Polarik “Word from the Philip Berg website is that TechDude discredited work will be taken down and mine will go up in its place.” Obama Birth Certificate



To: 21stCenturyFreeThinker

Maybe he could but he filed a federal lawsuit not a state lawsuit.

Did you read the order? It summarizes the arguments of both sides and the court’s judgments about the law. Read the arguments that went out under Ted Olson’s (Bush’s former Solicitor General) signature. The court accepted part of his arguments in dismissing the suit and didn’t rule on the rest (without standing there was no need to).

The first action in court will be Obama’s motion to dismiss and it will be granted using the same reasoning. My opinion is unimportant. Read the court’s well supported opinion. It’s not rocket science.

Yes, I read the suit, and I also spoke with Phil today about it.

103 posted on Friday, September 05, 2008 5:02:47 PM by Polarik

To: pissant

Have you contacted the Berg guy yet?

Yes I did, but I spoke longer with his assistant.

255 posted on Friday, September 05, 2008 5:05:09 PM by Polarik

To: Kevmo

It’s admittedly a difficult subject to follow, filled with technical twists and turns. We have a freeper who’s been involved with those technical thingies, Polarik, and he’s working on several analyses as well as helping the Berg vs. Obama folks. But I’m sure he could use some assistance as well.

Word from the Berg website is that TechDude’s discredited work will be taken down and mine will go up in its place.

I’m not backing down, either.

58 posted on Friday, September 05, 2008 10:18:50 PM by Polarik

To: Kevmo

The core dump is necessary because I’m already noticing that some of the material is headed for archives and is already generating 404 errors. It is going down the black hole. For instance, I saw some interactions where you logged into Dr. Krawetz’s hackerfactor blog but I cannot find them any more.

You know why? Because I called his bluff when he said that he did Principle Components Analysis (PCA) on the Obama image, by asking him to tell me what were the specific results that his PCA produced — results of which he knew nothing about. Little did he know that I’m also a Statistician with a Masters in Experimental Psychology and a Doctorate in Instructional Media. I don’t like to flaunt it, y’know.

Yes, indeed, that was one Hell of a core dump. BTW, did I also mention that Krawetz’s degrees are in computer security, with nothing in his credentials having anything to do with digital image analysis. The closest that he would ever come to doing that would likely be a chapter in a book, or lecture on, steganography — the science of embedding hidden messages inside digital images.

When someone, anyone, begins a critique of another researcher with an ad hominem argument, like Krawetz did with mine when he dismissed it by saying that “Polarik doesn’t even know the very basics of image graphics”, it’s a sure sign that he’s threatened by it.

And, when early critics like AJStrata and friends also tried to dismiss my pixel analysis with a “Polarik doesn’t know about anti-aliasing,” or “scanner/printer artifacts,” they showed me how little they know, vis-a-vis what I know.

So, here I am, the last Obama COLB buster still standing, who began my image analysis almost three months ago, with those inexplicable pixel anomalies that still rule out any other explanation than the one I gave.

The moral of this story is that even the tiniest thing that one can find in an image is more than enough to trip up a forger.

133 posted on Saturday, September 06, 2008 12:31:19 AM by Polarik

See also:


One Response to “Polarik “Word from the Philip Berg website is that TechDude discredited work will be taken down and mine will go up in its place.” Obama Birth Certificate”

  1. texasdude Says:

    Polarik, I note that you mention the lack of a bottom fold in the Kos image as one reason why the Kos scan and the FactCheck photos are of different documents. However, please see my thoughts here (this is an edited copy and paste from an email):


    When I compare the series of photographs posted at Factcheck.org with the Daily Kos image, I see many similar details. For example, in every case I have checked, the green background pattern hits or overlaps the printed letters in exactly the same places and orientations, and the apparent absence of the bottom fold from the latter image may have a simple explanation: the top fold was made by folding OUTWARD, which stretches the paper, so that when the paper is again straightened, it does not bounce back but bulges out; however, the bottom fold was made INWARD, and when the sheet is straightened there, the fold somewhat vanishes because on that side the paper was not stretched but merely compressed. I believe that one can even see evidence of that bottom fold in the first image in a slight glitch in the right border.

    Perhaps when the Kos image was made the document was squeezed very tightly between the cover and the glass of the scanner, so that both the bottom fold and the embossed seal–which I was able to enhance even more than others have done–seem to disappear. So, if I were to go simply by my own judgment, I would have to say that the Kos image WAS made from the same document as the series of photographs.


    Of course, whether the actual document is genuine is the main question. But what say you to the above?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: