Posted on 05/07/2010 9:01:18 PM PDT by PilotDave
Here's a link to the Anderson Cooper 360 interview on tonight with Ltc Latkin. He's the Army doctor who has refused to deploy based on Obama's inelegibility for POTUS per article 2 of USCON.
A digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is a forgery. The only exception would be if the information on the internet image were demonstrably false. Just the fact that Polarik would attempt such an analysis is a red flag.
If you're interested in and more detailed and technical analysis, here it is.
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html
I've answered the question and am running out of new ways to say the same thing so please forgive my cut and paste answer to you.
A digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is a forgery. The only exception would be if the information on the internet image were demonstrably false. Just the fact that Polarik would attempt such an analysis is a red flag.
If you're interested in a more detailed and technical analysis, here it is.
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html
A digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is a forgery.
Essentially you have just admitted that there is no way that Obama's COLB posted on line can ever be proved to be real as well.
>>If his analysis is flawed, then you should be able to say how.
>
>A digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is a forgery.
It CAN be used to determine if the image itself was manipulated/created. In that case, the digital picture is suspect [in regards to the original].
Because there is nothing other than the digital image with which to work it DOES make sense to question the authenticity of the source (that is verify it).
Perhaps my software is dated, page 20 is blank.
That link is two years old (2008) and has been proved wrong.
I have a simple test for you,
first using a laserjet printer create an Obama COLB and scan it and save it as a JPG.
Second using photoshop and a scan of a blank COLB create an Obama COLB and save it as a JPG
check each for file size as well as the artifacts or fuzzy white spots inside the letters
Then compare the file sizes and artifacts to the “original” Obama COLB’s created by The Daily KOS, fight the smears and Fact check first flattened copy and tell us your results.
to date no one that said that Obama’s COLB is the real thing has ever posted their results for this simple test.
Just the fact that the document was scanned makes it manipulated. If the scanned product is cropped to exclude everything but the document itself, it is manipulated again. If the image resolution is changed, it is manipulated, etc. That is why no one who understands the process would attempt to pass off the kind of analysis that Polarik has done as legitimate.
Because there is nothing other than the digital image with which to work it DOES make sense to question the authenticity of the source (that is verify it).
Question by all means, but don't make stuff up if you want to be credible.
Who proved it wrong. Would you provide a link to that proof, I'd like to look it over.
Then compare the file sizes and artifacts to the “original” Obama COLB’s created by The Daily KOS, fight the smears and Fact check first flattened copy and tell us your results.
What's your point?
to date no one that said that Obama’s COLB is the real thing has ever posted their results for this simple test.
Not knowing what you're getting at, and just off the top of my head, the test makes no sense - but I could be wrong.
Hold on.
Here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2509238/posts?q=1&;page=142#141
you also stated:
A digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is a forgery. The only exception would be if the information on the internet image were demonstrably false. Just the fact that Polarik would attempt such an analysis is a red flag.
Therefore you seem to be asserting that the FactCheck online COLB image is in fact "his" (presumably meaning "Obama's") COLB. Are you not making a logical leap of faith here? Where and when did Obama swear on penalty of perjury (in which jurisdiction) that the FactCheck COLB image is an authentic COLB? If you are claiming that a digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is a forgery, then it seems as if it should follow that a digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is authentic, either. An image is just that, an image. It seems to me that this is the reason why, when stopped for a traffic violation, most of us can't get away with "just kindly look at my driver's license on the internet, officer, for prima facie evidence of my identity and my license to drive an auto."
What concerns me is the evident proclivity to presume unverified information is correct until proven otherwise:
The only exception would be if the information on the internet image were demonstrably false.
Exactly how does one determine if non-independently verifiable information is "demonstrably" true or "demonstrably" false, given that the fundamental issue is verification of the alleged information itself?
In general, your logical arguments here seem to suffer from assuming your conclusions as fact. In other words, your syllogisms tend to reduce to tautologies. If you disagree, I would welcome it if you provided logically lucid argument to the contrary.
>>It CAN be used to determine if the image itself was manipulated/created. In that case, the digital picture is suspect [in regards to the original].
>
>Just the fact that the document was scanned makes it manipulated.
Not quite. In order to manipulate the image it already has to exist; the process of scanning it is the creation of the image.
The other method of “creation”, commonly called “photoshopping,” is actually manipulating as it is the manipulation of already existing images.
I’m afraid you are being “framed” by questions, see post 110!!!
I wouldn't waste my time!!
You are dealing with a known SP aka FINO!!!
My point is simple,
it is a simple test to show what each resembles,
the first one is obviously what the state of Hawaii would have produced and what the Daily KOS and other sites should have displayed.
the second one is obviously a photoshopped forgery and what the COLB’s from The Daily KOS, fight the smears and Factcheck SHOULD NOT MATCH in file size and detail unless of course they are FORGERIES.
I refuse to search through two years worth of threads on this site alone to find you all the times that link was debunked but if you want I will link the BIG thread for you, it is over two years old and deals with that site repeatedly.
You're assuming I'm assuming.
Are you not making a logical leap of faith here?
Only if you're assumption is correct.
Where and when did Obama swear on penalty of perjury (in which jurisdiction) that the FactCheck COLB image is an authentic COLB?
Strictly speaking, the FactCheck COLB image can not be an authentic COLB because it is not an official document, it is a picture of a document.
When has Obama been ask by a court to swear to the authenticity of the internet image, or the document from which the image was taken, for that matter?
If you are claiming that a digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is a forgery, then it seems as if it should follow that a digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is authentic, either.
Of course.
Exactly how does one determine if non-independently verifiable information is "demonstrably" true or "demonstrably" false, given that the fundamental issue is verification of the alleged information itself?
Alleged Obama birth certificates have been produced and proven forgeries by checking information on the certificates against known facts.
In general, your logical arguments here seem to suffer from assuming your conclusions as fact.
That would be true if your assumptions about my arguments were correct. It pays to read carefully.
the second one is obviously a photoshopped forgery and what the COLB’s from The Daily KOS, fight the smears and Factcheck SHOULD NOT MATCH in file size and detail unless of course they are FORGERIES.
Either I'm totally misunderstanding you, or that's the faultiest bit of logic I've ever read.
You are misunderstanding me on purpose.
It is a simple test to prove what qualities an original scan would have versus what qualities a photoshpped forgery would have.
So far you have shown me nothing that would indicate that you can render a simple scientific opinion via a simple test much less disprove Polarik’s exhaustive research, you couldn’t even do simple HTML code to link the site you wanted me to read.
As far as I am concerned you are incapable of rendering an opinion without buttressing it up with the works of others.
You are misunderstanding me on purpose.
It is a simple test to prove what qualities an original scan would have versus what qualities a photoshpped forgery would have.
So far you have shown me nothing that would indicate that you can render a simple scientific opinion via a simple test much less disprove Polarik’s exhaustive research, you couldn’t even do simple HTML code to link the site you wanted me to read.
As far as I am concerned you are incapable of rendering an opinion without buttressing it up with the works of others.
You are misunderstanding me on purpose.
It is a simple test to prove what qualities an original scan would have versus what qualities a photoshopped forgery would have.
So far you have shown me nothing that would indicate that you can render a simple scientific opinion via a simple test much less disprove Polarik’s exhaustive research, you couldn’t even do simple HTML code to link the site you wanted me to read.
As far as I am concerned you are incapable of rendering an opinion without buttressing it up with the works of others.
internet hiccup
OK, if so, I would welcome more insight on his analysis...
Chirp... chirp...
Since I have not seen a response from you as to why you claim Polarik's analysis is flawed, then by your lack of response, you give the appearance that you are even less credible than you claim Polarik is.
In any case, thanks for the clarification.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.