[curiosity]

He says Polarik’s analysis is nonsene but refuses to do a point by point refutation of the 160 pages.

Who has time to answer every point in 160 pages of nonsense?

FYI, taking pride in the length of a piece is another telltale sign of a crank. Real scientists strive for brevity and concision, and try to make their point in as few words as possible, with simple language that does not overstate their case. Polarik's prose, with all verbosity, and not to mention it's posturing and magisterial language, is about as unscientific and cranklike as it gets.

Besides, other people have already done the refutation. Why should mlo reinvent the wheel? Here's a link:

http://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

[mlo]

"FYI, taking pride in the length of a piece is another telltale sign of a crank. Real scientists strive for brevity and concision, and try to make their point in as few words as possible, with simple language that does not overstate their case. Polarik's prose, with all verbosity, and not to mention it's posturing and magisterial language, is about as unscientific and cranklike as it gets."

Exactly right. And a lot of the verbosity is just repetition. There are even entire sections repeated verbatim.

A real scientific work also produces measurements and describes methods and procedures. Polarik doesn't. Most of his claims ultimately rest on taking his word for it.

For example, if a real analyst wanted to say something wasn't an elipse he would measure and include the measurements. Polarik doesn't do basic things like that.

[Polarik]

Jeremiah, don't you just love it when a bonehead, who cannot read nor spell, quotes two other boneheads, one of whom is the King of Boneheads?

http://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

...was thoroughly trashed my me at...

http://bogusbirthcertificate.blogspot.com

How's "STFU" for brevity?