And then, when asked could they describe why his analysis is “nonsense”, at least two have said that they have neither the time nor the interest in slogging through 160 pp of “nonsense”.
I don't know if I'm one of the ones you're referring to, but if so, I never described it as "nonsense." I have no expertise in image analysis, and asked for help - to be directed to the section that dealt with one particular set of images Polarik posted. He refused, saying I had to read all 160 pages. Much of the first 20 or 30 pages I did read were attacks on others and declarations that he is right and others are wrong. Now, that may be true, but it does not help me understand what he is saying from a scientific perspective, gives me no incentive to read the rest, and makes me doubt that this is indeed a scientific analysis.
I'm still interested in analysis of the images and the implications, but surely it could be stated more clearly and conscisely, or broken into sections for those interested in specific issues about the COLB?
I've slogged through Polarik's report and I think he's done a magnificent job of proving the internet copy posted on the Daily Kos, and wherever else, is a manipulation. But, so what? It's not proof of Obama's place of birth. I'm not disparaging the man for his work, I just don't see it's inclusion in a debate of where Obama was born and whether or not he's a natural born citizen.
You can parse his work however you want but it is simply not proof of where Obama was born or even where he wasn't born. I don't know for sure but I would suspect the reason many don't read his 160 pages is exactly the aforementioned fact.