Ron Polarik “To imply that FactCheck replaced their pictures because of a need to conserve bandwidth does not mesh with reality.”


To: Poser

Two words: Band Width.

That’s one word. Two words would be “Cover up.”

I’ll save everyone the trouble of coming up with creative, but still irrelevant, reasons as to why FactCheck changed their photos a month later, and immediately after, I posted my story.

Folks, listen up. FactCheck has been monitoring the blogsphere ever since the Kos image was posted. They specifically posted high quality photo files as a way to silence all of the critics, including myself, who felt that the scanned image was bogus. These photos, they surmised. would put the matter to rest. FactCheck felt perfectly safe as long as they had an alibi, and/or a plausible deniability strategy, to explain away any inconsistencies or incongruities that others might find, such as the wrong date s the photos were taken (as entered into the Exif data).

To imply that they replaced their pictures because of a needed to conserve bandwidth does not mesh with reality given that (a) these large file photos are not constantly displayed on FactCheck’s web page. They can only be be accessed indirectly by clicking on text or image hyperlinks, and (b) by contrast, FactCheck could have securely stored them on a free Photobucket account.

If Photobucket can store over six billion images for nothing and next to nothing, how would it be that the deep-pocketed Annenberg foundation, who fund FactCheck, can’t find the cash to keep less than 16 MB of file space open?

113 posted on Sunday, September 21, 2008 1:16:24 PM by Polarik

To: Poser

Anybody who wanted to grab a copy of the high resolution images already did. The lo-res images are there to conserve bandwidth.

If everyone has already grabbed the high-res images, then they have no reason to reduce the file sizes since the transmission rates (amount of bytes transmitted per session) has already declined. What’s the big deal with carrying 15.6 MB of storage space?

FactCheck cannot continue to claim that they “have not altered the files in any way,” even if you’re going to argue now that a 200K file looks every bit as clear as a 1.7MB one. They altered the file, and they need to add a caveat to their story.

Why did they even bother posting the big ones in the first place? Bigger is better?

what’s next? Are you now going to tell me that Obama’s “Fight The Smears” website also reduced their file to 585 x 575 px from 2427 x 2369 px just to save bandwidth?

124 posted on Sunday, September 21, 2008 3:49:19 PM by Polarik

To: Velveeta; Polarik; Eva

Dittos – when the topic of the fact check is a scan, reducing the size of the scan obviously makes it impossible for the intended audience to come to their own conclusions, and if they don’t even inform said average reader of the change, it is simply not what it was, or currently described.

As the original scans offered for examination, the size/resolution is integral to the story, so an observance that “fact” check changed the size for financial reasons is absurd at best.

I’m just commenting on the undue riducule heaped upon Polarik on this thread. I haven’t visited fact check in some time, as I consider them biased, ill informed amatuers, and appreciate FReepers who alert us to suspected fraud and manipulation, especially when the deceivers are hanging neon “Trust Me” signs on their storefronts.

151 posted on Monday, September 22, 2008 1:39:34 AM by 4woodenboats

See also:

2 Responses to “Ron Polarik “To imply that FactCheck replaced their pictures because of a need to conserve bandwidth does not mesh with reality.””

  1. Miri Says:

    Good points, but we’re waiting for part two. Will there be a part two of the analysis?

  2. rosettasister Says:

    My understanding, Miri, is that there will be five parts in total.

    And I, too, keep checking for part two.

    Polarik’s pretty good at letting us know prior.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: