, Slarti – that is a Star Wars reference, not a Hitchhiker’s Guide reference.

    The next time you go flying, I hope you don’t miss…

  159. avatar
    WAYK March 9, 2011 at 11:25 pm #

    “…poo on top of poo…lying cowardly buddy f*cker Lakin…Birfoons like you…you lied didn’t you, muppet…Lying Sack Of Shit…” Bovril

    I thought Dr C had warned all commenters (which must include Bovril) in the strongest terms that insults and abuse directed at other commenters would not be tolerated. Demonstrably Bovril doesn’t feel the rules which apply to others apply to Bovril: this also appears to be the case with Bovril’s line of argument in defense of Obama.

    Anyhow, there is some comfort in the fact that Bovril obviously can’t be part of an illegal covert program sponsored by the Obama Administration to discredit “birthers”, similar to that outlined above by Glenn Greenwald, because it’s hard to imagine such crudity being intelligently directed. Nevertheless, I picked through the ordure of Bovril’s potty-mouthed rant to delicately extract a little undigested substance:

    1) “[COLB] the ONLY form of birth certificate that Hawai’i issues…the only available document …Hawai’i doesn’t issue them anymore…[even Lakin] COULD NOT GET ONE [for his daughter]” Bovril

    Rather than it being technically and legally “impossible” for HDoH to supply a long form birth certificate on request, there is nothing in law forcing HDoH to deny a registrant or family (and certainly not a US Senator and Presidential candidate) a long form birth certificate if it exists. That HDoH doesn’t issue long form birth certificates is nothing more than departmental policy, which can change in an instant, on the Director’s instructions. The fact that Lakin could not obtain his daughter’s long form birth certificate is an irrelevant distraction thrown up by Bovril which indicates at the least that HDoH were maintaining departmental policy and does not reflect upon their legal position. Bovril has more work to do: the actual Hawaii statute or departmental regulation which precludes HDoH from issuing long form birth certificates must be cited. Until then Bovril is making suppositions; failure to produce the citation means Bovril risks factual inexactitude.

    2) “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceedings.” Bovril

    a) “Prima facie evidence”: unless delayed, amended, or altered; which, given the information supplied by HDoH concerning Obama’s vital records, cannot apply to Obama’s alleged COLB, and especially not to the images purporting to depict it. Hence Obama’s COLB is simply NOT prima facie evidence.

    b) “Fact of birth”: the fact (singular) of birth does not mean the facts (plural) of birth. Obama’s alleged COLB states it is no more than a notification that another originating, witnessed, and certified record of the circumstances of Obama’s birth is to be found elsewhere at HDoH. This latter is the record that a court would require under the Hawaii or Federal Rules as the best evidence of the facts of Obama’s birth.

    c) “In court proceedings”: where Obama’s alleged COLB could be challenged and rebutted, and which necessarily excludes the highly dubious scans and photos posted online or shown to seemingly “amateurish” researchers late at night.

    3) “What additional requirements are there that another BC would provide?” Bovril

    It defies both logic and fact that Bovril wants us to accept that Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is good in court but should not be subject to the rules of evidence courts observe: courts require the original writing and the best evidence (or example) that can be produced of an item of evidence (and furthermore every part of it) so that its probity can be truly and fairly assessed. Clearly, the last thing Bovril wants to see is Obama’s COLB (if it exists) brought into court, where it may be exposed as a fake or bypassed under the Hawaii or Federal Rules of Evidence.

    4) “Lets look at the statute references” Bovril

    Time-honored statutory interpretation requires that courts should give effect to every clause and word of a statute, avoiding any construction which implies that the legislature was ignorant of the meaning of the language it employed; and, that where the legislature included particular language in one section of a statute but omitted it in another, it is to be presumed that the legislature acted intentionally and purposely in the distinct inclusion or exclusion. Thus, from the statute:

    a) “the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof”; while

    b) “copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original”; which stipulation

    c) omits and therefore excludes as being “for all purposes the same as the original” anything comprised merely of part of the contents, such a part by definition not being the (full) contents. If the legislature had intended “any part thereof” to equal all “the contents” then “any part thereof” would also have been plainly listed and stipulated as being equivalent (in “section b” above). Not being so listed and stipulated in “section b” means not equal, and thus NOT “considered for all purposes the same as the original”. Indeed, Obama’s alleged COLB explicitly presents itself as a “Certification”, not a Certificate, and indisputably does not include the (full) contents of any originating certificate, only part of the contents thereof. Consequently, it must not be considered a certificate the same as the original.

    5) “…no other form [of Hawaii birth certificate] is issued, none, and there is no evidence (magical word that Birfoons like you fail to grasp) to the contrary. In fact for the last 2+ years Birfoons have been trying and FAILING to get one…why…’cause it doesn’t exist.” Bovril

    The profoundly unquestioning nature of Bovril’s faith in Obama’s “internet evidence” is revealed by these sentiments, apparently matched only by his belief in yet more “internet evidence” offered by “Danae…at Freeperville”, who quite frankly is of no interest to me. What is of interest to me is (for example): why did Factcheck’s “research” not extend to making a request, as they were entitled under Hawaii law, for Obama’s vital records, so that Factcheck’s copy (if they received one!) could be compared to Obama’s alleged copy (or not)? Clearly, whatever the outcome, it would have posed more questions than it answered, and Factcheck were only concerned with promoting the pre-determined answer.

    What is also of interest to me are the laws of Hawaii and the United States, and the actions and statements of public officials and government agencies in the controversy of Obama’s eligibility, about which Bovril has no comment. Either Bovril trusts these officials and agencies and Obama’s vital records and eligibility are not established or Bovril doesn’t trust these officials and agencies and, again, Obama’s vital records and eligibility are not established.

    But… Say what? Obama’s long form birth certificate “doesn’t exist”? Many a true word spoken in jest.

  160. avatar
    G March 10, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    WAYK: LONG WHINY RANT….

    First of all WAYK, learn to use the quote function, so one can distinguish your ranting from the text you are trying to comment on.

    Second, your whole COLB whine can be rebutted as simply as this:

    1. Sorry, but the COLB *IS* the official “birth certificate” document provided by HI. Has been for many years now.

    2. Said COLB contains the ONLY relevant info in regards to the NBC issue – place of birth (born in HONOLULU, HI) and date (1961). Therefore, born on US soil and over 35. Case closed. All talk about a “long form” is completely irrelevant and unnecessary and nothing but a red-herring false argument.

    3. The COLB issued by HI *is* a certified copy and *is* “Prima facie evidence”. That actual document issued by them MUST be accepted by all authorities and states for official purposes and taken at face value.

    4. You birthers sound so ridiculous when you whine about “images”. That is such a nonsense strawman argument.

    Just because YOU can only see it on the internet in image form (*duh*), doesn’t mean that he or anyone else would show someone an image when presenting their info.

    They would show the actual certified paper copy issued to them to any proper authority. (*DUH*).

    The only way to scan a document and present it on a public forum, such as the internet is to scan it in…which creates…wait for it….*an image*. Imagine that! Sorry little birther, but WonkaVision only exists in fantasyland… But then again, that seems to be where all birther arguments come from.

    Grow up and get a clue.

  161. avatar
    Daniel March 10, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    WAYK: Indeed, Obama’s alleged COLB explicitly presents itself as a “Certification”, not a Certificate,

    Do birthers even read what they write, before hitting the submit button?

    Wayk;

    Please read that sentence again, and again, and again… until the obvious has time to seep into your brain and you see how ridiculous the statement, that a certification is not a certificate, really is.

    Just in case you’re still unable to grasp the obvious after peering intently at your statement… here’s a hint.

    What does a certificate do? Provide certification….

  162. avatar
    Bovril March 10, 2011 at 12:10 pm #

    Oh looky, typical Birfoon and WAYK selective editing, intellectual vapidity and cowardice.

    Not a scintilla of proof from WAYK again

    Your personal opinions in law alas does not count for squat (The phrase “fuck all squared” comes to mind).

    So, come on Birfoon, show us all a single solitary examople of “long form” BC that has been issued to ANYONE since 2001.

    Just one will do, alas you won’t as you LIE, there is no such beasty available and your pathetic shrill whining doesn’t change that FACT.

    Show us where on the posted COLB the magical word AMENDED lies

    Show us where your stunted and wholly fallacious view of what Prim Facie is held up by any US court

    Do tell, since the idiots like yourself always whine about the nasty Ebil Usurper…why is it when it suits you, you demand he breaks the law and be treated differently than any other citizen..?

    So, you sad little cry comes down to

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH teh horrid Bovril has shown me to be a LSOS with the intellectual and moral integrity of a rabid weasel….I don’t have a single fact but I will scream and scream and scream until the poopy head says sorry. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH.

    Sorry chum, you remain fact free, devoid of sense and have as much chance of getting anyone of sound mind to take notice of you as Orly has of winning a lawsuit.