Actually, what I acknowledge are the following:
1. No one has ever been able to explain away the fact that the Seal on Obama's alleged 2007 COLB is not the same Seal used on a real 2007 COLB.
2. Every scan that I have made from a real COLB clearly shows the embossed Seal and the two folds (if the COLB had been folded for mailing). If someone had a real 2007 COLB, and one that had very pronounced impressions of both the Seal and the folds (as seen in the Factcheck photos of the same "document"), then there is absolutely no excuse for producing and distributing a scan image that does not have these features clearly visible to the naked eye. Unless, of course, there is no real 2007 COLB to begin with.
3. Anyone who suggests that there has been no manipulation to either the COLB image or the COLB photographs is a liar or an ignorant fool.
4. Anyone who implies that I am a liar, or that I fabricated my evidence, is a bald-faced liar himself.
The best advice I can give you or anyone else is to read what I wrote and judge for yourself. When these liars and fools start flapping their gums, flat-out ignore them as I do. Otherwise, whatever you try to say to them in writing will be immediately commented, line by line, with non sequiturs, oxymorons, empty invectives, irrelevant comparisons, pointless examples, and out-of-hand negations.
It's as if the Obama motto, "Yes, we can," has been flipped to say, "No, he didn't" with respect to my work.
I do not need to name anyone because the trademark of these trolls is to dominate every birth certificate thread they can find. They will monopolize the thread to such an extent that every other comment, no matter how pointless, ludicrous, and meaningless it is, will be from them.
They have one purpose in being on FR, and that is to obfuscate wherever and whenever they can, thwarting true FReepers from educating others.
Now, I fully expect them to tear this apart as I noted above, but as always, it'll go in one ear and out the other.
Thanks for the ping. “Out of hand negations” is exactly right. Doesn’t matter what facts or evidence is presented before them. They ignore it, and very shortly are repeating the exact same phrases as though no one else had ever said a thing. It’s the Big Lie tactic.
I agree with everything you said.
And if there were sincere people who disagreed with your statements or the statements of others, they would debate in a rational manner. And they would learn. Their arguments would make sense. They would not (as at least four have said) admit that they derive pleasure from sniping, and they would not use stock DU phrases such as “birthers”.
Polarik, why throw down the gauntlet?
Most pros would have the grace to acknowledge (as I believe you have) that there is (my words here) an indication of a seal on the dailyKOS image (2427x2369, 520 kb version). Anyone here can look at that image (100% magnification) and find it, now that they know where to look. Why not just say so? Why leave your supporters and detractors something to be divided on?
I completely understand putting a lot of work into a project, and then not wanting to entertain requests afterward. I myself am very much a "here it is, take it or leave it" kind of person. If I release something free to the world, I don't want people coming back with their personal wish lists or special requests on how that release could be better tailored to their needs.
I understand you did your work on your own time. Nobody would expect journal-publication quality word-crafting for a project like you undertook. Nobody would expect an error-free analysis. That said, your report has a number of rough spots. Some of that may just be omission of explanation... but how does one distinguish such omissions from errors in reason?
You collected a lot of ground-truth information on actual physical documents, and made us aware of seal changes and things like that. I suspect that that will be the biggest contribution, in the end, rather than any specific claims of image manipulation, but who knows.
On the other hand... I have always prided myself as a dragon slayer. And your points (3) and (4) were hotly spoken. I am really NOT interested in diving into the COLB verification business. I would like nothing more than to turn my attention to other matters. I also believe that there is little more to be gained from the digital image authenticity argument, beyond what has been done, except to keep embarrassments to a minimum. But, all said and done, I think that I would be hesitant to call as a witness someone who talks as hotly as you write.
Sorry all. I'm just trying to figure out what is what, and where those whats stand.
Great post Polarik. Trolling is as trolling does.
BTW, the obots love making snide little comments about you but I have yet to see any of them disprove your work.
Watch the name calling. As you told someone else, "what part of no personal attacks do you not understand?"
People have an absolute right to disagree with you. You are not infallible. You've posted your claims on this forum, among other places. If you expect that your claims should be above criticism then you have very unreasonable expectations.
Something is not a fact because you declare it to be. It must be proven. Your analysis fails in that regard in most respects. If I, or anyone else, chooses to explain that, it is our right to do so. Doing so does not imply you are a liar, it implies you are wrong. Keep it civil, or ignore it. Your choice.
A rational person understands that disagreeing about such matters is not an attack on the person. Yet every time anyone has disagreed with you, you've engaged in angry rants. Such behavior does not raise confidence in your ability to stick to objective facts in your work. You should stick to the issues.