Uh-huh. Maybe I just need to see it used in a sentence. Let's see...how 'bout this:
I should get in touch with that guy. I assume, of course, that that must be a different Polarik who did 'research' on Obama's COLB and had a go-in with Neal Krawetz, because that Polarik says he's a "forensics expert" whereas you've clearly stated "I never said I was a “forensics” anything."
Maybe that other Polarik is the one Berg repeatedly called a "forensic expert" in his case, too.
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.
Like this page on presentations Krawetz makes at technical conferences? The first section being "Image Analysis" with a talk entitled "A Picture's Worth: Digital Image Analysis and Photo Forensics."
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.
Maybe what you need is someone who has the power to spot forgeries with their naked eyes. I mean, someone else, since you've already claimed to possess that power. So either you're overestimating your own abilities, or you have a rare and valuable ability that exceeds scientific scrutiny.
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.
"Pseudoscientists – those pretending to do science (maybe even sincerely believing they are doing science) but who get the process profoundly wrong, use anomalies in a different way. They often engage it what we call anomaly hunting – looking for apparent anomalies. They are not, however, looking for clues to a deeper understanding of reality. They are often hunting for anomalies in service to the overarching pseudoscientific process of reverse engineering scientific conclusions."
- Dr. Steven Novella, host of the excellent "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe"
John C. Sweeney, a professional photographer, of the Post & Email did a peer-review of my research and said it was right on target.
So another avid (and possibly pseudonymous) Birther, writing for a website created to promote Birtherism, endorses your pro-Birther opinions. Impartiality in peer review was always overrated, anyway.
It's interesting that you describe Sweeney as a "professional photographer," since I don't see where he ever identifies himself as a professional photographer. Rondeau calls him the P&E "photography expert," but then again, WND called you an expert too. So are you inventing credentials for Sweeney too? Maybe you can give him the ones you keep trying to take away from Krawetz.
Watch an example of what you called my “amateur-hour” analyses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbpjYeZXaVs
Look, even the pseudoscience community has quality standards. Get a good video camera, a cameraman, some editing equipment, and then you can put together a video as professional and persuasive as this expose of how the moon landing photos were faked. The video is ten minutes long, but it details all kinds of little supposed anomalies in the Apollo photos, just like the anomalies you claim to have found.
Of course, it's all pseudoscientific nonsense. But it's good-looking pseudoscientific nonsense, with at least a false veneer of real science. So with a little time and effort, you might be able to pull your research up to the level of moon hoaxers.