Posted on 11/27/2008 4:54:00 AM PST by limeade
Understanding image analysis is very important. Otherwise, you cannot tell fact from fiction. Equally important is the need to understand how not to do image analysis. Otherwise charlatans may try to pull a fast one over you.
In my previous blog entry, "Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis", I debunked the work of an anonymous troll who called himself "TechDude". TechDude used a sample biased, false data, and artifacts created by his own tools to conclude that the Obama certificate of live birth (COLB) was fake. TechDude also used false credentials (he impersonated another person) in order to sound authoritative. Following my public critique of his report and outing of the impersonation, TechDude vanished. Even his strongest supporter, "Texas Darlin", pulled all of TechDude's reports from her blog. TechDude was a fraud and used bad science to support a false conspiracy.
Today, there is only one person who continues to propagate the "COLB is fake" conspiracy. He calls himself "Ron Polarik" (an anonymous pseudonym -- not his real name), and he also uses bad science to support his claims. His latest report, Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy is accompanied by a YouTube video. (Since he keeps restricting access to it and moving it around, I am making a copy available here.)
(Excerpt) Read more at hackerfactor.com ...
But the simplicity of learning the truth, and the fact that no reporter, even those 10% who ARE conservative, have delved into this at all make a pretty good case that there is really no "there" there.
The story seems to be the secrecy of Obama, not his certificate. But yet a lot of people persue this story based on internet postings about it.
Who knows? I certainly don't. It amazes me though that people who are normally so skeptical about things, especially what we read on the internet, sometimes put blinders on when it comes to things we WANT to be true.
The Certificate of Live Birth is hardly an issue.
What is an issue is that Obama has not supplied a certified copy of a Birth Certificate. A document that certifies that he was born in a given hospital on a given date and time signed by an attending physician.
It’s the liberal method of debate.
Accuse your opponent of doing something they didn’t do, then ridicule them for it.
Moot Points Before I begin evaluating Polarik's claims, I would like to point out that the entire claim -- that Obama was not born in Hawaii -- is false. Representatives from the State of Hawaii have repeatedly authenticated Obama's COLB.
* 27-June-2008. Janice Okubo from the Hawaii Department of Health confirmed that the document was valid.
* 15-Aug-2008. Politifact validated the information.
* 31-Oct-2008 (alternate link). Quote: Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said today she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.
He gets all of these wrong:
Point 1 :
We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.
He conveniently leaves out this statement she made:
And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification? “When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.” Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”
So therefore, she can't confirm that image on his site is authentic
Point 2:
; Politifact validating the info. They are just reporting the same quotes as quoted in Point 1. Not independent verification
Point 3:
This is what was said from Hawaii: Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
She did not say original Hawaii birth certificate. Under Hawaiian law, he could have applied for a Hawaii birth certificate provided he could show his mother was a resident of Hawaii one year prior to his birth. Part of that process is submitting your original birth certificate. So therefore, in accordance with state policies and procedures , they would have his original birth certificate on record. It does not mean it is a Hawaii birth certificate.
So, if this guy can't even get three simple points correct, why should we believe him in anything else he says ?
What is he hiding?
I’m new here, so please tell me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this whole O-birth controversy using up a lot of time and energy that would be better put into opposing policies and appointments we disagree with? The chances of success with this line seem pretty low, yet so many are putting so much into it!
What if we put the same kind of tenaciousness into re-tooling the Republican Party? It might be time and effort well spent. The birth thing, not so much.
Again, I’m a newbie, but those are my thoughts.
Um, what is the author’s proof?
Troll. This is one discussion of many.
Exactly. Without proof, he's just another blind Obama defender.
The original birth certificate would clear this up in about 5 minutes.
Obama can't seem to produce that, and the State of Hawaii can't verify beyond a reasonable doubt that the image they received was that of an authentic, valid, birth certificate.
We just want proof that the constitutional requirements are met. Zero is doing himself no favors by refusing that proof.
This is getting downright pitiful because how easy it should be to resolve the issue.
The following was posted at the bottom of an interview with Alan Keyes at Essence.com
>>
The entire basis for blacks to think they are less than full citizens of this country comes from the nation's failure to live up to the ideals expressed in the Constitution. The sting of slavery is made worse because of how many people before the Civil War gave in to the expediency of that institution and allowed it to continue because they thought the country could not afford to free them. Now comes an opportunity for a man the black community directly identifies with to take the oath of office as President.
Yet now look at how many people appear eager to not live up to the ideals of the Constitution, and allow a person take this oath with a very basic requirement for that office still an open question. Those who want to sweep an issue that should be easy to resolve under the rug denigrate the entire civil rights struggle, a struggle that was based on how easily it could appeal to the ideals of that same Constitution.
Just out of curiosity, what country did you come from, that you can’t understand the importance of knowing who our president is?
Welcome to the United States, where such “trivialities” are made paramount.
My point exactly. What if, rightly or wrongly, it all comes to nothing? How do we look then? Why paint such an inviting target for ridicule on our own backs?
Again, I’m keeping an open mind and I could be way off base on this.
Thank you for the kind welcome, by the way.
We saw this earlier in the year with the Tech Dude and Texas Darlin cases where he made personal information -- names and addresses of bloggers blogging anonymously -- public, with little concern for the outcome be he accurate or not.
He continues to do the same kind of half-cocked perosnal attacks in this case in my humble opinion, he is suffering from some sort of mania, judged by his compulsion to name the names and addresses of innocents and those who wish to engage in free speech discussions, but using anonymous identities. The use of anonymous identities is a first amendment free speech right, and is a long established tradition in American political discourse. Krawetz is not only rude, and possibly criminally harassing people, but -- again in my layman's opinion -- he suffers from some manic obsession, and may be insane.
I have no kindness for you as yet, I take you to be a sapper, a troll. There’s no other logical reason for an honest person to join a specific topic discussion simply to discourage those engaged in it.
Limeade, an insta-freeper since 2 weeks ago.
Nice try, DU guy.
Ohio Boy, freeper since yesterday.
So, your job is to backstop the other insta-troll.
We were not born yesterday, troll. We understand the internet battlefield. Nice try though. When you email your boss, suggest that you find some dormaant screen names with older signed up dates to use. It makes you appear less trollish.
It is not a Constitutional requirement that they do so, but more mundane.
The question has been called. Mr Obama has been pressed to produce documents the State of Hawaii has under seal, which he can have released.
The relative inexpense of doing so, and ending any question (one way or the other) of his being Constitutionally qualified to hold the office of the President of the United States, versus expenditures of some $800,000.00 in attorneys' fees to avoid releasing the information, certainly gives one cause to question whether he is, in fact, Constitutionally qualified to take office.
That people have had to go to court to press the issue is absurd, but it is an absurdity Mr. Obama has caused by his lack of forthrightness.
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.