Posted on 08/17/2008 5:17:54 PM PDT by Polarik
In my concurrent thread, The Truth About Obama's forged birth certificate: What Polarik never told you, I refrained from naming my critics and detractors. However, they continue to denigrate my name and my work as the condescendingly pimp their own "research" (which is like "daycare" center to me), but I'm amused by it, and not fazed by it.
But, I think that I should make these bashings known to FReepers, just in case they, or one of their trolls, go into their predictable rants about the Obama COLB image being real.
The first one I wish to name is someone named Dr. Neil Krawitz, a name that has been mentioned on here more than a few times. I'm not sure what kind of "Dr." he is, but I'm guessing that he got it with his Happy Meal.
Whatever he is "professionally," Dr. K has a lousy "bedside manner," and like so many other Lefties like him, his stock in trade is spewing non sequiturs and ad hominem arguments at the real professionals.
For starters, he'll make a rather bizarre opening statement, and then follow it up with an old ad hominem smakdown, that I "don't know anything at all about image editing basics." The name of the game is "Discredit the source," (or try to) and then the rest is gravy.
At least that's is game plan. Well, the best defense is a good offense -- without being offensive, though.
I should mention that, to date, my comments to him (and his comrades) were not posted to his blog. Well, that's one way to silence the opposition. Which is why I am presenting it here, for your review and support, in what has been, so far, a one-man battle for the prosecution of Obama's fraudulent birth certificate.
Here's an example of one of smakdowns with Dr. K. His statements are in bold and mine in plain text.
First, he provides his introduction and disclaimer:
I have previously written about the smear campaigned against Barack Obama. In this attack, alleged experts claim that Obama has doctored his Certificate of Live Birth (COLB). They support their claims with false research using image analysis. Since I work with image analysis, I feel that it is important to properly represent the field. Please be aware, while their attack is against Obama, this is not a political debate. I am only addressing the technologies used to perform the analysis.
If he were being sincere about his claim, he would not be calling me names and denigrating my work. Also, what he calls "technologies," is a printer and a scanner.
So, before going into any of the "meat" of his arguments, he's already dismissed me for using "false research." An ad hominen argument right off the bat. There is nothing about my research is false. He may not "get it," but it is the correct research, given the research objectives.
Dr K. and cohorts he had a field day with TechDude's research to the extent that they consumed the entire web So, I guess that I should feel fortunate that it was not about me.
He continues with his rant, There are three main players in this conspiracy theory. An anonymous racist who goes by the nickname "Texas Darlin", and two anonymous "researchers" named Polarik and TechDude.
I know fellow FReeper TexasDarlin, and she is the last person that I woujld call a "racist." Where does he get off by calling her a racist? What? For exposing Obama's fraudulent and criminal behavior?
Also note the quotes he put around "researchers" (another diss). Throughout his trashings of other people's qualifications, he never mentions his own credibility, of course.
Then, after bad-mouthing others, he follows that up with this charming bon mot:
Polarik claimed to have "indisputable evidence", but it was really just his gross misunderstanding of even the most basic image analysis...Unlike Polarik, TechDude did not make amateur mistakes. Instead, he intentionally manipulated the data so that it would support his theory.
A veritable bonanza of ad hominem arguments - the polite way of saying, "f**k you."
I forgot to mention his cohorts. One is someone who goes by the name of Koyaan (actually Steve Ellis in real life). It is on this blog, and on hackerfactor.com, that the other pair of Obama COLB conspirators also hang out, Mr. John Q. (alias John Que) and RayAus.
John and Ray, to their credit, will actually listen to what I say, provided that it is not longer than two sentences. Koyaan, for all his faults, will read everything that I write, despite never understanding it.
All of them have superiority complexes, and they love to verbally diss me, as if I was Hogan's Heroes, Sgt. Shultz, like "I know nohs-sing," "I see nohs-sing."
Little do they know that I have more graphics experience than all of them combined. It is probably the reason why they want to rip me at every turn -- because deep inside they fear that I might be right.
So, I'm giving them enough rope hoping that they hang themselves.
BUT, I digress. Back to Dr. K's skreed about me and my indisputable evidence that the Kos COLB was forged from the PD COLB.
"Indisputable evidence"? Ha!
Your "indisputable evidence" shows that they are not perfect copies. Therefore, they are not from the same template. They are not even close.
I never said anything about "perfect copies" (as if anything is perfect in this world), nor did I say that both came from the same template.
His next commentary is on the differences in the backgrounds -- for which we already know that the Kos border is way off to the left of all the other COLBs. He continues...
Among other things, look at the green pattern on the paper background. In the top right corner (inside the border), the Decosta begins with a =||= pattern. In contrast, the Obama begins with a ||=|| pattern. How can they be perfect copies if the green background is totally different?
Again with the "perfect copies?" What I did say was that the printed parts of the Kos COLB image are a perfect match to their printed counterparts on the PD COLB. I guess the "perfect" adjective threw him for a loop. He does know how to spin a "perfect" non sequitur:
Since there is no indication of image manipulation, they never changed the background.
What the heck is he saying here? He's just concluded that because their backgrounds are totally different, there is no indication of image manipulation.
Wouldn't their backgrounds be the same if COLB's are printed on the same paper, and in the same place? Except for the bogus Kos border. I never said that the Kos cOLB copied everything from the PD COLB. If that was the case, then the Kos COLB would also have similar folds.
Meanwhile, he really gets off-task in the next round.
You also say that having the same aspect ratio is significant. Yes: it indicates that they were scanned in with the same aspect ratio.
Uh...no. They should NOT have the same aspect ratio because the PD COLB document had two, large folds that physically distorted the borders and caused the image of those borders to be foreshortened. He concludes with yet another non sequitur:
You state that "The ONLY way, on God's green Earth, for the Kos COLB to be a mirror image of the DeCosta COLB is by basing one on the other". Here's another method: what if they are both original and printed by the same office in Hawaii?
To which I replied, "What if pigs could fly?" EVEN IF they were both original and printed by the same office in Hawaii, the PD COLB would STILL have two, deep folds that distort the aspect ratio of the borders in the image, while the Kos COLB would STILL have no folds that distorted its borders.
Now, I desperately need a user's manual to figure out how Lefties think. Darned if I know. Here's what Dr K said about his "flying pigs" scenario:
They would have the same aspect ratio and look similar. The different folds were because... they are different piece of paper.
Now, that's penetrating analysis! Here's more:
The seal moves because they were stamped at different times.
He didn't notice that the seal is also smaller.
And the green background differs because they were printed on different sheets of paper.
Y'mean, they aren't printed on the same piece of paper?"
Your theory and indisputable evidence is laughable and does not hold up to even a precursory glance.
Well, I can't say much about his sense of humor, but if he ever wrote that in an article submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, I doubt they'd be laughing with him.
I did this post as a caveat to trolls that we've heard the best that they've got, and they've got zilch.
Why call them anything? What's the point in calling someone names? It's childish.
I was pretty skeptical at first but honestly I don’t put anything past politicians on either side these days. Obama could clear this up inside of 24 hours but he doesn’t and I’m starting to wonder.
Why not calling them by their names? It sounds like you’re dying to do so.
Is there any possibility that the FBI or other federal agency is looking into this? Does Hillary have any desire to see anything done on this?
This was totally "tongue-and-cheek."
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.