Replies

First of all, we know to whom you are referring and using the third person won't fool the moderator. Exactly, which part of “NO personal attacks” did you NOT understand?

I'm not engaging in any personal attacks. I have criticized you and your "research" to the extent that you are a public figure in the world of Birtherdom outside of FR. That's perfectly legitimate territory, just like criticizing Phil Berg or Orly Taitz. Under your apparent definition of "No personal attacks," posters would have to shy away from criticizing Joe Biden if he registered a FR account.

But, if you really want to go there, without making a personal attack, I will say that everything you and your boyfriend have said about me is enough garbage to fill the Grand Canyon 100 times over.

After saying "without making a personal attack," you made it a whole eight words before first making (false) insinuations about my sexuality. So kudos on resisting personal attacks; maybe next time you'll make it a whole sentence.

You made yourself into a folk hero among the Left, claiming that you “outed” me when you did no such thing.

Not that I care one way or the other what you think I did, but nobody seems to have a clue what affidavits of yours with your name were supposedly published online in July. The only 'affidavit' of yours I or anyone else has seen had a bunch of Xs in place of a name.

Once my legal name was on the Internet, any idiot could have Googled it and found several million hits because I HAVE 40 years of credentials, and I HAVE the credentials to back up everything I've said and done.

And which of those credentials relate to digital image analysis? Taken any classes on the subject? Taught any classes or seminars? Written any papers? Been interviewed by any non-Birther-related media?

Or to be more specific, I believe you've offered to testify as a witness in court. What have you done that would satisfy the Daubert standard? Because just scanning and printing a lot of papers doesn't cut the mustard. (Also, your dad being a photography buff and owning a Hasselblad? My brother is a photography buff and owns a Hasselblad, so could I use that as an expert qualification? Of course not.)

Krawetz is NOT an image analysis expert, not by any stretch of the imagination. He is a computer security expert. All he knows how to do is run software.

Krawetz has spoken on digital image manipulation and forgery at technical conferences. http://news.cnet.com/A-picture-worth-a-thousand-lies/2008-1046_3-6199869.html

And you?

Krawetz KNOWS the COLB image is bogus but he has deliberately hidden the evidence that proves it. But because he's a Socialist liberal, he sides with Obama and you guys.

So Krawetz is part of the grand conspiracy too. That's an easy way to discount his expertise.

As it turns out, I'm the only one who practices what HE preaches.

"There was someone who was pretending to be a computer graphic expert who had essentially stolen the identity of someone else and was masquerading as an expert and put his own theories on there which were later debunked by the Israel Insider online publication. So I want to kinda deemphasize the background thing because anyone can pretend to be an expert." - Polarik

You said that anyone could pretend to be an expert, and now you're pretending to be an expert. You do indeed practice what you preach.

It is you who are completely incapable of reading and interpreting my credentials, just as you do not even know what you write on your own blog!

And what don't I know about what I've written on my blog? You make the bare accusation, but provide no examples.

Speaking of that blog, you turned it over to my Internet psychostalker: an insanely jealous, pathological liar who ran his mouth off about me on your blog exactly like he did on his own blog, and just like he did on every single blog and forum he joined for the sole purpose of trashing me.

Yeah, that's just not true. So is this the part of the post where you just start making new conspiracy stuff up?

But, given you know less about graphics than he does, you teamed up with him.

Yep, I guess it's that part.

Everything he said, and you said, is totally and categorically false. I have never lied about my credentials and never faked anything.

At varying times, you claimed three different Masters degrees in Statistics, Experimental Psychology, and Educational Research, Design, and Testing, and two different Doctorates in Instructional Media and Experimental Psychology. Are you stating here that you have all five of those degrees?

As for faking things, here is one example. And another is...oh where did it go...well, it WAS at the top of this thread, but you seem to have deleted it. Wise move.

Now, I did intentionally jerk around the libtards who were so intent on literally interpreting my online affidavits by switching the degree title's around, but the affidavits I signed and submitted to Berg, Taitz, Keyes, Hochberg, etc., had my actual credentials and experiences.

Oh, I see. So you're saying that you're willing to make misrepresentations online to mislead your readers and critics. Like you did in this thread. Because that's what REAL experts do, y'know.

I CAN spot forgeries with my naked eyes and I CAN and HAVE corroborated those observations over two years and 1,500 hours of painstaking research.

You should get in touch with these other guys online who say they can also spot forgeries with their naked eyes. They've spent a lot of time documenting how NASA faked the moon landings. I think y'all might have a lot in common.

But, like true scientists, when new data becomes available, you modify your theories to fit.

Indeed.

Initial theory: The COLB is a fake as seen in Polarik's analysis.
New data: Digital image expert says Polarik's analysis is crap.
New theory: The COLB is a fake, and the digital image expert is part of a conspiracy to cover it up.

Initial theory: The COLB is a fake, and hasn't been physically inspected by anyone.
New data: Factcheck employees physically handle and photograph and vouch for the COLB.
New theory: The COLB is a fake, and Factcheck is part of a conspiracy to cover it up.

Now THAT'S science!

You and your boyfriend are still stuck in the Summer of 2008 when nobody had ever seen a real 2007 COLB.

It really is amazing that it's been two years. I honestly thought this would've dried up in early 2009. I severely underestimated the willingness to believe in an increasingly huge and silly conspiracy theory. (The Hawaii DOH confirmed a Hawaiian place of birth? They're part of the conspiracy! Newspaper announcements of the birth? They were forged by people involved in the conspiracy! Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter condemn Birtherism? They were intimidated by the conspiracy!)

But, clearly, you have no idea what “forensics” means, or “digital imaging,” or even know how to do true research (you copy very well, though).

We can compare and contrast our books when they come out, and see which one has the superior research. Heck, if you want to, I'll let you interview me for your book if you'd let me interview you for mine.

I never said I was a “forensics” anything,

You've said that you gave an affidavit to Berg, and here is what Berg wrote about you in his Complaint:

"However, as posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive Forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama's campaign website. Thc Forensic Expert findings were the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was in a forgery."

So Berg just made that part up? And you didn't have a problem with being described as a forensic expert in a lawsuit? (A label he also gave to another fake expert, TechDude?)

even though the research I've done for two years IS exactly what forensics scientists do.

Have you had even a single credentialed forensic scientist review your work or your findings? Just one? Or are they all part of the grand conspiracy like Krawetz?

This is the same 260,000 word, 160 page, 210+ image final report that you never read and your boyfriend refused to read.

Moon hoaxers, 9/11 Truthers, and Holocaust denialists have written a lot more than that. I don't need to spend time reading and rebutting a 100-page amateur analysis of NASA photos to be able to say that the conspiracy theorists are wrong. There's a term for that kind of thinking: "proof by verbosity." Simply make your conspiracy elaborate and long enough (say, 260,000 words and 160 pages), and then condemn your critics for not addressing every detail of the alleged conspiracy theory.

By the way, there was another image of Michele's COLB that he displayed on YOUR blog which he describe, and I quote, “It looks exactly like the Kos image.”

Putting aside the repeated nonsense of someone else writing on my blog, if you're going to claim to quote me, and specifically say that it's a quote, then you should probably make sure it's an actual quote. Because that's not a quote of anything I've written. Your 'I-don't-make-stuff-up' defense can be rather hampered when you, y'know, make up quotes.

(Now, I imagine you might want to come back with an excuse that the 'quote' is almost right somehow, even if it's not exact. But if you're going to specifically say "and I quote," it's usually smart to actually get the quote right. Otherwise it speaks ill of your research and accuracy.)

I only have a few hundred Michele COLB images, but the one he pulled off and touting as being the same - which is a ludicrous statement - was one I modified. So, I'll take that as a compliment.

I take it you're talking about this post, but your description of what I wrote is seriously off.

You claimed back then that you took the 2008 Michele COLB, manipulated it, and made it into a near-perfect replica of the Obama COLB, with the only difference being that it said "7:25 pm." And that you did it in less than an hour. You said that you would upload step-by-step details of how, but then conveniently never did.

I illustrated that this claim was patently bogus. All you did was change the time on Obama's COLB, and then you turned around and pretended that you'd built the whole thing out of Michele's. The animated GIFs practically make the case all by themselves.

Bottom line is, Loren, you do not know diddly-squat about anything having to do with Obama’s birth certificate.

And you draw that conclusion without accurately citing or quoting a single thing I've written to evidence that claim. You don't dispute the details of any particular post I've made. Quality research, that. I'll make sure you get a copy of the book, and then you can reconsider whether I know diddly-squat or not.