Anyone who claims to be an "expert" on some subject, but resorts to slurs, name-calling, condescending remarks, ad hominem arguments, and defamation of character solely to prop himself up while denigrating another, has zero credibility regardless of whatever his resume says. I am, of course, talking about "Neal Krawetz," whose chronological resume below would make him about 101 years old. Now, if these job tasks were done concurrently, then when did he have time to eat and sleep?
As you will see, his resume seems to be a tad padded before he posted it to his blog, ne website, and the bulk of which consists of high-sounding imagery and very flowery titles with precious little of it to be found on Google.
Basically, Krawetz field of study is in computer security, not in image analysis, and his modus operandi is to baffle others with baloney.
Nowhere will you find ANY specific or related experience in "analyzing computer-generated images" beyond the possibility of an embedded virus in a JPG."
Like the time he said that he used Principle Components analysis (PCA) on the image. Since I have a Masters in Statistics, I called his bluff by asking him to tell me the values of all of the key output measures. No response.
------------------------------------------------
Here's his resume [with my comments in brackets]:
The company, Hacker Factor, was established in 2002 by Dr. Neal Krawetz.
Neal Krawetz holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Texas A&M University and a Bachelors degree in Computer and Information Science from the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Dr. Neal Krawetz operates Hacker Factor Solutions (www.hackerfactor.com) and specializes in non-classical computer forensics [for which I found five references, all to him] online profiling, and computer security. His research into anti-anonymity technologies [also sparsely referenced on Google] combines fields as vast as ergonomics and child development to artificial intelligence and theoretical biophysics. He is the author of Introduction to Network Security (Charles River Media, 2006) and Hacking Ubuntu (Wiley, 2007). His work experience spans small startup companies, academic and university environments, and large Fortune-100 corporations.[Very impressive, but no image analysis here]
* Computer Security (20+ years). Auditing systems and software for potential exploits, evaluating and assessing risk potentials, developing security-oriented solutions, tracing remote intruders, tracking undesirable email (Spam) sources, and training non-security-oriented software engineers. This work includes computer forensics and profiling.[Didn't he already say all of this above? Also there's no image analysis here either.]
* Software Development (25+ years). Custom software architecture, design, and development. Previous projects include large-scale e-commerce servers, web robots, VPN solutions, automated cryptanalysis tools, radio harmonic analysis, and billing systems.[Still sounds like a rehash of the same stuff above. No image analysis here]
* Computer Networking (15+ years). Recommending and implementing network solutions. Previous projects include numerous network-based software applications, network administration, integration, debugging and troubleshooting, designing solutions for network services and hosting, and physically wiring facilities for network access.[Deja vu? No image analysis here, either]
* Operating Systems (20+ years). In-depth knowledge covering a variety of operating systems including Unix, Linux, Windows, Macintosh, and other systems. Previous projects include software development, cross-system porting, and system administration. [Still no image analysis experience]
Yet, to hear him pontificate about my image analysis skills in a blog post called, "Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis," you'd think that he invented it. That is, until he drags in the slurs, name-calling, condescending remarks, ad hominem arguments, and defamation of character solely to prop himself up while denigrating mine.
You can read this stuff on his Blog post, "Birth of a Conspiracy,"
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/202-The-Birth-of-a-Conspiracy.html
Good post. The only thing I can see that directly relates the good doctor to image analysis is the phrase, “specializes in non-classical computer forensics”. I’ve met a few PhD’s who abusively lord it over others when in reality their PhD was a specialty in an unrelated area and they had no basis for being so dismissive. Keep up the good work.
One of the strong points of your current argument is that no one can produce these “scanning artifacts” that seem so critical to their case. Perhaps you could introduce what that might actually look like on a BC scan. Visuals always work better than words.