http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/2008/08/04.html
Here’s Dr. Krawetz’s technical analysis of Techdude’s findings.
Secure Computing: Sec-C
Entries from Monday, August 4. 2008
Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis
Monday, August 4. 2008
Intentionally misleading research offends me. Real researchers strive to create the best work possible and are willing to have it put up to peer-reviewed scrutiny. They list their methods and provide enough information for other researchers to replicate the experiment. And good science should be able to draw the same conclusion with different analysis methods. In contrast, fake researchers intentionally doctor their data to support their theories. They do not provide their methods and their conclusions are not repeatable. While it is important to understand how real research is done, it is equally important to analyze and understand fake research.
Obama’s Birth Certificate
I have previously written about the smear campaigned against Barack Obama. In this attack, alleged experts claim that Obama has doctored his Certificate of Live Birth (COLB). They support their claims with false research using image analysis. Since I work with image analysis, I feel that it is important to properly represent the field. Please be aware, while their attack is against Obama, this is not a political debate. I am only addressing the technologies used to perform the analysis. If they did a similar attack against McCain or any other public official, I would be just as offended by their work.
There are three main players in this conspiracy theory. An anonymous racist who goes by the nickname “Texas Darlin”, and two anonymous “researchers” named Polarik and TechDude.
Polarik claimed to have “indisputable evidence”, but it was really just his gross misunderstanding of even the most basic image analysis.
However, the other anonymous researcher (and I use the term “researcher” very loosely) has come out with his “proof, beyond any doubt” of a forgery. Unlike Polarik, TechDude did not make amateur mistakes. Instead, he intentionally manipulated the data so that it would support his theory.
There is a wonderful book titled How to Lie with Statistics. Although it was written in 1954, the examples and topics are very apt today. Chapter 1 covers the built-in bias and is exactly what TechDude did in his writeup. TechDude is also guilty of using wiz-bang pictures to support a false conclusion (see Chapters 3, 4, and 7).
Detailed Rebuttal
TechDude’s analysis is divided into sections. My rebuttal and analysis only addresses his most grievous errors.
The Printer
Under TechDude’s section titled, “The Printer”, TechDude states “Some have also tried to blur the issue by pulling facts out of their butts and claiming that all three documents must have been printed on different printers – sorry, but all real certificates are printed and issued through the same office using the same printer.”
Hawaii has been a state since 1959. TechDude is claiming that Hawaii has only had one printer since 1959. Ignoring that a printer in 1959 was not hooked to a computer (and the COLB says “laser” on it), the MTBF (mean-time between failures) for your typical printer is a few years (varies by manufacturer and printer model). For example, Brother manufactures very long-lasting laser printers. They typically have a MTBF of 10,000 hours. That is equivalent to 416 days of 24x7 use. Since most government offices (including Hawaii) are open less than 2000 hours a year (8 hours a day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year), that means they can expect a failure about once every five years. I am not aware of any high-usage printer that is expected to last more than 5 years without a failure. Some failures are serviceable, but some are not. However, between failures and technological advancements, the state of Hawaii is almost certainly not using the same printer today as it was 30, 20, or possibly even 10 years ago. Moreover, unless they have dedicated one printer for birth certificates, they are very likely using more than one printer.
The Red Images
There are a large variety of image analysis techniques. They range from computationally intensive (e.g. wavelet transformations and k-means) to mathematically complex (e.g., principal component analysis, copy-move detection) to relatively simple (luminance gradient, max RGB, LSB, etc.). One of the simplest methods uses image recoloring. You usually see it done with contrast or color enhancement. It is generally hard to do color enhancement incorrectly, yet TechDude did just that...
TechDude adjusted the hue to red. JPEGs store images in YCrCb format (luminance/brightness, chrominance red, and chrominance blue). When converted to HSV (hue, saturation, value), the “V” is similar to the luminance. If you use Gimp, then you can do a color decomposition to HSV (under the Filters -> Colors -> Decompose menu item). This will create three layers: hue, saturation, and value. The “value” has the clearest image because it has the most information in the JPEG. In contrast, the hue appears blurriest because it actually corresponds to the least amount of information stored in the JPEG. So, recoloring the hue to red does not really have “the best contrast in colors between different colored pixels” (as TechDude wrote). In fact, if he wanted to see the high contrasting elements, then he should look at the value/luminance. Viewing the hue only pulls out the level of degradation created by the JPEG compression algorithm.
Decomposition: Hue Decomposition: Saturation Decomposition: Value
TechDude claims to see manipulation artifacts in the picture. He highlighted 100 points around the edge and text. Frankly, I just do not see some of the items he is highlighting. For example, his data points 11, 14, 17, 21, and 23 are in the upper left corner. I just do not see what he is highlighting. Other data points appear to be line intersections and darker edges (e.g., points 5, 35, 53, and 67, just to name a few). However, TechDude did not highlight similar artifacts in the middle areas of the picture. My own color density mapping identifies many of the same artifacts as well as ones found all over the middle of the document. These artifacts are not caused by digital manipulation; they are very likely caused by dirt or dust on the scanner’s glass, or by the scanner itself. Moreover, most of these artifacts are found at the endpoints or intersections of lines — this makes me believe it is the scanner more than dust or dirt.
TechDude’s identification of 100 suspicious points. (http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/2007-bo-cert-map-small.jpg)
More damning against TechDude is the selective nature of his “100 points”. The observable artifacts are all over the document and not just around the text areas that TechDude identified. TechDude appears to have chosen to identify the areas along the border and text in order to make the finding support his conclusion. (Bad TechDude. No cookie for you!)
TechDude’s second big picture attempts to identify a forgery via document overlay. However, he makes no attempt to align the text. When documents are scanned in, they can be cropped along the edge by the scanner. (Nearly all scanners and photocopy machines have alignment lines physically labeled on the scanner — put your paper between those lines or the document will be cropped.) Also, the image itself has been cropped. What TechDude seems to be identifying is that one or both of the documents were not placed exactly in the alignment box on the scanner and/or were cropped by software. However, TechDude mistakenly concludes that it “continues to prove the KOS document is a horrible forgery.”
TechDude’s overlay of two COLB documents. (http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/2007-bo-cert-map-overlay-small.jpg)
TechDude also says that he aligned it based on the pattern at the top. The top border pattern is repetitive. Notice on the right edge of the red text box (”CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”) that the alignment misses by exactly one red square. If he were to shift it over by one red square, then it should have a much better alignment.
The overlaid documents also vary by width and height. This goes back to the resolution of the scanner. If both documents were not scanned at the exact same resolution, then there will not be a perfect alignment.
For someone who claims to be familiar with image analysis, I am surprised that TechDude forgot about one other scanner alignment issue: scanners are not perfect. Here’s a fun experiment:
Scan in a document.
Take the document off the scanner.
Put it back on the scanner.
Scan it again.
Now try the overlay.
Documents scanned twice on the same scanner will not scan the same way each time. And auto-size width and height will probably detect slightly different image sizes. If your software does not auto-detect width and height, then it will be the same dimensions, but image pixels should shift. Now, try the same experiment with two completely different scanner models. The overlay will show that they do not align since different scanners have slightly different aspect ratios.
TechDude claims to align his previous selective artifacts with a second document. However, I do not see the alignments as he described. Instead, I see his selective artifacts. If you select all of the artifacts, then the artifacts TechDude identified are coincidental. A few examples: 78 is in the bottom corner — there is a big red dot right below the “7”. And “68” is next to the word “AFRICAN”. Follow it horizontally past two of the background “=” and there is another big dot in the middle. If TechDude were correct, then these would align with text or border from the second document. However, these do not align. There are plenty of these big red dots with no alignment and they are all over the document. In the scientific community, what TechDude has done is called a “selective bias”.
TechDude’s closeup of the overlay, clearly showing large red dots that are not found in his alignment. (http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/overlay_r24_c02.jpg)
“Artifacts of Previous Owner: Text Uncovered”
TechDude believes that a zoom of the image, to the point of artificial distortion, can identify subtle variances which indicate a forgery.
This is just amazingly bogus. First, these images are low resolution JPEGs that were scanned in from an unknown scanner. When TechDude does a pixel-based zoom in as he did on his “FEM” image, he is seeing a combination of scanner artifacts, JPEG artifacts, and software anti-aliasing.
Second, JPEG stores images with a 2:1:1 compression ratio for color sub-sampling. (Twice as much luminance information is stored, compared to chrominance red and chrominance blue.) This means, if you zoom a JPEG larger than 100%, then the color gets approximated by your software. Above 200%, the brightness (luminance) gets approximated. TechDude has scaled this picture by more than 500%. His analysis of pixel coloring is bogus. The artifacts he is highlighting are due to his drawing program and not due to anything stored in the JPEG file.
TechDude’s zoom of a word added by TechDude identifies distortions added by his own graphics software. (http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/female-zoom.jpg)
After scaling the image larger, TechDude identifies regions that he believes contains a ghost image of the original text. He gives an example from a section of the background located next to the heading “SEX”. He claims to be seeing residuals from the word “FEMALE” being removed. Thus, he adds in the word “FEMALE” to prove his point. What he is actually seeing is the background pattern — a repeating pattern of horizontal and vertical lines (”||==||”) — along with artifacts from his software zooming in too far for the JPEG to maintain any quality. However, I should point out that even while squinting and blurring my eyes, I do not see the letters he claims are present in the region labeled 33.
A closeup of TechDude’s region 33 before TechDude added the word “FEMALE” to it. TechDude claims that the word FEMALE is visible.
“Conclusion”
In his “Conclusion”, TechDude writes “So now does anyone STILL think the KOS image is legitimate or will people just complain I overused the word ‘artifacts’ now?” I am not convinced. His analysis combines a selective bias with misinterpreted artifacts and false data. His analysis is a work of fiction.
Critics
TechDude claims that his credentials have been vetted and that we should trust his analysis. However, when addressing critics (and I assume that means me), TechDude writes: “people have already thoroughly checked my credentials and background, hence the reason I was personally asked to investigate and report on the digital images.” Since he won’t give us his name, can he provide the names of his professional reference who are not also anonymous? Saying “some people have vetted me” is like saying “My mother says I’m smart”. To be properly vetted, we need professional references and not vigorous handwaving with anonymous citations.
Credentials
Updated 6-Aug-2008
Under his credentials, TechDude claims:
20 years experience in the computer field; performing computer forensic investigations since 1993. Board certified as a forensic computer examiner and for the previous six years also licensed as a private investigator. A certificated legal investigator, served close to 6 years under the direction of a practicing attorney. Testified in numerous trials at the state level...written (winning) briefs and motions that have been presented for state’s Court of Appeals and state’s Supreme Court.
U.S. Department of Justice clearance for access to sensitive but unclassified information and has personally handled the investigation of over 7,000 cases. Previously received training from the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA as well as countless forensics seminars and specialized training events over the years. Five years ago, opened his own computer forensic science lab and often accepts cases pro bono. Active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, the American College of Forensic Examiners, Computer Forensics Volunteer Project, a Member of Federal Bureau of Investigation’s InfraGard program, International Information Systems Forensics Association, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, and others.
However, TechDude provides no information to support these claims. Moreover, these credentials are an adaptation from a respected investigator. TechDude’s credentials, background, and claimed real name in an online interview are an impersonation.
Who is TechDude?
Updated 6-Aug-2008
I have heard from the person that TechDude is impersonating. TechDude is impersonating Adam Fink’s background and credentials. I offer a sincere apology to Mr. Fink for associating his impersonation with TechDude.
I previously wrote that TechDude’s declared background was similar to Mr. Fink, but not a perfect alignment with Mr. Fink, suggesting that it could be an impersonation. That indeed is the case.
It is important to recognize that TechDude’s analysis is misleading and fraudulent. Moreover, TechDude is impersonating a respected investigator. People should not harass Mr. Fink since he is yet another victim of TechDude’s deception.
Posted by Dr. Neal Krawetz in Image Analysis at 13:18 | Comments (71)
Here’s the comments to that section
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
#1 Ray on 2008-08-04 14:45
I’m speechless. What a knockout!
#2 se on 2008-08-04 14:53
Hey Neal!
I think you may be misunderstanding just what it is that Techdude is claiming.
Essentially what he’s claiming is that the “forgers” took a genuine, paper COLB that belonged to someone other than Obama and removed the laser printing.
They then used the “blank” for creating the Obama COLB.
The 100 bits and pieces that he maps out on the image are what he claims to be the remnants of the original laser printing.
He then overlays the Michele COLB to show that the location of the remnants are consistent with the location of the border and text of a “real” COLB, such as the Michele COLB.
se
#2.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-04 15:09
Hi se,
And what I am saying is that those “100 bits and pieces” don’t exist. He claims to be seeing things in the JPEG that do not exist.
His analysis approach does not reveal what he claims to show. He analyzes based on the least significant data (hue) and zooms the image in far beyond the maintainable quality.
#2.1.1 John Q. on 2008-08-04 17:28
Agreed. I fired up Photoshop and tried to recreate what was claimed. I did find some of the artifacts at various points which I are consistent with what you would get from any scanner. But I couldn’t find these so-called letter fragments, even zooming in to 500% and with inversion and various hue adjustments to increase the contrast. They simply were not there.
#2.1.2 NObama08 on 2008-08-04 20:41
Dr. Krawetz
In your 1st paragraph you lost the whole audience. Techdude did not make the claim that all COLB’s since 1959 were printed on the same printer.
What a moron you are if think you that is the case.
No need to read further. That large a blunder set you up for the ridicule you justifiably deserve.
If you happen to retract your mistake, I might waste my time reading the rest.
#2.1.2.1 John Q. on 2008-08-04 22:36
He didn’t lose me. I’ve read all of the ramblings of TD’s various “experts” even when I completely disagreed with their analysis or comments against Obama. I never demanded apologies or made snide remarks about their abilities. I challenged their assumptions and facts. I know that concept seems to escape you. Try it sometime. Or are you having a problem challenging the Dr.’s analysis?
#3 erik on 2008-08-04 16:07
Great report man!
#3.1 se on 2008-08-04 16:57
And what I am saying is that those “100 bits and pieces” don’t exist. He claims to be seeing things in the JPEG that do not exist.
No, there are “things” there. It’s just that the same sorts of “things” are found throughout the image, and not just where he’s pointing at.
Among others, you said you couldn’t see what he was highlighting for 11 and 14.
Here’s what he was highlighting:
http://www.q-audio.com/images/1114.jpg
See the tiny vertical looking smudge at 11? And the tiny horizontal looking smudge at 14?
Those are the sorts of things he’s highlighting. And you can see most of them in the image even at 1:1.
But as I said, you can see those sorts of things throughout the entire image, not just at the places he’s highlighted. It was all cherry picked.
se
#3.2 se on 2008-08-04 18:41
John Q
Agreed. I fired up Photoshop and tried to recreate what was claimed. I did find some of the artifacts at various points which I are consistent with what you would get from any scanner. But I couldn’t find these so-called letter fragments, even zooming in to 500% and with inversion and various hue adjustments to increase the contrast. They simply were not there.
Yeah. I think what’s going on there just boils down to JPEG processing again.
The JPEG algorithm processes an image in 8 pixel by 8 pixel cells so the processed image is basically a big patchwork quilt of these cells.
As a result, there can be a fair amount of contrast between one cell and another.
Here’s a 14:1 blowup of a portion of the Obama image:
http://www.q-audio.com/images/jpegcells.jpg
You can pretty clearly see the delineation between cells.
I think these deliniations, at lower zoom levels, are simply causing people to “see” letters in them (I say people because others have claimed to see them as well).
se
#3.2.1 se on 2008-08-04 18:57
Oops. Forgot to upload the image to my server. It’s there now. Sorry.
se
#3.2.2 Ray on 2008-08-04 19:28
If these real or unreal marks are so prolific, we should be able to demonstrate what’s happening with a small high res TIFF (say 2 x 2 inches) after it is converted to JPG.
#4 Jerry on 2008-08-04 16:30
Dr. Krawetz,
I’m afraid that the notion that “this is not a political debate” flies out the window when you refer to Texas darlin as an “anonymous racist”, we all know that calling people racist is a tactic of the Obama-bots and you sir must be downing the Fool-Aid along with the rest of them!! Anytime someone throws out these accusations about anyone who questions anything about their new messiah,...well it is transparent where your loyalies lie and therefore your “opinion” is tainted and discredited.
I would suggest in order to be taken more seriously next time that you leave the “racist” comments out of you preamble.
#5 Roxy on 2008-08-04 17:59
I got as far as the your printer response, and don’t know if you misunderstood OR are deliberatry saying something different then he said.
you said “Hawaii has been a state since 1959. TechDude is claiming that Hawaii has only had one printer since 1959. Ignoring that” which is NOT what Techdude claimed, he said they have had the same printer since March of 2007 and the COLBs beng compared ALL were printed since that time.
“There is just one office that prints the COLB form for any birth that occurred in Hawaii. They have not changed their printer since the March 2007 COLB was printed and they only use one printer. For the really slow people that means they print one COLB at a time using the same computer and printer and unless Obama was NOT born in Hawaii the COLB form would have come from the same printer as the March 2007 and June 2008 COLBs”
Since I see how you changed this around, it makes me doubt anything else you are claiming.
#5.1 John Q. on 2008-08-04 18:42
I think you have a valid criticism. TD is claiming that only one printer has been used to print COLBs and therefore all of the printers should generate the same document. What this assumes, incorrectly, is that the same printer will print a document the same way every time. In fact, printers, especially “standard laser printers” that TD claimed is used, will not create the same document every time. Print the same document 500 times on a standard laser printer and I guarantee that there will be numerous flaws, shifts in alignment and other quirks that are par for the course for such a piece of equipment. These are not precise machines. They are “good enough” for most printing purposes but the idea that they will generate the same document over and over and over again is just ludicrous.
#5.1.1 Ray on 2008-08-04 19:24
The old 300 dpi laser printers used to splatter the whole page with black carbon dust. I used to see it quite frequently in same size line negatives while developing them. After the 600 dpi printers became more popular I noticed the splatter was greatly reduced bur still there, although they werw closer to the text than they were previously.
Those black spots would probably look rather big if they had been scanned at very high resolution - such as 600 or 1200 ppi. Would someone here be able to run out TWO very high resolution TIFFS of 2 laser prints (about 2 inches square) to demonstrate what can happen with good printers these days?
#5.2 Ray on 2008-08-04 20:50
“Since I see how you changed this around, it makes me doubt anything else you are claiming.”
It’s your own comments that are not credible if you cannot get past the bit about printers since 1959. No one would expect you to base your opinion on your impression of a writer. You’re supposed to be reading the evidence - all of it, instead of spitting the dummy.
#6 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-04 18:17
Jerry -
Attack the messenger much?
If I have to choose between the word of someone who I can verify their background and credentials, and the word of someone who hides behind a handle and claims a background that has no way of being proven, well, the internet tough guy loses.
Let’s have “TechDude’s” real name and background and submit his work to proper peer review. If it’s has good as he claims, there shouldn’t be a problem with that. It’s all about the truth, right?
Unless it’s not about the truth after all, and is just another internet smear job hiding behind shoddy research by nameless people
#6.1 Jerry on 2008-08-04 19:48
It appears that someone else may now have come to the same conclusion as Techdude,so he say’s he will come clean on who he is and what he believes..I don’t blame Techdude for wanting to keep his identity private, I wouldn’t want the Obama thugs targeting me!! I don’t really care who ends up being correct but I am so sick and tired of people accusing others of being racist!! The second that I hear that, you’ve lost me,....
#6.1.1 patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-04 20:12
You’re the one who brought up racism, not me. Which is the normal tactic you guys use - claim someone is playing the “racism/sexism/whateverism” card so you don’t have to answer things.
And if by making the claim that someone else managed to supposely find the “hidden name - find it and you win a FREE trip to Vegas on Air TechDude!!” thing, please. The fact that TD felt the need to rehash a post from mid-July about Sen. Obama’s sister and the fact that Larry Johnson at the formerly sane “NoQuarter” suddenly guessed the name kinda tells me that the mysterious name that “TechDude” claims to have found is “Maya Kassandra Soetoro”
Because that fits the entire “attack the family” tactic that “TexasDarling” and her tinfoil hat brigade have been claiming. So far, “TexasDarlin”, “Judah Benjamin”, “Polarik”, and “TechDude” have been not just slamming Sen. Obama, but his mother, father, stepfather, grandparents AND sister.
Just as the 90’s saw a cottage industry in stupid Clinton conspiracy theories, “TexasDarlin” and her band are trying to start a cottage industry in stupid Obama conspiracy theories.
Again, I’d rather choose the word of someone who I can verify their background and credentials, against the word of someone who hides behind a handle and claims a background that has no way of being proven. Even if that nameless internet tough guy is saying something I agree with, if I can’t verify what they claim, I take their claims with a grain of salt.
#6.1.1.1 Roxy on 2008-08-04 21:35
Jerry did not bring up racism,
“There are three main players in this conspiracy theory. An anonymous racist who goes by the nickname “Texas Darlin”, and two anonymous “researchers” named Polarik and TechDude.”
Techdude said he will tell his name ect. but the way Obama supporters go around with death threats ect, I can see why someone would be nervous having their personal info out there.
#6.1.1.1.1 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-04 21:52
What death threats??
The only reference to “Obama Supporter death threats” is in the PUMA echo chambers.
It’s like the “400 Paid Blogger” myth so many PUMAs believe. Trace it back far enough, and all you find is a single second-hand source claiming it was on a Fox News screen crawl with absolutely no proof, screenshots, or anything else. Just a single post that snowballed from site to site with not a single bit of proof except people’s willingness to believe the worse.
So, what credible sources do you have for these “death threats”. Police reports? Media reports? Or just more stories bouncing in the echo chambers?
#6.1.1.1.1.1 Philly Guy on 2008-08-05 15:11
Not so surprising when Obama’s supporters view him as [censored]?
And how about this:
[omitted]
[Moderator’s note: Flame bate omitted. Please keep comments on topic. Political discussions and digressions into fictional news articles should be moved to other forums. - Loris Kim]
#6.1.2 John Q. on 2008-08-04 20:16
Jerry,
Do you ever see black helicopters? Seriously, if you really believe that the Obama campaign is so powerful that people who oppose it have to live in fear of their lives, how could that same campaign be responsible for what TechDude claims is a shoddy fake? If you’re going to buy into the conspiracy, why only go half-way? Or did you ever consider that perhaps TechDude’s so-called findings aren’t backed up by the science that he claims supports them? I know that’s not as interesting but science isn’t about what looks good in the tabloids, it’s about dealing with the facts.
#7 Sami on 2008-08-04 19:01
The racist comments are really getting old. He lost me at that point — and so did Obama’s campaign.
#7.1 John Q. on 2008-08-04 19:46
This seems to be typical for the trolls from TexasDarlin. They refuse to address the substance of the criticisms, they refuse to deal with facts and they refuse to listen to anything that might counter their view of the world. I’ve tried to post to numerous contrary points both legal and technical at TexasDarlin and most of those comments have been rejected. That’s TD’s right but it just goes to show that those perpetuating this smear campaign are doing everything possible to keep the masses from hearing anything but their fantasy world version of the issue.
#7.1.1 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-04 20:19
You have to understand something......
The people who want to believe this - like people who want to believe ANY conspiracy theory - will believe it no matter what. We can present solid, strong evidence, but since we don’t believe, it doesn’t matter.
I’m not looking to convince those who want to believe this bogus theory of “TexasDarlin”, “Judah Benjamin”, “TechDude”, and the rest of the echo chamber. I’m looking to show people what the other side of the discussion is, so they can make their decisions based on truth and logic, not lies and mad theories by faceless and nameless internet “experts”
#7.2 Ray on 2008-08-04 19:50
A comment about racism is a relevant piece of background in an instructive blog, and so were some of the other comments that may not have been included in a formal report.
#7.3 se on 2008-08-04 20:27
I don’t blame Techdude for wanting to keep his identity private, I wouldn’t want the Obama thugs targeting me!!
Who or what exactly is this Obama Bogey Man that y’all seem to be afraid of and has you hiding under your beds like a bunch of scared children?
se
#8 Ray on 2008-08-04 21:52
NObama08 wrote:
Dr. Krawetz
In your 1st paragraph you lost the whole audience. [...]
No, that would only be the dopes who don’t want to hear the evidence, challenges or corrections.
#9 Christoph on 2008-08-04 23:10
Even though overall I tend to agree with your analysis, the reality is you made a BIG mistake regarding TechDude’s statement about the printer. He said:
“They have not changed their printer since the March 2007 COLB was printed and they only use one printer.”
TechDude also said:
“No need to take my word for any of this either as many people besides myself have already verified that this is indeed the case. Feel free to pick up a phone and call the good folks over at Vital Records yourself....”
So while I think TechDude is wrong and you are right and more knowledgeable on this subject, the reality is your statement in “The Printer” section:
“TechDude is claiming that Hawaii has only had one printer since 1959.”
... is terribly inaccurate, don’t you agree?
#10 Ray on 2008-08-04 23:27
Roxy wrote:
“Techdude said he will tell his name ect.”
No outline of name CAN be visible. While you’re waiting you should look at what’s actually around alphabetical characters in JPEG format — a sort of checkerboard full of artifacts that DON’T define outlines. That’s what they are there for - to provide a random-looking graduation of tone from the text colour text to the background colour.
#11 erik (Homepage) on 2008-08-04 23:46
according to the conspiracy nuts it looks the answer was Maya Kassandra Soetoro.(The funny thing is his mom was not born in Hawaii so she would not have have a birth certificate from that state.)
#12 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-05 00:04
I hate being right.
But I was. “Techdude’s” exclusive - he supposedly found Obama sister’s name on the COLB, just like I expected he would - and predicted earlier in the day.
In case it didn’t look enough like a fishing expedition. Of course, “Techdue” could have claimed “Mickey Mouse” was on the COLB and it would be just as valid a claim as any other he’s made.
#13 Mike on 2008-08-05 01:16
“I am unaware of any “board” for certifying computer forensic examiners.”
Well why does the International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners have this language on their home page?
“even though they have not been credentialed by the ISFCE certifying board. “
Note it says BOARD.
#13.1 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-05 07:04
Since “TechDude” claims to be an ISFCE member, perhaps he should look at their code of ethics again.
http://www.isfce.com/ethics-form.htm
Particularly:
Maintain the utmost objectivity in all forensic examinations and accurately present findings.
Strive to maintain professionalism in assigned duties.
A Certified Computer Examiner will never:
Withhold any evidence that would tend to distort the truth.
Express an opinion on the guilt or innocence of any party.
* Show bias or prejudice in findings or examinations.
I suspect that one of the many reasons why “TechDude” really doesn’t want his name to be made public is that, if he was actually a member of the organizations he claims to be, he has opened himself up to complaints against those organizations charging violation of the ethical code all members are supposed to uphold.
#14 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-05 10:03
I’ve just begun following the comments about my posting. So far, I see lots of insults and some minor criticism about my printer section, but nobody criticizing the image analysis analysis that I use to prove that TechDude’s analysis is a work of fiction, and that TechDude is a fraud.
I have also seen a couple of comments (not on my blog) that are outright false.
In her comments, TexasDarlin (http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/techdude-challenge-all-the-images-i-have-so-far/) wrote:
texasdarlin // August 4, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I attempted to post there, and Mister Krawetz would not accept the message.
I have checked with my site administrator and she assures me that no comments have been blocked or deleted. The last comment “censored” was from David Drake on Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:28:22 -0700 due to personal attacks and fowl language, but his censored comment was posted. (Is TexasDarlin claiming to be David Drake?)
This was followed two hours later by another comment by TexasDarlin:
texasdarlin // August 5, 2008 at 12:45 am
I just read Dr. Neal’s blog! (I’m busy).
...
As for being racist, I DEMAND that Dr. Neal, whoever the hell he is, back up those charges with proof.
First, why would TexasDarlin be trying to post to my blog if she had not read the content? Then again, there is no record in the web log of her ever trying to post.
With regards to my comment: My proof is in the hyperlinked citation. TexasDarlin and Harriet Christian use the same email address. TexasDarlin claims that everyone uses the same email address, but that just isn’t true either. There are postings on the same forum from people who use other email addresses. Unless TexasDarlin can prove that he/she/it is not affiliated with Harriet Christian, I stand by the accusation.
The remainder of the comments on that blog which address my blog are “Proof by Bullying” or just nonsense. TechDude even tries to do a math proof (comment posted at August 5, 2008 at 12:23 am) and fails miserably.
With regards to the comments on my blog.
1. My section about printers was to serve three purposes.
First, to show that printers can change and printer output does change even with the same printer.
Second, to nit-pick about a sentence by TechDude.
Third, I knew it wasn’t written very well. This was intentional: I wanted to use it as a controlled test case to see how well the arguments were against my work. It is easy to argue the printer, but if the printer arguments lack logic, then it would be clear that opponents to my findings would not talk about the image analysis. Anyone attacking my image analysis findings must directly address the technology and use logical arguments. So far, there have been very weak arguments against my printer paragraph in other forums. (But in my own blog, some of the comments, like those by John Q and Ray, are well thought out.) In contrast, none have tried to even vaguely show anything wrong with my image analysis.
Having said that, I have no intention of rewriting or updating the printer section. Doing so would only give the conspiracy freaks a reason to think I am covering something up.
2. I stand by my statement about TexasDarlin being a racist. His/her continual attacks against a politician about something other than his political views directly indicates an ulterior motive. And his/her alignment with the email address associated with Harriet Christian shows a racial motivation. My inclusion of it in my report was as background material concerning the people making the accusations about a false COLB.
With regards to the insults: they do not prove me wrong.
Finally, I found one posting at http://koyaan.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/techdude-aint-got-zip/ by koyaan (comment dated August 4, 2008 at 1:04 am) that is excellent, in my opinion. He has an image he calls “Obama Measles”: http://www.q-audio.com/images/obamameasles.jpg
In this picture, Koyaan highlighted all of the “dots” that TechDude claims indicate a forgery. As I mentioned (but did not show), those dots are all over the document and all over the page. This further shows the selective nature of TechDude’s sample bias.
#14.1 Ray on 2008-08-05 11:57
Dr. Neal Krawetz wrote:
I’ve just begun following the comments about my posting. So far, I see lots of insults and some minor criticism about my printer section, but nobody criticizing the image analysis analysis that I use to prove that TechDude’s analysis is a work of fiction, and that TechDude is a fraud.
Everyone here would have known that you hadn’t really lost the plot and thought that there were laser printers in use in 1959. Inventors were still working on a carbon ribbon for manual typewriters back then.
And yes, TechDude is definitely a fraud - for many reasons, but particularly because there is no such thing as distinguishable outlines around alphabetical characters in JPG’s at ANY time - let alone after the characters have been filled in with the background pattern. There have been far too many lies and crooked innuendo to call his work a prank.
For the record - Texasdarlin has exhibited, and continues to exhibit SOME of the signs of a rabid racist. She may not be totally ignorant and believe that her race is superior, but she certainly doesn’t want any “foreign, tom-tom playing, native African, Arab, Muslim, Indonesian, illegitimate, adopted ‘bastard’ “ having a shot at the Presidency of HER country.
#15 polo on 2008-08-05 12:10
Just a dumb thought...
How difficult would it be to post a photoshop project file we could all open too see each of the steps?
I do it all the time. No offense but this 2000 word critic is unnecessary without techdude presenting a project file.
They people willing to spread this story without such file aren’t going to care what you write.
TexasDarlin, Uppity woman, Susan, and Larry are all racists. Anyone one paying attention knows this. Don’t waste a single minute on their whines to the contrary.
#15.1 Ray on 2008-08-05 13:02
polo wrote:
Just a dumb thought...
How difficult would it be to post a photoshop project file we could all open too see each of the steps?
How dificult? Very, very, very, very difficult because it doesn’t exist outside of Techdud’s skull.
#16 Rodn on 2008-08-05 12:17
All of this explanation is stupid.
The bottom line is that Senator Obama should release his original COLB. Period.
What re you afraid of?
The American people have a right to see his original COLB if they so request. NOT an image througha website (DKos or fightsmears).
It is a Constitutional requirement.
Why are you so afraid of asking to see the real deal ?
*THE ORIGINAL SIR, THE ORIGINAL PLEASE*.
#16.1 Mark on 2008-08-05 12:27
Wow Rodn - That is the best counter argument I have ever heard. “All of this explanation is stupid.” Well-reasoned, logically discussed, and coherently argued.
Rodn: You are the definition of “FAIL”.
#16.2 John Q. on 2008-08-05 13:57
“The American people have a right to see his original COLB if they so request. NOT an image througha website (DKos or fightsmears).
It is a Constitutional requirement.”
I’m sorry, please direct me to where in the Constitution it says that you have a right to view anyone’s COLB if you request, as you claim?
#16.3 Jennem on 2008-08-05 15:01
Are you suggesting that Obama should mail every single registered voter a certified copy of his COLB?
Seriously?
Because THAT MAKES SENSE.
#16.4 Mark on 2008-08-05 17:16
Even before being elected, the President candidates undergo extensive background checks. The COLB is not required, nor are any findings from the background check required to be made public. While governmental oversite groups have access, the general populace does not.
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. never released their birth certificates — I openly challenge PUMA to find birth certificates for the last ten presidents and proof that it was made public before being elected.
Having Obama release his COLB publicly shows an openness not seen with other political candidates.
#16.4.1 anon voter on 2008-08-05 21:28
well, there’s mccain, who has shown reporters his birth certificate and gave access to his medical records. so jennem, i think thats what people want- a real copy to reporters, not individual mailings! I agree with many here that the way in which these findings are being presented are suspicious. However, i also think the secrecy of the Obama campaign is suspicious. So as you ask techdude to provide his results in an open way, I think Obama should too. If there is nothing to this, give the major networks access to the birth certificate.
#17 Ray on 2008-08-05 12:56
Rodn wrote:
All of this explanation is stupid.
The bottom line is that Senator Obama should release his original COLB. Period.
No he shouldn’t. He MUST be and WILL be treated like the White folks.
Ray
#18 Ray on 2008-08-05 15:54
John Q. wrote:
_”The American people have a right to see his original COLB if they so request. NOT an image through a website (DKos or fightsmears).
It is a Constitutional requirement.”_
I’m sorry, please direct me to where in the Constitution it says that you have a right to view anyone’s COLB if you request, as you claim?
Here it is. It’s a writ that is similar to that of Habeas Corpus.
[omitted]
Ray
[Moderator’s note: Flame bate omitted. Please keep comments on topic. Political discussions and digressions into fictional laws should be moved to other forums. - Loris Kim]
#19 John Q. on 2008-08-06 00:53
I see that TechDude has re-emerged to obfuscate the situation.
As always, TD says a lot without saying much at all. He questions the requests for step-by-step instructions in Photoshop, even though this would be considered by many to be a standard program for viewing and altering images, as TD suggests we do. He suggests that he’s writing the instructions for multiple skill levels and multiple applications on different operating systems. Why? So to introduce all kinds of variables that he can use to justify why you couldn’t replicate his work? Why will he not simply list:
1) The graphics program that he used
2) The OS that he used it on
3) The steps he used to “discover” the text he claims exists
4) Images that demonstrate the final product (we’re still waiting on the ZIP file that was promised but never produced)
This is basic information. His continued refusal to list that information is more evidence that his “discovery” exists only in his head.
#19.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-06 03:50
And we return to proof-by-bullying. Notice all of his insults without ever addressing the image analysis.
TechDude seems to balk at the idea of showing a step-by-step solution. However, in his interview at Atlas Shrugs (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/forensic-expert.html), he mentions enjoying things like the DC3’s Forensic Challenge. The challenge has a very specific rule: you must show your work. All of the challenges start with instructions like “Examiners must develop and document a methodology to...” Failure to do so will cost you points in the challenge. Being asked to provide enough detail to replicate the work is not an unreasonable request.
TechDude then begins to attack my credibility. I can already see that he is doing some really bad background checking.
1. Hany Farid never “spanked his ass publicly for trying to pass yet another crock of crap to the media in one of Neil’s desperate bids for attention”. I believe this reference is to the following interview with NBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21530470/
In the interview, Dr. Farid was quoted as:
He suggests that while there are “quirky” aspects to the video, he doesn’t think there is a clear case that the two videos were made at the same time and are certainly not the same video used twice.
“I think it’s extremely unlikely these are actually the same video,” says Farid. “I know that there’s people out there who are saying that it’s probably a copy, but I think in what we have seen so far, that is probably not the case. There are just too many differences between the videos, both at the visual level and at sort of a mathematical level.”
That certainly isn’t “being spanked”. In fact, we both agree that it is not the same video (read the next few paragraphs in the same article):
Krawetz does not believe that al-Qaida used the exact same video it did in 2004. Instead, he suspects that al-Qaida had recorded much more video than it released in 2004. There may have even been two sittings. “The main thing I am getting at: I am not saying that they are the same recording,” he said. “I believe they recorded a speech, changed a little, and then recorded some more. (Under this same theory, they may have done it many times and AQ just has not released other videos yet).”
The professional difference is that I believe the two videos were made within days of each other, while Dr. Farid is leaving open the possibility that they were not.
I should also mention that prior to this news report, US Intelligence officials would quickly confirm “it is Bin Laden” whenever a video was released. Following this interview, they stopped confirmation. Now they simply say that they are investigating the authenticity whenever new recordings by Bin Laden are released. Call this coincidence if you like.
I am actually surprised that TechDude would attempt to drag in other image analysis professionals who have not voluntarily entered this heated topic. This seems very unprofessional.
2. It seems that TechDude is searching newsgroups and cannot tell the difference between myself and some people who impersonated me. I saw this because he mentions two trolls — one who actually left death threats on my answering machine while impersonating the other troll. I would like to reference TechDude to this posting (posted on a forum where I have never made any postings, but my impersonators did):
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2007/Jun/0401.html
And to a paper I wrote at Security Focus on online impersonations:
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/441
It is not a coincidence that I wrote an article about online impersonations during a time when I was being impersonated online.
As an aside, TechDude should be very careful since he openly mentions two professional trolls by name — they have a nasty habit of attacking anyone who does so.
Finally, as I wrote in my blog (http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/209-Black-Hat-2008.html), I will likely be at a conference when TechDude’s report and directed attack against me is made public. I will have limited network access and will probably be unable to respond (if a response is warranted) until next week. During that same time, comments to my blog may be delayed (the forum moderator is also going to the conference).
#19.1.1 don wilkie on 2008-08-06 07:29
devestating analysis, but aren’t we missing the forest for the trees. we are hiring obama to fill a position that would make him the most powerful man in the world. when i hire someone, i want to see the actual drivers license and ss card, not a copy. if your underage and go to a bar will a copy of a birth certificate or drivers license get you served? i think not. all of this back and forth is missing the central point; we have a right to see the actual certificate. period.
#19.1.1.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-06 08:10
Hi Don Winkie,
Two responses come to mind.
1. My analysis is not questioning the authentication of the COLB. My analysis is answering the question “has it been modified”. (There is a difference between “real” and “authentic”.) To this regard, there is no evidence of modification. Moreover, I believe I have debunked a fictional analysis that claims to have shown modification.
2. As far as the political aspect goes, yes and no...
Yes: someone must and will (and probably has) validated his eligibility.
No: that someone does not need to be you.
While we should trust that someone in our government will do the right thing, there are levels upon levels of oversight committees designed to make sure they do the right thing. If you wish to be on the list of presidential eligibility reviewers, then I suggest joining one of the appropriate oversight committees.
[omitted]
[Moderator: Sorry Neal. Please take the political debate to some other forum. The focus here is on image analysis. -Loris Kim]
#19.1.1.2 Liz I. on 2008-08-06 08:24
Don, it took me a while, because I’m old, but I finally remembered and yeah, you’re absolutely right. We have a “right” to see “the actual birth certificate” of Senator Obama!
Just as we saw the birth certificates of the candidates in all the other preseidential elections I’ve voted in since 1968.
Yes, I remember this quite clearly now. Let’s see, we must have demanded ACTUAL! birth certificates from:
Hubert Humphery
Richard Nixon
George McGovern
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
Walter Mondale
George H. Bush
Michael Dukakis
William Clinton
Robert Dole
George W. Bush
Albert Gore
John Kerry
Who in the world, seeing this list could POSSIBLY think anyone is trying to apply different standards to the African American candidate?
#19.1.1.2.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-06 08:43
Hi Liz,
I believe you are mistaken.
There is only one form required to run for president:
http://www.fec.gov/info/forms.shtml
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm2.pdf
Nowhere does it require proof of citizenship. The proof is required by laws and the laws do not say that a birth certificate must be provided; only proof of US citizenship.
Loris: I’m just replying. I don’t mean to extend a political debate.
[Moderator: I’ll let it go this time. -Loris Kim]
#19.1.1.2.1.1 Bubblechaser on 2008-08-09 10:35
Thank you Dr. Krawetz, I stand in support of you and your position. Tech Dude is like this 300# bully I have living across from me. A lot of wind and a lot of mass, but that is about it; no science, just down-talking and making fun of people who may not support him before any has said anything. I love it when a professional gets into the fray on the side of justice, not a particular person. The language used by Tech Dude just says so much about his own emotional insecurity. If any of us would meet this person in real life we would probably just walk away and ignore him, because it would be so difficult to listen to them. We should never answer a fool according to his folly if we do not have our facts straight and this is mostly emotional rhetoric coming from him. Thank you for setting me straight on this subject.
#19.1.1.2.2 donald wilkie on 2008-08-07 23:41
dear liz,
you are quite right, i don’t recall anyone asking for the birth certificates of the candidates you list. i do know, though, because i too am old, that their eligibility was never in question. it is undeniable, however, that mr obama is a different case. his father was of african nationality, his step-father was of indonesian nationality, and obama spent his youth and was schooled in indonesia.
is there a possibility that obama is not a native born american? the answer is obviously yes. (this is simple, and should not lead someone to call someone else a racist, don’t you think, liz?)
that being said, my governor cannot be president because she was born in canada (jennifer granholm). the governor of california cannot be president because he was born in austria (arnold).
i believe you are passionate about this issue and therefore are a believer in the constitution. so in closing i will say only this, we the people created the constitution and we put in it the rules by which we the people have to live by. we the people decided that in order to be president you have to be natural born: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President”
my dear liz, being an american, wouldn’t you want to know, for sure, that our presidential candidate was eligible for the position... without question? i say, show me the real thing. don’t we deserve that? should we elect someone who time will tell is inelegibe? can’t you and i agree on this simple point, liz?
#19.1.1.2.2.1 John Q. on 2008-08-10 19:55
The nationality of Mr. Obama’s father and step-father are irrelevant to his eligibility to be President. He was born in the United States, has never renounced his citizenship and thus is eligible to run and serve. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
#20 se on 2008-08-06 08:31
BREAKING Techdude Disproves His Own Analysis.
Film at 11:00!
http://koyaan.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/mayas-split-personality/
se
#21 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-06 09:43
Brace yourself Dr. Krawetz - the talking heads at “TexasDarlin” are claiming that YOU “couldn’t deny Techdude’s qualifications are impeccable”
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/1521/
“IF Techdude is right, and I believe he must be since his qualifications are impeccable (even Dr Neal Krawetz cannot deny that), the Certification of Live Birth posted on KOS and FTS is a Forgery based upon an original belonging to somebody other than Senator Obama.”
#22 Ray on 2008-08-06 10:32
On the Texasdarlin blog (2nd thread)
a short time ago, Techdude said a few
things that indicate he is no longer
treating the alleged forgery as the
earth-shattering, issue that it was
previously.
“I just do not care as much about
this issue nor do I think it is as
ground breaking or important as you
do.”
Ray
#23 John Q. on 2008-08-06 14:26
To use the style used by the conspiracy theorists, let’s examine TechDud’s record:
1) Real Name - Not released
2) Professional qualifications - Not released
3) Graphics program used to manipulate images - Not released
4) Operating system of computer used with graphics program - Not released
5) Promised ZIP file of full-scale images - Not available
6) Images showing name “hidden” in image artifacts - Not released
7) Step-by-Step instructions on how to recreate said image - “Not available”
8 ) Published articles - None
9) Examples of peer-reviewed work - None
Seems like TechDud’s needs to get working on his own paper trail.
#24 Ray on 2008-08-06 14:56
I doubt if anyone here would be concerned about any of that stuff if Techdude released just one image that gives some sort of credible outline of Obama’s sister’s name on his COLB.
#25 John Q. on 2008-08-06 15:18
Another example of the detective “work” done over at TD. This time it’s “Judah Benjamin” who finds “proof” that Obama lied about his parents divorce because he found a court record that said the divorce was initiated in 1980 but not terminated until 1988. A quick search on a common name found that it was not just his parents engaging in such deception. Here are the Jones - they have the exact same termination date as Obama’s parents:
SHEILA ANNETTE JONES VS ROBERT ANTHONY JONES
Case #: 1DV00-0-119484
Or how about these Joneses? Like Obama’s parents, their divorce was stated back in 1981 but not finalized until 1988.
JOHN S JONES VS. PAMELA L JONES
1DV00-0-122221
Case Termination Date: 10-22-1988
Look! It’s proof of deception! Or the more logical answer is that these cases are not “terminated” until a minor child comes of age due to the child support arrangements (as is referenced in the documents attached to the case for Obama’s parents). With master sleuths like this, I’m sure that the Holy Grail will soon be found.
#26 Sue on 2008-08-06 19:34
Wow. How much trouble would it have been to contact Mr. Fink before drawing him into this kernuffle on a guess?
[Moderator’s note: Be patient. -Loris Kim]
#26.1 John Q. on 2008-08-06 21:01
The person who drew Mr. Fink into this “kerfuffle” was TechDud who made numerous references that played on Mr. Fink’s name, background and credentials in an attempt to pass himself off as an expert. I caught the recent reference by TechDud to “Adam” which was part of the hoax.
#27 se on 2008-08-06 20:10
Turns out Techdude’s verifying KG’s analysis isn’t the first time he’s contradicted his own claims.
http://koyaan.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/more-proof-of-techdudes-cherry-picking-fabrication/
se
#28 John Q. on 2008-08-11 08:54
Another Expert takedown of TechDud.
http://exforensis.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-fake-birth-certificate-fact-or.html
My follow-up in response to Judah Benjamin (who won’t give up the fraud) that likely won’t be posted at TD’s site.
“There you would discover that Daniel does believe that the document has been “interfered” with in such a way as to remove its evidential value and render it, at the best, questionable.”
That is not what he says and I doubt he would agree with your summary of his comments. I work with scanned documents every day and almost every document that goes online is run through Photoshop. Why? In order to make them suitable for viewing online by reducing the file size and putting them into a file format, like JPEG, that is suitable for web browsers. This isn’t evidence that the image has been manipulated in any way (other than to reduce the size of the image and change the format). Nowhere on the Obama web site does it claim that the image presented online is of the original scan. Nor would it make sense that the original scan was done in a JPEG format. Anyone who actually works with scanned images would know that which is why it’s best to leaving the discussion to people who actually know what they are talking about.
#29 josh on 2008-08-11 13:51
You are all missing the point,
The document at question is at best merely an ABSTRACT of what purports to be a birth certificate. The real birth certificate would be typewritten or handwritten into a stock form for the state of HA. If the Obama campaign cannot furnish a certified copy of the origional form filled out bedside in 1961, that is evidence he was born outside the USA and is inelegible by the Constution. The stakes could not be higher. Go HIll go!!!
#29.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-11 14:59
Josh,
I don’t know how to put this any other way: you are wrong.
I strongly suggest that you actually take the time to learn about what a birth certificate is, how it is presented in legal documents, and what the requirements are for presidential eligibility before you reply again. You are wrong on far too many levels.
#30 Edward M on 2008-08-14 22:25
Dear Dr. Krawetz,
In your published rebuttal of techdude’s claims, you admittedly made a gross misrepresentation of his claims about the printer. This was seemingly done as a “test” of other bloggers, to see whether they noticed it, and if so, how well they argued against it. Your behavior begs a question: Have you written any other “tests” into your rebuttal?
#30.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-15 06:44
Hi Edward M,
Excellent question. No I did not. Everything else (image analysis, credential check, “Who is”, etc.) are as accurate as I could do, with no intentional misinformation.
And I am still disappointed that the conspiracy people did not do a technical attack against the printer section. Good arguments could include inkjet vs toner, low toner levels leading to different quality, low ink levels, if inkjet then yellow-dotting, and more. Anti-conspiracy people mentioned different printings being unique and toner dust. Sadly, the conspiracy people they just resorted to calling me names.
In contrast to the printer section, nobody has even begun to attempt to counter my image analysis. (It’s hard to attack my findings since they are probably accurate.)
In other blog entries (not on the COLB topic) my intentional misinterpretations are usually done tongue-in-cheek.
#31 Ray on 2008-08-15 23:37
[HONOLULU ADVERTISER] - Comment from Hawaii Health again.
“They responded and apparently it isn’t good enough that he posted his birth certificate,” Okubo said. “They say they want it because they claim he is not a citizen of the United States. It’s pretty ridiculous.”
TINYURL: http://tinyurl.com/6o4rpw
The author does not allow comments to this entry
It' a lot easier to read an extract, or a summary of it.
