Ron Polarik “FactCheck removed the highly damning, Exif data to reduce the bandwidth too?”


This blog does not agree with the sentiment of the above. But it made us laugh just the same.

To: SJackson

When Obama makes statements like, “Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinians,” and has a history of hosting fund-raising efforts for, donating to, and working with anti-Israel organizations, terrorist groups and leaders, putting anti-Semitic and anti- Israel advisers like McPeak and Malley, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that BHO has already thrown Israel under the bus, while urging the bus driver to back up and do it again.

4 posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 6:18:38 AM by Polarik

To: justiceseeker93

I note at least two obvious problems with the Fact Check presentation, which tend to be obscured by their use of the low resolution blowups.

(1) One cannot make out any wording whatsoever along the periphery of the raised seal. That raises the issue of whether a phony raised seal was applied by someone outside the Hawaii Health Dept.

You’re right here. I made this an issue as well. I noted evidence that Seal is an add-on, using PS tools to blend it in and to change the apparent lighting.

To me, the biggest giveaway is the photos of the back side of the Seal — each one is missing the top 20% of the Seal, right about where the fold should be seen. So, the point is that they cannot take a photo of a phony folded Seal from the reverse side. If they had a real COLB with a real Seal impression, then we would have seen the entire Seal from the rear. There are other giveaways, but I’m saving them for Part Two of my report.

(2) On the blowup image of the seal, with supposed 90 degrees rotation of the document with a view to the left, the printed lines form a different spacing pattern than they do on the whole (alleged) COLB. That suggests that the seal image may have been applied to a different document.

Duly notied as well. My detractors tried to dismiss that as an optical illusion because of the angle, as well as write off the obviously phony texture of the paper as well as the “burst” of light running perpendicular to the Seal.

One more issue: the use of a “signature stamp” by the registrar (actually a stamp with a boilerplate (alleged) certification of authenticity and the registrar’s signature underneath that certification).

I mentioined that, but in the context of, “Why is the date stamp, allegedly put on the back, so prominently displayed from the front side of the COLB (aka, the ONLY side), when not even the second fold is visible?

Like, did a gorilla load up a cheap, rubber stamp and mash it into the paper?

Great points, justiceseeker93!

162 posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 7:22:29 AM by Polarik

To: 4woodenboats

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.

Thanks, 4woodenboats. I take their ridicule as a sign I’m on the right track. I did want to mention that if the FactCheck photos were reduced just to conserve bandwidth, then why did they remove the Exif data — that Israel Insider blasted them about?

163 posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 7:25:57 AM by Polarik

To: Poser

They are probably still getting hundreds of thousands of hits a day on those pictures. The hot links alone would probably bankrupt some people. Trying to turn this into tinfoil hat stuff is just plain silly.

And, of course they removed the highly damning, Exif data to reduce the bandwidth. too?

164 posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 7:33:23 AM by Polarik

See also:

%d bloggers like this: