http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2068876/posts
To: Kevmo
One of the strong points of your current argument is that no one can produce these “scanning artifacts” that seem so critical to their case. Perhaps you could introduce what that might actually look like on a BC scan. Visuals always work better than words.
I’m good, but I’d have to be capable of performing miracles to find what is simply not there. “Scanner artifacts” bear absolutely no relationship to the pixel patterns I discovered and documented, and you can take that to the bank.
BUT, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. I will receive a genuine, original paper COLB in a few days, and the tests that I will subject to it will knock everything else right out of the park. Bye-bye FactCheck scan image, Bye-bye FactCheck photos. Hasta Lavista,Obama COLB.
103 posted on Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:08:03 PM by Polarik
To: Kevmo
Unfortunately, none of what you just wrote in that post makes much sense to 95% of readers. The prize goes to the guy who can bring that kind of material down to bite-size chunks that normal people can understand. Just a hint, for when you write that book of yours… 😉
And I get criticized by Neal Krawetz for NOT using relevant technical language.
I absolutely can make it understandable to the masses. I plan on doing just that, once all of my analyses have been completed.
It’s hard enough to get the information posted to the Net in the form it is now, but it requires twice as much work to rewrite all of it into terms that anyone can understand.
Do I have any volunteers to help me write the “Image Forgery for Newbies” handbook?
105 posted on Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:15:00 PM by Polarik
To: Kevmo
“Polarik” tries to defend his work to Dr. Neal Krawetz. And gets his rear handed to him publically as Dr. Krawetz expains why he’s wrong and ends with him telling “Polarik” that “Your theory and indisputable evidence is laughable and does not hold up to even a precursory glance.” Real professional 1, Internet “professional” zero.
Wrong. I cleaned Neal Krawetz’s clock.
107 posted on Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:19:23 PM by Polarik
To: Kevmo
Cmon, Kevmo. This is SOS.
108 posted on Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:20:06 PM by Polarik
To: Kevmo
Why are you still doing a core dump here?
Neal Krawetz aptly named his website, “HackerFactor,” because “Hack,” is Krawetz’s middle name.
109 posted on Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:22:27 PM by Polarik
To: Kevmo
Will you please stop dumping an entire blog in here?
It’ a lot easier to read an extract, or a summary of it.
119 posted on Friday, August 29, 2008 9:40:23 AM by Polarik
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2067140/posts
To: TheNewPundit
You have provided flawed evidence. Someone claiming that they looked at a scanned jpeg and could tell it was fake isn’t going to cut it in a court of law. Therefore you have no proof that the certificate is fake.
No, you are taking the word of others who said that my evidence is flawed.
My evidence is substantial, and it is clear to me by what you said above that you have maybe read one thing I said, and have not read everything else I wrote in the past twelve weeks.
Therefore, you cannot make your assertion about the bulk of my evidence that you evidently did not read beforehand.
Even after I scaled back on some of my points of contention as more information became available to me, there is still a substantial core of evidence, which includes infinitely more than merely looking at a JPG, that overwhelmingly proves that the image is fake, that it has always been fake, and that there are none who can prove that the opposite is true.
They only think that they have refuted my evidence, but they really haven’t come up with any believable alternatives. In fact, it’s downright amazing what they say is proof.
The bottom line is that none can refute everything that I’ve done and have proven to exist. They never demonstrated how the image was made, but I did. Twice. Who else has shown how the forgery was created by actually doing it themselves? Just me.
You see, you put too must trust in those foul-mouthed, hacks who know less about computer graphics than they do about acting as mature adults.
No one can prove that this image is real because it is not real. “Saying that it is real” is bogus, as is “saying that my evidence is flawed.”
And that’s the reason why I can easily make this bet with you, because you, personally, have absolutely nothing to offer in return, except hearsay.
You’re the one who has something to prove, not me. I have 12 weeks of proof, and I have more than proved my point.
On the other hand, you are sort of correct. I did look at a JPG and I did suspect that it was a fake based on the pixels I found. Not by eyeballing them, but by counting each and every pixel of a given color within a 300 DPI grid of pixels.
That was Day One of my analysis.
So, listen, I’ll make it simple for you. Go find me the evidence that “scanner artifacts”`did cause the pixel patterns I found between the letters of “HUSSEIN,” and did not cause the same pixel patterns between the letters of “HAWAII & HEALTH” (to name a few).
184 posted on Thursday, August 28, 2008 12:49:57 PM by Polarik
To: TheNewPundit
I’m not taking their word, I’m being realistic. You are looking at a jpeg that was scanned. You cannot prove that the actual certificate is a fake by looking at a scanned copy.
Of course not. That was never my contention. What is my contention is that the image proffered by the Daily Kos, FactCheck, and Fight the Smears is not a genuine, scanned copy of a real, paper document that those people
You claim that no one has refuted your evidence, yet your evidence wouldn’t hold water in a court of law. The burden of proof still lies with you.
Watch Court TV much? Hold water? How, when you have none to offer. There are two sides in every court case, one side is the Plaintiff, and the Other Side is the Defendant. Each side is required to provide supporting evidence to bolster their claims and counter claims. If you walked into court and told the judge and jury that “The burden of proof is only on the other side,” you’d hear the gavel before you could day “burden of proof.”
The court in which I have presented a claim is the court of public opinion, which is solidly behind those who believe that this Obama COLB image is as phony as a $3 bill with Barack’s face on it.
I’m not asking to be made whole, or for damages or for reparations. I’m only asking for those responsible for perpetrating this fraud on the American public to be held accountable for their actions.
That’s Number One.
Number Two is the fact that I served as a statistical expert in three court cases, so don’t insult me by pretending to know what will and what will not “hold water” in a class action lawsuit — which is what I would prefer to initiate against the Obama campaign.
What we, as American citizens, would demand is injunctive relief against Obama for failure to release his current birth record to the public. There is plenty of evidence to support this legal action, and it does not even require any of the research I’ve done to have its “day in court.”
That’s Number Three.
An alleged “genuine COLB, dated Jun 6, 2007 is NOT a satisfactory piece of evidence, either real or fake, that would meet the requisite demands of the Plaintiffs.
That’s Number Five.
Number Six is that you neverhad any intention of carrying through with this bet, and you are desperately grasping at straws to weasel out of it, as I knew you would do.
So, run along now. Your relieved of your wager. However, the next time you wish to challenge me and my research, you’d better have something substantive and definitive that registers a zero on the old BS Meter.
We’ve already had way too much bluster and way too much empty rhetoric from folks, who, like yourself, are tilting at windmills and biding their time until this “dust up” simply blows away like so many leaves in Winter.
Trust me, That is not going to happen. The heat is going to be turned on “incinerate” after the Labor Day weekend, and if I was a forgery doubter, I would not want to be in the vicinity without some SPF 5000 sun screen to splash on my body.
190 posted on Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:58:56 PM by Polarik
To: TheNewPundit
I am waiting for you to agree that you will prove your accusations. If you can prove your case, you win.
You don’t listen very well. I’ve already proven my case.
193 posted on Friday, August 29, 2008 9:35:57 AM by Polarik
Rosettasister's Weblog 