Posted on 08/24/2008 8:10:04 AM PDT by pissant
Not at all true. First of all, double negatives are grammatically and logically incorrect.
Secondly, you are the one who threw down the gauntlet by claiming that an image forgery has not been proven, which you could only have made based on your knowledge and/or belief that the FactCheck image is real.
On the other hand, I've already provided 12 weeks of solid evidence that the FactCheck image is not a true copy of Obama's genuine paper COLB, as well as evidence that the FactCheck photos are likewise unreal.
The burden, therefore, falls upon you to provide evidence that the image is a real, and you're already 12 weeks behind in that department.
Citing the efforts of others who only think they've debunked my findings will not suffice either, because they are also based on the supposition that the image is genuine. Word-of-mouth will not suffice as evidence, especially when it comes from Obama supporters and/or funders. Personal beliefs won't work either since they are not empirically testable. So, this is your big chance to do what no one has ever done -- to prove the FactCheck image is real and not a forgery. I certainly will applaud that research.
I didn’t use a double negative, you in fact are asking me to prove a negative.
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.
You can dick around discussing logic or you can produce the document for non-partisan analysis. Factcheck is tainted. Pick someone else that’s above reproach and deliver. If you continue to refuse, you are obstructing. The documentation will be challanged in court so you had best review the meaning of:
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
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).
I can dick around discussing logic? Interesting because I’m simply trying to get people to use logic. If you don’t trust factcheck, go to Obama’s HQ in Illinois.
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. 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.
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.
***Yeah, duhh. All the Obama campaign needs to do is release the document. The item they released on their website is a forgery. Why is that?
You claim that no one has refuted your evidence, yet your evidence wouldn’t hold water in a court of law.
***It’s already holding water in a court of law, Berg Vs. Obama. The judge has not thrown out the lawsuit as trivial because the evidence is strong enough to consider.
The burden of proof still lies with you.
***He has proven there’s a forgery in offerance. And that JPEG on the website is vouched for by the campaign. When more evidence is offered, more proof will be given. However, the lapse of time is very, very telling. How long did it take McCain to release his birth certificate (a paper copy)? About 2 days. How long for Obama? So far, several months. The delay gives him opportunity to generate better forged evidence. He spent a whole week working on the forgery-to-back-up-the-forgery and it was shot down within a matter of a couple of days.
If you don’t trust factcheck, go to Obama’s HQ in Illinois.
***I don’t trust factcheck because they are in the same Annenberg foundation that Obama ran. So far, hundreds have called up Obama’s HQ and requested copies of his certified birth certificate. No cooperation from the candidate. So use your logic to figure out why that’s happening.
Proof that is is real is the absence of proof that it is fake, therefore you are the one who has the burden.
***Put...down...the...bong.
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 oin "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.
First thing, I don’t have a bong, but thanks for your concern. Obama did not run the Annenburg Foundation, thanks for proving your ignorance in the matter. No one has PROVEN the doc to be a forgery, the court of law has not ruled in favor of anyone, and Obama did release the COLB to the first person who asked to see it.
Thanks for playing.
“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”
That is your contention, a contention that you have not proven to be true. There are two sides in every court case, but the responsibility of the one making the accusation is to prove guilt.
“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.”
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.
Obama did not run the Annenburg Foundation, thanks for proving your ignorance in the matter.
***Are you saying there’s no connection between Obama and the Annenberg foundation?
No one has PROVEN the doc to be a forgery,
***You are being disingenuous. Why? No one CAN prove the doc to be a forgery because the doc HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED. The JPG on the FightTheSmears website is a proven forgery. Why? If the Obammeroid has nothing to hide, why is he hiding this document, when it is causing so much damage right now?
the court of law has not ruled in favor of anyone,
***The court has an obligation to throw out trivial lawsuits. The first threshold has been passed.
...and Obama did release the COLB to the first person who asked to see it.
***Bull shiite. Who are you shilling for?
Thanks for playing.
***Welcome to Free Republic, newbie.
First thing, I don’t have a bong,
***You mean you were sober when you wrote that? I guess that means you’re just a piss-poor writer, newbie.
I think other people should also file suit, this plaintiff looks unreliable. They may drop the suit, and leave the search for truth. that would leave Obama to sail to the election with a potentially faulty birth certificate.
The chaos caused by an election winning president, who is then determined ineligible could be catastrophic.
McCain also needs his birth eligiblity confirmed by the courts for the same reason. (He has a Panamanian birth certificate, and lawsuits filed as well.)
3
So, you contend the Obama campaign showed its sister organization, Factcheck, a different document than the one used to generate the proven forgery hosted on the official Obama campaign site.
That dog won’t hunt.
3
“So, you contend the Obama campaign showed its sister organization, Factcheck, a different document than the one used to generate the proven forgery hosted on the official Obama campaign site. That dog won’t hunt.”
That would come close to making sense if I were of a low enough IQ to call the Obama campaign and Factcheck sister organizations.
“McCain also needs his birth eligiblity confirmed by the courts for the same reason. (He has a Panamanian birth certificate, and lawsuits filed as well.)”
There was actually a panel on that matter that determined McCain is eligible.
“You mean you were sober when you wrote that? I guess that means you’re just a piss-poor writer, newbie.”
No, it means that it doesn’t take much to go over the head of an idiot like yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.