Just filed Obama ineligibility AMICUS CURIAE

http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf ^

[BrerLion]

Scans in a pig's eye (2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008a, 2008b, & 2008c) All real. All original. Sorry...no "fringe" benefits.

Well...let's compare apples to oranges.  It would help to point out the difference in resolution between the images that you claim are scans (I believe you and that they are scans) and the published Zero image (still being debated).  Of course the published image looks crappy compared to the the images in your post!  (That's post 307, above.)

Questions:

(1) Is this "problem" of green/halo in the "scan" really even an issue? (or is it more likely a black hole that should have been avoided from the start?)

(2) If it is, isn't it the LEAST important COLB authenticity issue?

No one can prove that the image hasn't been manipulated.  It just isn't logically possible.

The corolary: Anyone can claim an image has been manipulated, and be relatively safe from disproof.  

[SisterK]

What are the chances that we will get our money back from the 0bama bailouts, if 0bama is removed from office?

The same chances we get if he stays in office: ZIPPO. Its gone, baby. Don't worry about it.

[MHGinTN]

You’ve almost twisted the issue around enough to fit the Alinsky methodology, but you missed a thing or two: Polarik has shown why the document is to be considered a forgery. You tried to twist it around to ‘can’t prove a negative’ but in reality an expert like Polarik can show why it is not a valid document. And his assessment has been seconded by an FBI document expert now retired who has also stated the document is unacceptable as proof of anything! Go read a few of obamanoid ‘mlo’ posts reagrding the agreement of the now registered with the Keyes suit retired FBI expert azs she affirmed that Polarik’s work has shown the docuemtn to be suspect.

[Polarik]

The choice of which methodology I used was dependent, in large part, on the nature of the data required to answer my research questions. What makes my Final Report seem so lengthy are the 140 images I added to illustrate the points I was making. But, some things could not be explained or illustrated in simpler terms.

I'm sorry but I can't be of any more help except to tell you that the Final Report was made to be self-explanatory. As I said after posting it, I am not able to answer any further questions about it.

[Polarik]

Thanks, MHG. The irony is that I'm the only one who has a real, paper COLB to show for my efforts. I also made a video showing exactly how I scanned it into my computer. I also demonstrated why there is absolutely no excuse for Obama or Factcheck to (a) make a crappy scan that does not show the Seal and both folds, (b) scan only the front side, and not the back where the Seal, date stamp, and signature stamp are shown, and (c) make one, and only one, scan.

Thousands of people criticized the Obama Campaign and Factcheck for failing to do the above. A digital photo is also not the same thing as a digital scan, so that argument is moot.

If Obama had a real, paper COLB as I do, then he would have made better scans. Or, at least one more scan. I've got over 60, front and back.

bottom line: Obama does not have anything that looks like what was posted.

[BrerLion]

You’ve almost twisted the issue around enough to fit the Alinsky methodology, but you missed a thing or two: Polarik has shown why the document is to be considered a forgery.

Good grief! You have done me a great disservice by putting conclusions into my posts which are not there.

I do not believe that Zero is eligible to be POTUS.

I am suspicious with regard to the paper document shown in the factcheck photos.

I have not said or implied that the piece of paper in the photographs is anything more substantial than a piece of paper in a photograph.

Right now, my conclusion, for what it is worth, is this: The piece of paper, purported to be an authentic document containing accurate information for Zero and shown in the factcheck images, as near as I can tell, is an actual piece of paper with printing and seal on it. I don't know if the seal is the correct seal. I don't know if the printed letters are telling the truth. I don't know where it was assembled, nor who assembled it, nor for what purpose. Very little would surprise me when it comes to that 0.1.

However, Polarik issued a challenge, more than once and in language my mother would not have approved of. That, coupled with the fact that some of his Photoshop allegations are extremely suspect, led to this spat. Well, that and the fact that enough of his report is unreliable to cause me to question great chunks of it.

I have been proudly calling myself a birther since the term became known to me. There is no group on FR that I identify more closely with. Other than that, I will let me posting history speak for itself.

[BrerLion]

You tried to twist it around to ‘can’t prove a negative’

I should also point out to you that "No one can prove that the image hasn't been manipulated" was a jab at the anti-birther you mentioned. I'm sorry, I thought that was obvious, but maybe not. You could have just as easily used my post to jump on an opponent, rather than me.

[BrerLion]

If Obama had a real, paper COLB as I do, then he would have made better scans

Or his minions might have either de-noised the scanned image, or shrunk it, or reduced the color saturation, or all three, or otherwise processed it in such a way that the image would compress to a reasonably-sized jpg in order to ease web traffic. Maybe they just wanted to make it look pretty. Who knows what they were thinking?

If the image started as a decent high-resolution scan, and any of these things were done, would that in your mind constitute forgery? What if they did enough of these things to the raw scan such that the result would make it impossible for anyone to draw any conclusions at all? Where, on the scale of perfect to useless, does the quality of their published image fall? Where, on the scale of certainty to conjecture, do your conclusions fall with regard to the "scan"?

[Las Vegas Ron]

I've been meaning to get back to you on this and I finally have a chance.

before I put it out to the wide world, I'm likely to err on the side of caution. Especially if I'm on a deadline

Indeed, a plausible argument, though to assume the person doing it might be trying to hide something is just as possible.

That's the problems with all of the arguments here as most have valid points.

As I mentioned earlier, I have not been convinced either way. Sheesh, everything about this guy is cloaked in secrecy. School records, papers, grades, friends and on and on.

It certainly is no stretch to think he's possibly illegitimate vis a vie his Constitutional eligibility.

There is much too much that doesn't add up with everything that's going on here...like I said, a political coupe.

Wherever he was born, maybe Mars for all I know, but the one thing I know for sure is that he is an enemy of America and for what she stands for. You can take that to the bank, my FRiend.

[mlo]

"if you start with an image with a halo and you paste a copy of that same image along with it's halo how could you not get anything but an image with a halo?"

You are missing the point. Remember, Polarik does NOT say the halo is the sign of forgery. I specifically asked him that.

He says there are missing green pixels between the letters, between the halos, and that these missing green pixels prove forgery.

What I did was select the letters and the halo, but NOT the space between them, and paste them onto an otherwise clear part of the background. From that I got an image with green pixels in the same places, and missing from the same places, that Polarik says were forged. It disproves his contention that there were missing green pixels. The green pixels look just like they should look.

[mlo]

"Give a troll enough rope, and he’ll hang himself. But, only after we tell them how to make the noose first. Trolls are so-o-o dumb."

"Sitting here LMAO!! you are so right! How funny is this?"

It's pretty funny alright, but not for the reason you think.

The thing Polarik was cheering on was a clear misunderstanding of Polarik's own work and his own statements. But since it *appeared* to contradict me Polarik piled on. What does that tell you? One of two things.

Either Polarik doesn't really understand the issues he presents very well himself, or he's being dishonest with you. But you cheer him on either way. Now that's funny.

[mlo]

What are you trying to show here?

[mlo]

"Hey thanks for proving the forgery is a forgery! Whoo hoo!"

No, I disproved one of Polarik's arguments for forgery. But usmcobra didn't understand it, and obviously you didn't either.

[usmcobra]

You're missing the point, I haven't read Polarik's report and actually refuse to because I don't want it to color my opinions.

I say that haloing is the best clue that a layman has that something has been done to Obama's CoLB because it does not occur naturally and even you yourself have proved that theory correct for me by showing us all how such haloing can happen using photoshop!

Weather you like it or not the haloing is not a natural occurrence and only you have proved that it can be a direct result of photoshopping.

[mlo]

"Or his minions might have either de-noised the scanned image, or shrunk it, or reduced the color saturation, or all three, or otherwise processed it in such a way that the image would compress to a reasonably-sized jpg in order to ease web traffic. Maybe they just wanted to make it look pretty. Who knows what they were thinking?"

What you are pointing out here is that simply showing differences in images doesn't prove forgery. Other things, such as normal image processing steps, can create differences. As I have said elsewhere, Polarik hasn't proven that any of the differences he finds (even when they really exist) are the result of forgery. He just says so.

[mlo]

"You're missing the point,..."

No, I'm the one making the point. You still aren't getting what it is.

"...I haven't read Polarik's report and actually refuse to because I don't want it to color my opinions."

There you go. I'm specifically responding to Polarik's claim in his report about missing green pixels. If you haven't read it then you don't know what I'm talking about, but everything I put in that post was about that issue.

"I say that haloing is the best clue that a layman has that something has been done to Obama's CoLB..."

I'm not dealing with the haloing. Polarik doesn't say the haloing is from forgery, he says the supposed missing green pixels are. So you are totally misreading what it is I'm explaining.

[usmcobra]

You proved my point about haloing totally and conclusitively.

And I thank you for it.

Had it not been for your tireless work to try to disprove that Obama’s CoLB is a forgery I never would have been able to lead you into actually proving what I have said all along.

That the haloing is evidence of a photoshop forgery.

Now unless you have a legitimate explanation for how it occurs naturally from laser printing or scanning I suggest in order for you to save face, you quit exposing your own failure to disprove haloing.

[mlo]

"...you quit exposing your own failure to disprove haloing."

How many times do I need to explain this to you?

I was never posting about the haloing. I never tried to "disprove haloing". I was addressing another matter entirely, one which Polarik says is proof of fogery.

[BrerLion]

What you are pointing out here

mlo, I didn't word it that way. I intentionally said less than I could have. But I don't want people to think that your "summation" is my thinking.

The key to this problem (the COLB scan) is in the questions I asked at the end of posts 321 and post 328. If Polarik indeed knows what he is talking about, he should answer every single one of them.

Let's give him a couple of days to get his act together. If he can't state why he overlooked the most basic considerations with regard to image processing, then I think it is safe to discount any conclusions he made about the scan.

I have not even touched on his conclusions regarding the factcheck photos, but I can say with a high degree of certainty that he has not properly treated the projective geometry that would be needed to back up his conclusions, and that pretty much sinks a large portion of his report.

There may still be stuff in his report that is helpful, but he sure hasn't made it easy.

I have said "Polarik only has to be right once", and doesn't even have to be right for the right reasons. Maybe he would like to point out what his best arguments are?

[BrerLion]

What are you trying to show here?

Covered in the thread.