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.
________________________________________
Not to digress from the topic at hand but....
I just want to take a moment to publically say THANK YOU for all your hard work and your analysis of O’s forgery. It was an eyeopener. I am now convinced O is not natural born, probably not even a citizen period. In some parts of America your work receives a hearty AMEN and job well done. Thanks.
Okay carry on.........
Have you ever seen any image of Maya’s COLB? If so is it online?
Polarik, if you think I'm a troll, you should really really check out my history. I'm as conservative as they come.
People need to look up what "forensics" mean. I am absolutely a forensics expert in COLB research, and there's no one else who has done what I have done, nor as much as I have done, for as long as I have done. I am the best that anyone can find. Period.
I know exactly what "forensic" means, and I know a lot of forensic experts who do it for a living. I do not, however, know a one who would make statements like you just made, which pretty much proves the point I was trying to make in my original reply. Any decent opposing attorney could take that one paragraph and rip your credibility on the stand.
As I have said multiple times, I applaud your tireless effort and I do believe Obama is ineligible to be POTUS.
MM (in TX)
I hadn’t heard that. Do you have particulars, links? Sounds like something I could use.
This troll is such an “expert” in the matter to challenge Polarik he can’t even get the basics correct.
***You’re right about that. I had pegged him as a troll and basically told him I’d stop responding to him when he came up with this interesting side-jab.
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.
***And it was Polarik’s 160 page report that focused on the inconsistencies in the 2nd document, showing it also to be a forgery. One more tip of the scales.
Hi lj. Here’s one more to add to your troll list. But it looks at least like jb is making an effort to generate some solid factual discussion, so maybe we should give him a chance. I had gotten fed up with him over at Intrade and stopped feeding him as a troll when he came up with this interesting little tidbit about methodology.
So, jb, are you going to make an effort to address my contentions? That’s how you can get off my troll list.
Just let me know the outcome!
People who ignore this are straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel!
I wonder just who was Obama's mother?
Could Ayer's and Crew slipped someone into place....I know it is farfetched...but why Obama won't reveal important info is just Crazy....
Thanks.
Thanks.
Oh, gosh no. It was not meant for you. I'm sorry you got the wrong impression.
I was making a general statement in reference to my critics, who seem to think that because I am not a "certified computer forensics expert," that I could not give expert testimony in court.
Well, that is not true.
First of all, I have never identified myself as a "forensics expert" on my Affidavits as there is no need to do so. There is no formal field known as "document image forensics," and therefore, no such thing as a "certified expert in document image forensics."
What I was saying by my comment is that "Forensics" is not synonymous with "CSI": it does not refer to a specialized field of study or an area of expertise. It pertains to using standardized procedures and methods for providing legal evidence. In other words, it is the application of scientific research to legal questions.
Someone made the comment in the intrade discussion that laypeople should not be tossing around the word, "expert," as if everyone knows what it means. I agree.
Thanks for all of your work ....
Thank you and everyone else for their support.
You are doing the hard stuff....
Such mental perversion is displayed by Eric Hoffer's True Believer, Stalin's New Soviet Man, Orwell-Blair's Inner Party Newthinker, the Long Island Railway killer, and the ten thousand shrieking fairy-monkeys of the Ministry of Propaganda.
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.