Posted on 09/20/2008 9:19:30 AM PDT by Polarik
That's right. They replaced all of their high-res, image files with lo-res image files that are 90% smaller than their originals.
BUT, they have the gall to leave their original file sizes listed on their links. So, like instead of getting a 2 MB image file, you now get a 200K image file.
In FactCheck's original story, posted, August 21, they made specific references to a few of my discoveries I made about the COLB forgery in an attempt to dismiss them out of hand:
Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:
* No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.
* In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters.
And, they devoted an entire paragraph to dissing my most important finding:
The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.
As everyone who has read my report should know by now that the pixel anomalies, that they call "haloes," are absolutely not scanner artifacts.
Well, on Thursday, the first part of my report made the front page of PHil Berg's website, ObamaCrimes.com, with my promise to show how the forgery was made, and to throughly debunk the FactCheck photos in Part Two.
Last night, I got a call from his legal assistant telling me that FactCheck had done this switch. I thought that she was talking about the thumbnails of the images, and not the downloadable ones.
Then, I saw it for myself -- and you should, too.
Anyone else think they're running scared???
Fact Check is run by the Annenberg Foundation, they can’t be trusted. I saw the guy from Fact Check on Greta’s show, he was there to do a fact check on the book ban and firing of the librarian. He neither confirmed nor denied the facts, he seemed to take both sides and ended up sounding like John Kerry in a debate.
One reason is it cost money to serve data. 2mb is big. Just saying, you know, there are valid reasons for the swap. Carry on.
The COLB is meaningless.
I want to see a certified copy of his 1961 Birth Certificate.
Forget the 1961 part, I'd like to see a certified copy of his original long-form, birth certificate, which may be dated the year before!
Aw, c'mon.You cannot really believe that. That, after a month of having them proudly posted (FactCheck made a really big deal about posting the big pictures), they suddenly pull off all of them and swap them for ones 1/10th the size??
It's like going in to buy a 20oz bottle of Coke, and all they have are 2oz bottles because they want to save money.
Posted by Polarik on Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:42:42 PM
Have you ever run a popular website? Serving out a popular 2mb image is expensive. I know you want to see this as a tactic to discredit your hard work (which I think is flawed in that it discounts the effects of jepg compression)—and I’m not saying it’s not. I’m just saying that there are other reasons they’d pull the high res image. Have you called them out on this? I’d be interested in hearing their ‘reasons’. You definitely have a point to make with them. I just don’t think your explanation is the only viable one, and I hate jumping to conclusions. I believe in “truth” over “what I want to hear.”
That might be kinda what I meant, but I’ll go with your idea too.
Hmmmmmm.
I've called them four times and emailed them seven times when their first story (June 16) and second stort (August 21) came out. When they heard the name, "Polarik," on the phone, they declined to comment and said that, "All the information you need is on our website. Forget about the emails -- they've been trashed long ago.
There are no other reasons to change a 2 MB file into a 200K file, except to make it impossible to analyze. Fight the Smears did the exact, same thing, goping from a 1025 x 1000 px to a 585 x 575 px, which isn't even a proportional change (different aspect ratio).
Here's what is still in their article:
You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.
They said that they have not changed a thing. Besides the obvious 90% reduction in quality, there's lots of other "edits."
To paraphrase Emily Barrett Browning, "How have I Photoshopped there? Let me count the ways." At last count, I was up to a dozen deliberate Photoshop manipulations."
What would be their excuse for leaving the same links posted, the ones that still have the original size? Didn't get around to it? Forgot to change it?
It fails the "Stink" test.
As the smartest person in this forum, I’ll just leave you kids to your continued stupidity. If I do continue to say brilliant things regarding this issue, I will just have a few more retards try to tell me I was never in the Marine Corps despite my offers to allow them to come view my dd214, a few more retards will tell me I’m not a conservative disregarding my very conservative blog, a few more retards will tell me that Obama owns factcheck despite the fact that this isn’t true, and a few more retards will tell me that their investigative team has proven a scan to not be an original despite the fact that if something is scanned that means it isn’t an original and it can’t be used to verify if the document that was scanned is real or forgery.
Don’t invite me into these things if you don’t want me to continue to make fun of you.
As the smartest person in this forum, I’ll just leave you kids to your continued stupidity.
***Well, that settles it. TheNewPundit has spoken. Now we must bow down. For the benefit of us unwashed masses, please show us your “invitation” to join in this discussion.
“For the benefit of us unwashed masses, please show us your “invitation” to join in this discussion.”
Making people look silly is fun. Follow this fun little link http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2067130/posts?q=1&;page=87#87 and you will see that the author of this thread decided he wanted me here.
I think I would rather stay on this thread and make fun of you. But thanks anyways.
Have fun trying, but remember that when you asked a stupid question, I gave you your answer.
You don’t find it a teensie bit odd that after hosting the larger photos, Factcheck makes this change onde day after Polarik’s latest info is posted to Berg’s site?
I’d say you’re over the target.
Well done.
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.