Posted on 01/05/2009 1:40:48 AM PST by Kevmo
Here's a cool technical exchange taking place over at the Intrade forum, in the CertifiGate thread that I set up a while back. Some troll logged in as jbeyer posted trashtalk about Polarik and so Polarik has logged on and proceeded to hand him his hat.
jbeyer
Novice
Joined: 11/10/2008 03:32:14 Messages: 40 Online
ko, I've forgotten to mention to you that Polarik's report is a bunch of hogwash. He appears to be a computer nerd who has written a paper that he knows most people won't understand. His paper provides more "proof" for everyone wearing tin-foil hats. I work in computer graphics, I understand what he is saying, and I know it is a bunch of speculation.
There are rigorous, accepted techniques for detecting digital forgeries, but Polarik has conveniently not included the results of those tests in his paper. If he really believed it was a forgery, he could run some of the tests described in the following papers to prove it was a forgery: ftp://publications.ai.mit.edu/ai-publications/pdf/AIM-1657.pdf http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/publications/ih04.pdf
Out of curiosity, do you think factcheck.org has been duped or do you believe that they are a part of this vast conspiracy theory?
T - 15 days.
_________________________________________________
Samil
Senior
Joined: 23/09/2008 15:26:34 Messages: 113 Online Hi Ko, just to elaborate on why I feel that it's pointless for lay people (probably most of us) to throw around apparently "expert" opinion as evidence:
Check out this chain of debunking and counter debunking:
(a) Polarik's original report: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2136816/posts
(b) Krawetz debunking Polarik's creditials and methods in (a): http://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/categories/13-Politics
(c) Polarik debunking Krawetz's creditials and methods in (b): http://bogusbirthcertificate.blogspot.com/2008/12/bad-stridence-proof-positive-that.html
This is only one example. See how pointless it is to throw out expert analyses as evidence? This is such a contentious issue that for every piece of evidence you or anyone throws out, someone is likely to debunk it. In the end it boils down to opinion, opinion, opinion.
And in this case the only opinion that will really matter is not yours or mine but that of the courts, assuming they will take the case up. But that doesn't seem likely, does it? Which is why I said that if this contract is put up for trading, it will trade ridiculously close to "not forged".
____________________________________
Polarik
Newbie
Joined: 04/01/2009 15:52:16 Messages: 1 Online
jbeyer wrote:
ko, I've forgotten to mention to you that Polarik's report is a bunch of hogwash. He appears to be a computer nerd who has written a paper that he knows most people won't understand. His paper provides more "proof" for everyone wearing tin-foil hats. I work in computer graphics, I understand what he is saying, and I know it is a bunch of speculation.
There are rigorous, accepted techniques for detecting digital forgeries, but Polarik has conveniently not included the results of those tests in his paper. If he really believed it was a forgery, he could run some of the tests described in the following papers to prove it was a forgery: ftp://publications.ai.mit.edu/ai-publications/pdf/AIM-1657.pdf http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/publications/ih04.pdf
Out of curiosity, do you think factcheck.org has been duped or do you believe that they are a part of this vast conspiracy theory?
T - 15 days.
What a bunch of garbage this is, coming from yet another FRAUD who has NEVER READ my 160-page final report. If you had read it, with a modicum of comprehension, then you would know why both the COLB scan image and the photographs were never made from Obama's real Certification of Live Birth.
You would also know that a whole bunch of readers DO understand what i wrote because i took a visual, pragmatic approach with 140 images for illustration purposes, and explained what I did in common sense terms, wherever possible.
If you knew anything about the esoteric procedures you conveniently did not discuss, then you would know why they could NOT be used, nor would I bother to use them, because then it really would take a high-level expert to understand them.
Period.
First of all, it doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a puffed-up computer expert, to know that when the Seal on Obama's 2007 COLB does not match the real Seal used for 2007, but does match a different year, you're looking at a stone-cold forgery.
Secondly, I wish I had a dollar for how many self-professed computer "experts" have said that the pixel patterns I found are "scanner artifacts," or "JPG artifacts."
Instead of debunking my research, they reveal their true ignorance of scanner graphics.
Ever heard of a program I use called, "JMicrovision?" Probably not - otherwise you would not have simply tossed out a link here. I initially used it for analysis purposes, but because nobody except a computer expert would understand it, I chose a different approach -- one that others could understand.
The visual, pragmatic, trial-and-error approach I used, and explained, rules out any naturally-occurring phenomena which could have produced the anomalies I found.
If you're so smart, why didn't you explain these techniques to us instead of just throwing up a link to this research article (that was done primarily for publication purposes)?
My mother could have done that.
Why not show us who else has used them in a practical application of identifying a fraudulent scanner image?
Better yet, show us how they can be used to analyze a scanner image when you don't have the original scan for comparison purposes, as required by these techniques?
Well, you can't. Frauds love to use big words and list esoteric techniques hoping that nobody else knows about them.
Well, I do, and it's a big mistake to try and baffle me with BS.
It is not only being disingenuous, but you and others like you are always trying to set me up like this. Conversely, it is absolutely ludicrous to do so because there is no valid argument that anyone can postulate as to why, after six months, all we've ever seen is only ONE SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING SCAN OF THE FRONT SIDE of a document that allegedly exists (but does not).
Nobody who believes that this COLB scan is genuine has ever done anything to prove that it is genuine. All they have done is to say, "It looks genuine to me."
Yet, they demand that I use these esoteric techniques to prove that it is not?
What a crock! Seriously! These fools will disregard anything I tell them, regardless of the method i use. They will still falsely accuse me of messing with the evidence. They will also counter that I have not seen the original document -- yeah, and nobody will because it does not exist.
So, let me tell you why these techniques would not be useful to me.
The reason why anyone would use these techniques is because they cannot visually detect digital alterations in a photo and they have the original photo to which comparisons can be made.
These techniques do not replace the human eye, nor do they take the place of pragmatic visual analysis. They cannot say HOW an image was altered -- the most that they can say is that an image MAY have been resaved, recompressed, or spliced together from two or more other images.
Secondly, the formulas and assumptions they use for detecting resampling will only work with images saved with linear resampling algorithms, such as nearest neighbor. If the original image was saved using a nonlinear algorithm, then these formulas will fail to identify true forgeries:
"It is not possible, however, to uniquely determine the specific amount of re-sampling as there are re-sampling parameters that yield similar periodic patterns. There is also a range of re-sampling rates that will not introduce periodic correlations."
Their routines for detecting double JPEG compression only work when the save-to-save compression rates are known AND are different AND the second rate is not a multiple of the first, AND when there are no artifacts in the original image that would confound the results.
Since my detractors insist that the original scan has naturally-occurring "scanner artifacts," and "JPG artifacts," then, if true, that would rule out using these techniques to convince them.
Same thing for luminescence changes: you need to have the original, but you can tell by looking at the histograms which parts of the forged COLB image very widely in terms of hue and saturation; the border, for example -- which I have shown could not have been made at the same time that the rest of the scan was made.
The signal-to-noise procedure is also limited to having an original image or detecting which part of an altered image was not altered. If noise was added to the whole image, which is what was done to the forged COLB image, then there is no way to identify any deviations from expected parameters without having the original image to provide them:
"Note that this estimator assumes a known kurtosis for the original signal and the noise, kx and kw. In general these quantities may not be known. In the results presented below, we assume that they are known. In the future, the kurtosis of the original signal can be estimated from a region of an image that is believed to be authentic, and the kurtosis of the noise can be estimated by, for example, assuming Gaussian noise (kw = 3), or modeling the noise statistics of JPEG compression."
There are NO regions on the forged COLB image that are "authentic."
The intent of my research was to identify how the anomalies in the COLB image were produced, by trying to replicate them using natural and man-made processes. The inherent advantage in my approach is that it demonstrated how they were produced while simultaneously eliminating the processes that critics claimed were responsible for their appearance.
The bottom line is that what was posted online is a bogus Certification of Live Birth image, and so far, no one has been able to prove otherwise.
Read the darn report next time:
http://Polarik.blogtownhall.com
___________________________________
jbeyer
Novice
Joined: 11/10/2008 03:32:14 Messages: 40 Online Polarik, PhD, I don't know if you'll read through my whole post, so I'll post the question that I'm most interested in getting a response to first. I don't mean to demean you, your education or your knowledge, but am earnestly interested in a response to this question. If this birth certificate is so patently a forgery, why were you the best expert witness that Alan Keyes could find to testify? The credibility of an expert witness is almost solely based on their reputation. You were forced to write your opinion anonymously, which seriously undermines your credibility. Alan Keyes and his lawyers were well aware of this. This suggests that they couldn't find AYNONE with a reasonable reputation to support the forgery theory.
Polarik wrote:
What a bunch of garbage this is, coming from yet another FRAUD who has NEVER READ my 160-page final report.
Polarik, PhD, I'm sorry if I touched a nerve or two. Polarik, PhD, why do you assume that I haven't read your report? It was painful, but I read every word of it. I wouldn't call something hogwash if I hadn't read it and understood it.
Polarik wrote:
If you knew anything about the esoteric procedures you conveniently did not discuss, then you would know why they could NOT be used, nor would I bother to use them, because then it really would take a high-level expert to understand them.
I'm not going to get into a credential-throwing fight here. Your PhD in instructional media probably has my PhD in AI beat, but I am familiar with the procedures that I linked to.
Polarik wrote:
Ever heard of a program I use called, "JMicrovision?" Probably not - otherwise you would not have simply tossed out a link here. I initially used it for analysis purposes, but because nobody except a computer expert would understand it, I chose a different approach -- one that others could understand....If you're so smart, why didn't you explain these techniques to us instead of just throwing up a link to this research article (that was done primarily for publication purposes)?
I didn't explain Farid's techniques in this forum for the same reason that you didn't write an analysis that only computer experts could understand. How many computer experts are in this forum and could have understood what I wrote?
Polarik wrote:
you and others like you are always trying to set me up like this.
Keep the tin-foil hat with you at all times, lest myself or others like me come after you.
Polarik wrote:
Nobody who believes that this COLB scan is genuine has ever done anything to prove that it is genuine.
I don't really feel that I need to prove it is genuine when the Director of Health of Hawaii has issued a press release stating it is genuine. It is generally the job of conspiracy theorists to prove their theory, and not the other way around.
Polarik wrote:
They will still falsely accuse me of messing with the evidence.
I don't believe that you messed with evidence, I just don't believe you have shown much valid evidence.
Polarik wrote:
They cannot say HOW an image was altered -- the most that they can say is that an image MAY have been resaved, recompressed, or spliced together from two or more other images.
Then run the bloody test and show that it has been altered. If you ran these tests and showed, using peer-reviewed techniques, that the scan had been altered, that would be something you can hang your hat on. But to say that you won't run the tests because it will only show you that it has been altered, and not how it has been altered, is just idiotic.
That is like saying that you won't check to see if a patient is dead unless you can also figure out why the patient died.
Polarik wrote:
http://Polarik.blogtownhall.com
Oh, I see. You wanted another link to boost your Google Pagerank.
T - 15
_________________________________________
ko
Sage
Joined: 03/11/2007 19:01:54 Messages: 1217 Online
jbeyer wrote:
ko, I've forgotten to mention to you that Polarik's report is a bunch of hogwash.
Polarik wrote:
What a bunch of garbage this is, coming from yet another FRAUD who has NEVER READ my 160-page final report.
Well, it looks like jb stepped into a big, steaming pile here This thread just got a heckuva lot more interesting.
I, for one, would like to welcome our new technical overlord, Polarik.
_________________________________________________
ko
Sage
Joined: 03/11/2007 19:01:54 Messages: 1217 Online
jbeyer wrote:
While I'm sure that ko(razy) won't believe me, I work in the computer graphics industry, and can understand both Krawetz and Polarik's reports.
I guess we'll all see about that, now that Polarik just ripped you a new one right here on this thread.
Too bad you burned up all that good will by going straight for the troll act, I might have actually been motivated to answer your questions to me.
________________________________________
for your various CertifiGate ping lists
MHGinTN; little jeremiah; LucyT; pissant; Calpernia; Polarik; phil dragoo; ernest_at_the_beach; starwise; FARS; sunken civ
https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/495/2279.page
First, I have immense appreciation and admiration for Polarik’s dedication to this issue and the huge amount of work he has poured into it.
I do believe Obama is not a natural-born citizen, perhaps not a U.S. citizen at all.
All that said, it is obvious upon reading his report—yes, I have read it in its entirety—that he’s not a forensic expert. And if Keyes or anyone else is indeed using this report in their action, it could be problematic. That’s not to say he isn’t correct, but reality is that forensic expert reports need to be carefully constructed and airtight in narrative, recitation of methodology, and presentation of findings. IMHO, Polarik’s report does not meet these needs. I wish this were not so.
MM
This troll is such an "expert" in the matter to challenge Polarik he can't even get the basics correct. At no time did the Director of Health issue a press release stating that the COLB was genuine. I challenge him to show me such a statement.
However, Keyes did submit an affidavit from a forensics expert and she concurs with Polariks findings.
“However, Keyes did submit an affidavit from a forensics expert and she concurs with Polariks findings.”
That’s very interesting, and encouraging. Not that I doubt Polarik, but the more expert confirmation the better.
However, the Keyes case isn't about proving the COLB is a forgery. It is about Obama not presenting any evidence of natural born citizenship. All Obama points to are two things. First, the scanned COLB image. Now even if that were genuine, it does not establish natural born status. This is a civil case. Therefore, all Keyes has to show is by a preponderance of the evidence ( a slight tipping of the scales ) that the COLB presented is not to be trusted. You don't even have to go into any forensic analysis for that. By their own admission, they blacked out the Certificate number. That shows an alteration was made to the document. Even if a court were to accept a scanned image into evidence ( which no court would ), just that fact that they altered it would be a slight tipping of the scales that the document cannot be trusted. But the more inconsistencies you can show , the better. The second thing they point to are the photos of the document and their "experts" declaring it is genuine. Well first off, those are photographs, not scans, taken at a distance with insufficient lighting. If they were truly honest, they would have taken a high resolution TIFF scan of the document ( both front and back ).Secondly , their "experts". No where do they give their names, their qualifications, or a report detailing how they arrived at their conclusion. No court would just let that statement form their website come in as evidence ( this is assuming there is a honest judge ) :-)Therefore the only defense Obama would have in court is to produced an actual certified copy of the BC
Good lord, can we ever get this right.
The Hawaiian officials DID say that they have verified they have a “birth certificate” for Obama on file.
HOWEVER:
What they DID NOT and have NEVER said is that the birth certificate says Obama was BORN in Hawaii. They have NEVER —to date— made the statement he was BORN in Hawaii.
This is interesting, since in the 1960s, Hawaii allowed children of foreign birth that resided in Hawaii to register “COLBs” —probably for reasons of simplified administrative requirement, ie, registering for school, special services, permission forms etc. We understand Obama’s indonesian born half-sister Maya has a COLB on file in Hawaii too.
The COLB ( Certification of Live Birth) is NOT a birth certificate and is generated after the birth as an administrative record of someone having been “born”.
The information on the COLB is *supposed* to be taken from an actual “birth certificate” but does have not the level of detail, therefore ‘proof’—a “birth certificate” shows hosptal, physician, physician’s SIGNATURE, baby’s weight, length, mother’s and father’s name and their SIGNATURES. Colbs do not have this level of detail.
Bottom line Obama wil NOT produce his BC, he will not SPEAK of his BC, he will not touch the subject with a 10 ft pole ( he would further perjure himself?). Remember McCain willing produced his and answered all questions surrounding it.
Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to block his BC release.
When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: 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.
But they always leave out the second part :
“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.”
Therefore they never said it was genuine.
The simplest explanation for why Obama’s COLB is a Forgey is simple math.
Obama’s COLB takes up more space in Bytes then any other COLB of the same exact size and makeup
More Bytes means it has been changed and isn’t that what Barrack Obama is all about Change.
It was changed to make it right....
In the past 20 years, I've been an expert witness in court cases, so that knock is out.
It's just another meaningless troll argument.
Kevno,
Were you going to post my reply to Polarik’s post? Or do you just show the one half of the story that agrees with your own viewpoint?
T - 15
Actually, size doesn't matter here. All COLB's scanned at 300 DPI become bitmaps of the same size, as they all occupy 24 MB of memory and file space.
When this bitmap is converted into JPG format, the image is compressed and the space requirements are greatly reduced: the more compression is used the smaller the file size, and the lower in quality is the image.
Obama's bogus COLB images were saved with high amounts of compression.
Even that statement is bogus. What Okubo said, and I quote:
"It looks just like my birth certificate."
Factcheck's false statement is like saying that because the moon looks bigger when it's closer to the horizon, it must be closer to the Earth then.
You know I thought they changed the quote a bit from when I first heard it. Notice they still put it in quotes though, as if that is exactly what she said. Factcheck loves to play loose with the truth.
Your reply is posted as a part of the main article of this thread.
There also was a statement they made which was also made by AP. This might be a chicken and egg scenario, but If I had to bet, I'd say that Factcheck issued the statement first and the AP copied it -- even though the AP has a history of ignoring the facts.
The statement was that Hawaiian officials confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Are you saying that my reply was copied to Intrade?
yeah and even after that has been shown so many times that is not what she said ( on here plus many other blogs ), they still have it up on their page, which in a way is good. When anyone calls them the arbiter of truth, we can always point to that statement and show how they are outright lying.
I was replying to our new FReeper jbeyer2. His response to you at the Intrade site was posted by Kevmo in the body of this thread.
What I’d like to see is just one of these naysaying “experts” such as jbeyer2 - provide their own expert analysis.
I mean, how do you get past the fact that the seal used on Obama’s COLB is from the wrong year??!!??
I’m techno-challenged, but even I can understand that.
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.