[lucysmom]

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. 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

[usmcobra]

Obviously you haven't seen Polarik video's proving that the Factcheck pictures are of a forgery.

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.

[OneWingedShark]

>>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).