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)
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.