Posted on 08/09/2009 4:45:11 PM PDT by Polarik
Basically, it comes down to this. I made a promise to my family get off of here, but continued to break that promise. There is sufficient momentum for the birth certificate issue to where any further research is unnecessary.
The fact that Hawaii refuses to authenticate or acknowledge producing the COLB that the libs insist that is real, along with the statements made to me by Dr. Alvin Onaka in late October, pretty much nixes any hope by the opposition that a real Obama 2007 COLB exists.
The libs can refute my research all they want, but it's not going change the reality that they are arguing about a nonexistent document.
It is they who are on the wrong side of reality, not me.
My last post says it all:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2311347/posts
If anyone believes that the one and only scan image was produced by what appears in the Factcheck photos, then there is seriously something wrong with their eyesight.
There is nothing wrong with the eyesight of scores of FReepers who saw shadows under the letters on the Factcheck photograph of a "real COLB."
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/small-COLBS/two-certfs.jpg
The image above is the photo I took of a real COLB using the same make and model of camera as Factcheck, except that I had a real COLB. The one on the bottom is the image with the shadows. Those pink arrows are pointing to them.
I would sincerely love to hear how the opposition explains those, but I gotta go.
I also leave with the challenge I made but never taken:
Make a real scan, naturally and honestly, that looks like the alleged "scan image."
No one can. It's impossible for several reasons. The colors of this image are so far off from the actual colors contained in a real COLB scan, that you cannot get there without extensive manipulation of the color curves.
Secondly, the background image and the text were deliberately subjected to heavy sharpening using an Unsharp Mask - but they were not done at the same time.
Lastly, that "funky" border, as one of my favorite critics described it, will not be exactly reproducible from any scanned COLB border in existence.
"Close" only counts in horseshoes.
No way. No how.
Oh, you may get close after playing around with all of the controls in Photoshop, but you will not get the border pattern right.
I know because I reproduced it (middle image), and I know how it was done - it was made separately and added to the image.
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/FactCheck%20Originals/BORDER-COMPARISON.jpg
But, if you think you can do it, more power to you.
Rather than ragging on my research, which is what I do better than anyone, go ahead and do your own.
It's easy.
Oh, I forgot. You have to get a real COLB to do it.
Isn't it funny that none, nada, zip, zero of my critics has ever made a real COLB scan from a real COLB in over a year since I began my research, and actualy replicated what I did.
They'll make up some excuse for not reading all of my research report, like it was "too painful to read," and so forth. Then, they will do their own thing which is not remotely close to my thing.
Well, don't be discouraged: Factcheck never had a real COLB, either.
I would like to thank everyone who supported me and those who know me will be passing along the latest news on FR to me.
BUT, I am never logging back on FR as Polarik again.
That's a promise I will keep.
That means everyone who posted ON it got the ping. Including Polarik. And thats not good enough for you??
***If you can read this in your inbox, then I will apologize. Otherwise, it means that NOT everyone “who posted ON it got the ping.” So, no, it’s not good enough for you. I didn’t know myself that you had apologized because I saw all of your vitriolic stuff a couple of days later.
To: Danae; Jim Robinson; MHGinTN; Polarik; MestaMachine; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; ... MHGinTN you have my apology. Polarik you have my apology
now that you have pointed that out, I do recall that ping from LucyT. I recall thinking, well that's a relief, the bickering should be behind us now...but that was not to be, obviously.
How can you follow up an apology with continued attacks? Seems you regret making the apology.
Beats the ever lovin’ bird doohickey clean outta me.
Okay. Fair enough. Sometimes though, the plain truth is just that. The truth. And sometimes the truth isn’t to everyone’s liking. Can you “over defend” the truth?
I need to hit the sack now. My eyes glazeth over.
As for Polarik, real or not, right or wrong, we are in his debt, and Berg’s as well, for at least starting us on the path to our own research which has been nothing short of remarkable.
Please kindly explain to Danae the concept of posting a comment to “All” on a thread. She believes that FR software pings everyone who ever posted on that thread or was pinged to it.
I’d like to see that source code logic. That’s some recursive code execution, baby. Fork those processes! *grins*
~~~Since I was not privy to the private electronic exchange between you and Polarik, I cannot know with certainty that what you sent him to analyze is exactly the same thing that you posted on FR in defense of your legitimate COLB. Polarik claims the images you sent him were manipulated. He based his opinion on those images. You claim that he pronounced a forgery from images of a valid document.
The inages were scanned and sent to him with the default settings on my HP scanner. They were completely absolutely not edited in any manner that could possibly lead anyone to that conclusion.
~~~If Polarik stopped responding to you, I suspect it was because he questioned your intentions and chose not to spend his time defending himself rather than because you embarrassed him. I suspect that’s why you received no apology - he didn’t think you were owed one after misleading him and then calling him out as a fraud. Some would call that a bait and switch.
Polarik never said a WORD to me from the moment I sent him the first set of images. Not a word. He acknowledged he got then asked for me to send him more to which I agreed. I then forgot in the press of doctors appointment sna draising three kids and having a life. He did not send so much as a reminder, which is all it would have taken as I would have hit my forehead and said D’oh and done it right then. So he posts up his bogus analysis and fried me with it. He never sent any correspondence to me in any form from the point he asked for more images at a different contrast. Which I immediately did, after he posted his flame. I think I sent 13 more images. Some of which clearly include folds on the back of the document he complained about not seeing Not a peep in response.
Answer me this... how many SERIOUS researchers don’t get back to their source to check on anomalies before publishing a judgment. Hua? Particularly when that information is forthcoming? How many serious researchers just lalala go off and forget to remind a source to send more information if it doesn’t arrive in a timely manner and instead just pronounce judgment?? Hua.. No serious scientist I know of and I know more than a few.
I am not denigratiing his reputation, he is doing that himself. I am just telling the truth. If the truth his denigrating him thats HIS fault. Not mine. I refuse to take responsibility for it.
Even now, if he sent me a private email I would say so here and make it clear that any misunderstanding between him and I has been resolved and say what ever needed saying. It isn’t as if I have not offered proof I was wrong to begin with .... or did you forget that I have the personal integrity and balls to do so?
I would like to know how you know so much about what Polarik was or was not thinking? I don’t think you do. I think you are making things up out of either to suit your needs. I have told the truth here. Up to and including admitting I was wrong.
Too bad you and others can’t do the same.
You bring up a good point. If a Freeper has been proven to have made mistakes in more than one area (like forgetting she had a 2007 CoLB request and not knowing that pinging all isn’t, well... pinging all), then can she be trusted with that important detail that what she claims was sent was actually sent? At this point, the scenario looks much like what you described, and the future comments will demonstrate the character.
Then why do people ping to “All”?
lol...you and me both...
You've been here four years longer than I have. I figure you should know that by now. I do.
Been doing that for years as well thinking that it DID ping to all in a thread because so many others were and have been doing it for years. Its new to me as of right now that you can’t.
Because I never got the same consideration. From you Kevmo, Fred and Polarik. Therefore my opinion remains unchanged.
Well.
Thanks for the apology. I see you are already back in character calling me half a man and basically being unapologetic. Okay. I think I understand, you just have a Humpty Dumpty definition of apologizing.
If the shoe fits... and you got it on. Only you can take it off.
The inages were scanned and sent to him with the default settings on my HP scanner. They were completely absolutely not edited in any manner that could possibly lead anyone to that conclusion.
And so we'll have to assume until you remember otherwise and post an apology to "All" for your mistake?
He never sent any correspondence to me in any form from the point he asked for more images at a different contrast. Which I immediately did, after he posted his flame.
How many hours or days was it between the time he asked you for darker contrast images and the time he gave up waiting and posted a response on FR? Hmmm. You said nothing about darker contrast images. You only said different contrast. I wonder how I knew what he specifically asked for from you? Curious, is it not?
Answer me this... how many SERIOUS researchers don’t get back to their source to check on anomalies before publishing a judgment. Hua?
Every single one who doesn't trust the original source?
I am not denigratiing his reputation, he is doing that himself. I am just telling the truth. If the truth his denigrating him thats HIS fault. Not mine. I refuse to take responsibility for it.
I can see that you've deluded yourself into believing that's true. No point in arguing with you about it, I suppose. Perhaps you will realize you made a mistake and post an apology to "All" at some future date?
or did you forget that I have the personal integrity and balls to do so?
You say that with such grace and eloquence. What a lady. Clearly, you have demonstrated that personal integrity and shown me the size of your (ahem). How could I be so foolish as to forget that valuable lesson? Silly me. I stand corrected, no?
I would like to know how you know so much about what Polarik was or was not thinking? I don’t think you do. I think you are making things up out of either to suit your needs.
I bet you would. Oh, I think I do. Let's call it "inside information," shall we? You're entitled to your opinion, I suppose.
I have told the truth here. Up to and including admitting I was wrong.
So everything after the admission of error was a lie?
Too bad you and others can’t do the same.
You obviously know nothing about me or you wouldn't make such a ridiculous assumption based on nothing more than pure emotion. Put on your big-girl panties or man-up, whichever you prefer. You wouldn't find it necessary to apologize if you didn't make a habit of mistreating others.
Do it to your cornflakes pappy. I have admitted I was wrong, apologized, and am STILL being attacked.
The bowl is over there. Good night.
Good night, Danae. Stay classy.
Just for you dear, just for you.
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.