"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."
Krawetz, you're a hack who hasn't got a clue what is real Science. You have not done a single scientific thing since your first post. You have provided no evidence to support your contention that the images posted online are genuine scan images of Obama real, paper COLB. In fact, you have not done anything related to the COLBs, except to toss out a few epithets, non sequiturs and anecdotes.
REAL SCIENCE is not making denigrating and disparaging remarks about someone else's research and him personally, which is what you did in the first part of your "Bad Science" diatribe. That's slander.
REAL SCIENCE involves trying to replicate what another researcher has done, and not pulling conjectures out of thin air, or something you sit on.
I was the FIRST person to use REAL science in my analyses, beginning on June 13, the day after the DailyKos.com image and the My.BarackObama.com image, and continued to do so for four months, while all you did was flap your gums...twice.
No one else has been able to do what I did - HONESTLY -- because TechDude was a fraud and I was the person who outted him, not you.
Ron is my real first name, and Polarik is what I got from my Father's real last name.
I don't sign sworn and witnessed TWO Affidavits if I am a fraud or don't exist.
But, you ramble on anyway:
"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.)"
I have nothing to do with the access, and it's never been moved around, because a copy of it has always been available on ObamaCrimes.com. The Youtube version was taken down ONE TIME for edits.
Your opening statement shows the world just how clueless you really are:
"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."
You, nor anyone else, has ever proven that Obama was born in Hawaii. Obama also has failed to prove that he was born in Hawaii. Obama has refused to show to anyone his real, "vault" original birth certificate. All that we've ever seen are forgeries, and you nor anyone else can refute that.
Then, you continue:
" * 27-June-2008. Janice Okubo from the Hawaii Department of Health confirmed that the document was valid."
WRONG! She most certainly did nothing of the kind. What she said was that "it [the document image] looks exactly like my birth certificate," meaning only that the form itself, and not what was used to make it, looked like her Certification of Live Birth with respect to the color and layout of her COLB that resembles the COLB form.
BUT, what you and Politifact didn't report (but I did) was that Okubo also said:
"I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."
Let that quote sink in for awhile. Let it marinate in your brain, because the next Okubo quote slams the door on this image being anything "official":
"At this time there are no circumstances in which the State of Hawaii Department of Health would issue a birth certification or certification of live birth only electronically. In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document."
Which begs the question, "Why, after four 1/2 months since the Daily Kos posted the first COLBimage, was no second scan image ever made, or better yet, why was no scan ever made of the reverse side of the COLB, the side that contains the embossed Seal and Registrar's signature block?"
Obama's campaign only had $600 million, and they couldn't make a second scan?
By comparison, I have over 100 scan images,.of both the front and back, of two, real 2007 COLBs, and two real 2008 COLBs.
Who else can make these claim? Not you, nor anyone else.
Who else has scanned, photographed, and fully examined, under different lighting conditions and different magnifications,
a real paper COLB?
Not you, nor anyone else.
Not only have you never done anything remotely close to what I've done, you can't get your facts straight, and if you have no facts, then you create a few.
For example, you said:
" * 15-Aug-2008. Politifact validated the information."
WRONG AGAIN. I referenced what Politifact did above, in relation to the COLB image, and what they did occurred on June 27, not August 16.
How exactly does Politifact "validate" any birth record information when (1) no one outside of Obama's immediate family, and directors Fukino and Onaka, knows anything about it, and (2) they send Okubo a very small and poor quality image of a nonexistent document, for which authenticity could never be determined.
I did, however, prove that it was made from the same, forged source image.
Politifact's copy is almost, but not quite as bad, as the the intentionally miniscule Fight The Smears copy, weighing in at a collosal 585 x 575 pixels @ 100 DPI, to which you posted a link saying that, "In fact, the green thatched background is visible in every copy of the COLB."
THAT thumbnail of an image is not proportional to any other image posted, meaning they intentionally resized it without keeping the aspect ratio the same.
So, since when is one image copy, FTS's 585 x 575 pixel image, "every copy of the COLB?"
1 = 3. Is that your idea of "new math?" Or just an "old oxymoron?"
Well, you were technically correct by saying that "In fact, the green thatched background is visible in every copy of the COLB."
However, to say that I "tampered" with anything is a bald-faced lie, and one that I will demand you retract!
You said the following:
"First, the highest copy quality of the COLB contains no instances of the word "BIRTH" that looks like this."
Look like what? I've got dozens of similar comparisons taken directly from all four images, including the "higher" quality Fasctcheck image, that do show the gray and white pixel patterns when there should be green in between.
I demonstrated that over and over again, taking genuine samples from real COLB
images and the bogus Obama COLB image.
But, all of my test samples have been enlarged to pixel size, and you will only see shades of green -- you will not see any "green-thatched pattern" because that pattern becomes a series of green-sshaded pixels.
"Every instance has that green thatched background around the letters. In fact, the green thatched background is visible in every copy of the COLB. Thus, Polarik has tampered with the data in order to remove the green thatched background."
As I said, that is a bald-faced lie that you will remove immediately.
God, you are so out of your league here. I'm talking about pixels, while you're talking about the entire image.
You did not get what I said. What I've said, since Time immemorial, that the absence of green pixels in between the letters, that were replaced by gray and white pixels, is a sign that the original text on this image was graphically altered.
And, I'm not the only person who knows this to be a fact, and not the only person who has actually seen this happen when overlaying portions of that green thatched background on top of existing text, and then creating a new text layer on top of that background layer, and then flattening the image.
I never said that green pixels would be absent from the image when enlarged. On the contrary, I presented comparative samples taken from the scans of REAL 2007 COLBs and REAL 2008 COLBs.
You chose to post a link to the FTS solely because it can only be viewed clearly at its original postage-stamp size, and if you tried to enlarge it t the size of the "BIRTH" comparisons that were made using full-sized scan images, you would really see "Smears" as in higly-smeared pixels. Basically, it would be the visual equivalent of what you're saying about me.
What I don't understand is how you can get away with this nonsense. We're we all expected to believe you because you have a flashy resume -- so did TechDude, you fancy yourself as a forensic image analyst -- so did TechDude. You have a PhD in computer science. Well, Techdude did not have that, but your specialty is NOT identifying forged document images, but in finding malicious code embedded in images -- totally different thing.
If you really were a hot-shot, forgery expert, then you would never be making these ridiculous claims. You also would show people something concrete evidence to support them.
Well, you did post scans of black text printed on white paper from a Newsweek article.
Then you stateed the following:
"Looking at the paper version, it all looks uniform and black. However, the scanned image (full color, no enhancements, scanned on an HP Scanjet 3570c) shows that the black text contains a variety of colors."
Why would you make a color scan of a two-color original?
Because, you don't know any better. Everyone who is not you, would have made B&W bitmap image.
The COLB is green, so how, exactly, is that the same thing as the COLB with its green "security pattern?"
What it amply demonstrates is that:
A. You don't know the difference between color and black & white.
B. You don't know the difference between two-color bitmaps and 16.7 million color JPGs.
C. You don't take into account that the text in a magazine is screened.
D. You don't know the difference between VECTOR FONTS and RASTER FONTS, and
E. You don't know the difference between a completely, computer-generated graphic and typeset, printed pages in a magazine.
I'm not sure which of these is the most egregious. didn't you know that providing "irrelevant evidence" to support a "ridiculous claim" only make it seem more ridiculous?
Even though Techdude provided fabricated, concrete evidence, at least it was the CORRECT TYPE AND FORMAT for making comparisons, and not the "Apples with Hand-Grenades" comparisos that you make.
Sorry, but the public needs real and relevant research, and not the imitation kind of "Hey, I'm Dr. Neal Krawetz. I know everything!"
ANYTHING would be a vast improvement, though, over what you actually say:
"Regardless of whether the document on the web is real or tampered, the argument is moot; an authentic document exists. Thus, the conspiracy has no basis."
Now, that's totally awesome Dr. K! An "authentic document exists." What is this "authentic document" that does exist?
1. Is it a standard birth certificate?
2. Is it a Certificate of Birth?
3. Is it a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?
4. Is it a Certification of Live Birth?
5. Is it a Hawaiian document at all?
Obviously you cannot answer that because neither Fukino nor Onaka has ever told anyone what information is on that "birth certificate," let alone which of the five document types it might be.
Moving right along...you said:
"Now, given that Hawaii confirms it, why would they release a fake COLB when they could just as easily release a new one? (Occam's Razor: it is easier to just release the real one.)"
Hawaii did not confirm what was the document or what was contained on it. And, to prove how inept you are, I never said, nor has anyone else said, that Hawaii created a "fake" COLB!
""Regardless of whether the document on the web is real or tampered..."
Since when is creating and proferring "a false identity document" irrelevant? Obviously, you've never heard anything about the penalties for doing so. They are a maximum of 15 years in jail and up to a $250,000 fine.
I'm sure that Obama can handle the fine, but I'm not sure how he'll run the country from behind bars.
"Occam's razor" doesn't apply here. Shick's Razor might apply if you use it right.
You continue:
" * 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."
Well, at least you got something right, but what they said reveals absolutely nothing about what kind of birth certificate they have on record, and nothing about what information it contains.
Before 1972, parents could request a late birth registration for up to one year after their child was born, and it is highly likely that Stanley Dunham did just that.
If that original birth record had matched the information on the forged Obama COLB, Fukino and Onaka would have shouted it from the top of the Health Dept. building. Heck, they would have thrown a giant luau.
If that original birth record had matched the information on the forged Obama COLB, then we would have seen a second or third scan of a REAL COLB, full-size, and from both sides, and the quality of the scans would be infinitely better.
Are there any second scans? Nope!
Why is it that one, front side only, low-quality image of what is alleged to be a true copy of Obama's "original birth certificate?"
Uh...it's not even a birth certificate or Certificate of Live Birth. A COLB is just a short transcript that CANNOT BE USED to obtain a passport, and CANNOT BE USED to prove that the holder is a natural-born, US citizen.
So, even if it was real -- which it is not even close to being real --
Do you show ANY scans at all? Of course not because they would refute your empty conjectures.
You have never even seen and touched a real paper COLB. I have.
You have never even seen a real 2007 COLB and compared it to Obama's bogus COLB image.
I have.
You have never even tried to reproduce any of the anomalous features I found on Obama's bogus COLB image because it absolutely cannot be done naturally.
In short, you have done Jack-squat to refute my evidence.
You show my pixel analysis of the word, BIRTH, but instead of providing my comparison images, or even one of your own that was relevent (not those B&W magaine text), you simply leave a link to Factcheck's image, which, with a compression ratio of 5.6%, and a JPG quality level of 46% is hardly "high quality" in anyone's vocabulary.
They could have cropped out the border, and bumped up the quality, while keeping the file size at or below the original 1.43 MB.
You said that the second of my four claims was that "along with the missing green from outside the letters..."
Hello??? Earth to Krawetz. I NEVER said that there was "missing green" from "outside the letters." I said, and listen carefully this time:
THERE ARE GREEN PIXELS MISSING FROM IN BETWEEN THE LETTERS (not from the outside).
I can't blame you entirely, because Factcheck also referred to them as"strange haloes," something else I did not say.
To continue your quote:
"Polarik claims that there should be a green thatched pattern within the letters ("O", "B", etc. have internal areas that should contain green)."
Darn. I have to repeat what I said again:
THERE ARE GREEN PIXELS MISSING FROM IN BETWEEN THE LETTERS (not within the letters).
Geez, if you cannot get the central concept right, then what hope does anyone have of finding even a kernal of truth in what you said?
But, when you got to third base...er..I mean, the third claim which is actually your claim, not mine:
"Third, the loss of the green background when scanned is intentional. Security paper, such as the green thatched background, is designed to distort when scanned."
Oh, really? Then why do all of my 100 scan images have the green background showing around, in, and between every letter???
Yet, more iron-clad evidence that you don't know Jack-squat, about scanning, about "artifacts," and even about JPG images.
"That's a security measure. Thus, even if Polarik had not tampered with the image, removing the green from around the letters, the thatch background should not be crisp"
You will NEVER be able to replicate either the Daily Kos image or the Factcheck image exactly by natural means.
You will ONLY be able to replicate either the Daily Kos image or the Factcheck image exactly by human intervention, as in graphic alteration.
In fact, I'll bet you anything that you can name, that you cannot reproduce just the same border pattern as shown on the Kos and Factcheck images.
Of course, you would lose, big-time, if I also bet you to try and natually recreate the same pixel patterns as shown in the Daily Kos image or the Factcheck image.
I'm throwing down the same gauntlet to you as I have to everyone else, and the only person who was able to exactly reproduce the Daily Kos image was me, and the processes that I used were far from being natural, as in "natural-born."
I'm too tired to go on any further, but I'd say that I punk'd you good enough.
Ping.
Now is the time to come to the aid of our FRiend.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2139124/posts?page=64#64
Bump to your post.
Of course, the only refuge of the libaddled, in the absence of evidence, is the shrill attack on those who prove them wrong.
We AGW "deniers" have been confronted with this phenomenon for years.
These alleged document experts keep creeping out of the woodwork, but none has been able to refute the evidence you have provided, only to make sweeping assertions or ad hominem attacks.
Expect even more of that, FRiend. At this point, if the MSM breaks the story, it will likely not be about the documents, but to attack those who have found the provided COLB inmage to be false, and those who point out that all carefully parsed statements (official and otherwise) sre suspiciously insufficient to bolster any claim of citizenship.
The number of trolls around here seem to have gone up lately, especially the 'just signed up, nothing is going to happen, just lay back and take it' types who obviously do not see the need to defend the very foundations of the Republic, or who are part of the attack thereon.
Others spout some little red book parody of Conservatism, Capitalisn, or make remarks which, when quoted out of context, can be used to make it appear those of us on this website are saying and believe things which are far from an accurate representation of the statements and beliefs expressed here.
Keep up the good fight FRiend, I have referred a number of people to your blog for details, and will continue to do so.