Replies

Another example of using the word, forensic scientist, without understanding its meaning.

Your question is oh-so typical of the liberal duplicity and hypocricy. When I posted my first report, “Was Obama’s birth certificate manufactured?” on June 13, the libs then were also clamoring for my research to be peer-reviewed. Was Factcheck peer-reviewed? Was Politifact peer-reviewed? Was Hawaii peer-reviewed? Was Krawetz peer-reviewed (besides by me)?

No, of course not. Whatever they said, it was golden.

It’s funny how many libs tout Krawetz as an expert but have no idea as to what are his actual credentials and what he can and cannot do. They never bothered to read his website.

If they had, then they would have known that Krawetz has made some very good points that are applicable to using image analysis software:

Krawetz said that the software he uses can easily be fooled by sharp contrast areas, like black and white text, image artifacts, and heavily reduced and compressed JPG’s (which perfectly describes the Fight The Smears image).

In other words, the software is easily fooled by intentional artifacts, which is what is on the COLB scam image.

His buddy, Chris Hansen, also took a software approach to analyzing the FTS image using Principle Components Analysis (PCA, a statistical methodology) and failed to find anything. No surprise here given that the whole idea of making the FTS small and highly compressed was to confound image analysis.

Relying on software is also the reason they missed the most obvious sign of Photoshopping (besides the text) on both the “high-res” Kos and the “crap-res”: FTS, namely the “bleeding date stamp” on the front.

Getting back to your revised question, back in October 2008, I did an extensive search for anyone having done forgery analyses on images and photos who could peer-review my research.

But, wouldn’t you know it, some Einstein on one of the lib blogs attacking me, took my question, totally out of context, that I had asked the website owner who seemed to have done some image forgery analyses. The lib poster mocked me by saying, “Look, here’s Polarik asking for help on image analysis; and this is at the height of his research!”

My search was in vain, however, because, according to Krawetz, “digital forgery forensics” is a new field with very few people who are expert it. There is no accreditation for this field.

None of the people in that category I contacted had any experience in spotting document image forgeries without having the original with which to compare.

I also contacted the guy who basically invented the entire field of ditigal forgery forensics, Professor Hany Farid, and asked him if there were any programs that could identify a JPG image made from Photoshop layers, and he said there were none.

Now, in my post, “What do these things have in common?” I listed twenty image anomalies identified by a dozen members of the Hot Air blog on June 12, 2008, that were in reaction to seeing the Kos image. All of these anomalies are covered in my research.

John C. Sweeney, a professional photographer, of the Post & Email did a peer-review of my research and said it was right on target.

Both the scam image and the object in Factcheck’s photos are Photoshop composites and the only way to validate that theory is by recreating the images from scratch.

In the past two years, nobody else has done the level of research that I have and nobody else has even attempted to replicate the border, let alone the forged scam image and the forged document object.

Watch an example of what you called my “amateur-hour” analyses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbpjYeZXaVs