Since I was not privy to the private electronic exchange between you and Polarik, I cannot know with certainty that what you sent him to analyze is exactly the same thing that you posted on FR in defense of your legitimate COLB. Polarik claims the images you sent him were manipulated. He based his opinion on those images. You claim that he pronounced a forgery from images of a valid document.
If Polarik stopped responding to you, I suspect it was because he questioned your intentions and chose not to spend his time defending himself rather than because you embarrassed him. I suspect that’s why you received no apology - he didn’t think you were owed one after misleading him and then calling him out as a fraud. Some would call that a bait and switch.
It gives me pause that you feel the need to persist in denigrating his reputation and that you continue to rant about your innocence in the matter. I don’t know that I can resolve that here.
Not that you should care, but I will be more likely to believe your claim of innocence if you choose to move on without pointing to this irreconcilable “gotcha” between you and Polarik. Your future comments will demonstrate your character not your insistence of honor.
Thank you for answering my questions.
~~~Since I was not privy to the private electronic exchange between you and Polarik, I cannot know with certainty that what you sent him to analyze is exactly the same thing that you posted on FR in defense of your legitimate COLB. Polarik claims the images you sent him were manipulated. He based his opinion on those images. You claim that he pronounced a forgery from images of a valid document.
The inages were scanned and sent to him with the default settings on my HP scanner. They were completely absolutely not edited in any manner that could possibly lead anyone to that conclusion.
~~~If Polarik stopped responding to you, I suspect it was because he questioned your intentions and chose not to spend his time defending himself rather than because you embarrassed him. I suspect that’s why you received no apology - he didn’t think you were owed one after misleading him and then calling him out as a fraud. Some would call that a bait and switch.
Polarik never said a WORD to me from the moment I sent him the first set of images. Not a word. He acknowledged he got then asked for me to send him more to which I agreed. I then forgot in the press of doctors appointment sna draising three kids and having a life. He did not send so much as a reminder, which is all it would have taken as I would have hit my forehead and said D’oh and done it right then. So he posts up his bogus analysis and fried me with it. He never sent any correspondence to me in any form from the point he asked for more images at a different contrast. Which I immediately did, after he posted his flame. I think I sent 13 more images. Some of which clearly include folds on the back of the document he complained about not seeing Not a peep in response.
Answer me this... how many SERIOUS researchers don’t get back to their source to check on anomalies before publishing a judgment. Hua? Particularly when that information is forthcoming? How many serious researchers just lalala go off and forget to remind a source to send more information if it doesn’t arrive in a timely manner and instead just pronounce judgment?? Hua.. No serious scientist I know of and I know more than a few.
I am not denigratiing his reputation, he is doing that himself. I am just telling the truth. If the truth his denigrating him thats HIS fault. Not mine. I refuse to take responsibility for it.
Even now, if he sent me a private email I would say so here and make it clear that any misunderstanding between him and I has been resolved and say what ever needed saying. It isn’t as if I have not offered proof I was wrong to begin with .... or did you forget that I have the personal integrity and balls to do so?
I would like to know how you know so much about what Polarik was or was not thinking? I don’t think you do. I think you are making things up out of either to suit your needs. I have told the truth here. Up to and including admitting I was wrong.
Too bad you and others can’t do the same.
You bring up a good point. If a Freeper has been proven to have made mistakes in more than one area (like forgetting she had a 2007 CoLB request and not knowing that pinging all isn’t, well... pinging all), then can she be trusted with that important detail that what she claims was sent was actually sent? At this point, the scenario looks much like what you described, and the future comments will demonstrate the character.