Replies

Another talking point ad nauseum, regarding Polarik:

“He’s just a nobody on the internet so there is no credence in his analysis of the authenticity of the web posted COLB”.

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”.

If Polarik’s detailed analysis is useless because he’s just a guy on the internet and Polarik is not his real name, then what the freaking he!! are their repetitive comments worth?!?! Why mess around with the internet at all, using screen names? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

BTW, Red, you’re points are dynamite.

(Courtesy ping to Polarik since I mentioned your name.)

neither the time nor the interest in slogging through 160 pp of “nonsense”.

I'm sorry, LJ, but immediately after posting THIS I decided to look into the COLB fraud issue. I did slug my way through the 160 pages, several times. A very large part of it is unreliable, in my opinion. I was looking for the best arguments within it, but gave up because it is really such a mess.

So I started looking at the Obama image documents myself, and eventually came to the conclusion that Polarik really should not be held in such high esteem. You can search my posts for the threads where the discussions took place. He has been abusive, but not at all helpful. I'm sorry you had to hear it from me.

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”.

If you've been paying attention, one issue, the issue of the seals, has already been discussed. If you'd care to point to something else specifically, I'll be happy to offer comment.

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?