In a comment to Dr. Neal Krawetz regarding Krawetz’s Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis Part II, Polarik demands that Krawetz remove the article, print a retraction, and publicly apologize to him:

You have made slanderous accusations against my person, and have besmirched my character, by spreading lies and using deception to misrepresent my work.

You have falsely accused me of “tampering with images” and “manipulating evidence.” These are blatant lies.

You have also slandered and falsely accused me of “selectively ignored facts, and overlooked obvious findings. He has made over-reaching and gross assumptions, which vary from baseless to provable inaccurate.”

Yu have besmirched my nname by stating that “I have serious doubts about Polarik having a Ph.D., but he sure has a lot of BS.”

You are hereby directed to remove the offending post, “Bad Science: How not to do image analysis, Part II,” to print a retraction that will be distributed, and lastly, you will publicly apologize for the harm you have already caused me.

And the consequences if Krawetz refuses to comply to these demands? Will he be slapped with a multi-million dollar libel suit?

No no. Much worse than that.

Polarik will turn tattle-tale on him:

If you choose to ignore my demands, you risk being exposed to the world for the fraudulent actions you have taken.

That’s funny, I thought Polarik had already exposed to the world, on Free Republic and elsewhere, the fraudulent actions Krawetz has taken.

Or is Polarik referring to some other world?

Polarik’s bottom line?

You have until Thursday, December 17, at 6Pm to comply.

Stay tuned for the big showdown!

k

There had been an ongoing discussion between myself and user CTN over at the Center Left blog. However Center Left chose to ban CTN so I am opening this thread so that our discussion may continue (others are free to join in as well).

Since I had the last word over on Center Left before the ban, the floor is yours, CTN.

k

UPDATE: THE PERSON IN THE VIDEO IS NOT POLARIK!

I’ll be addressing this issue in my next comment. Stay tuned!

END UPDATE

Everything that guy just said is bullshit. Thank you. –Vincent LaGuardia Gambini

I will address each of the claims made in the video in separate comments to this post.

k

Polarik has finally posted his final report over at Banana Republic.

So, let’s begin.

Let’s start with “Recognizing ‘red flags’ in an image forgery” which would more accurately be titled “Recognizing ‘red flags’ when someone claims to be an expert.”

However, the distortion patterns that I initially found when examining the text in the Obama COLB image, were ones that are not produced by either a printer, scanner, or the compression factor of the JPG image. Critics of mine have tried to explain away these patterns as “scanner artifacts” or “JPG arifacts,” but to no avail.

It’s to no avail because Polarik keeps sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting “Blah! Blah! Blah! I can’t hear you! Blah! Blah! Blah!”

The anomalies that I found should not be there if a document was faithfully scanned from an original paper document. Yet, these anomalies are there for all to see, and are proof-positive that the text in an original image was deliberately altered, after the image was created, by someone using an image editing program.

Here Polarik has it exactly backwards and belies his claims of actually having experience with graphics and imaging.

You would NOT get such artifacts using an image editing program nor has Polarik provided any evidence of such artifacts being produced by using an image editing program to add or alter text in an existing image. In fact, I have not seen any evidence that Polarik had ever so much as used an image editing program before he started writing about the COLB back in June.

The artifacts are in fact consistent with scanner and JPEG artifacts.

Previously, I had laser printed a blank certificate template onto a solid green sheet of paper and scanned it. Here is a blow up of “BIRTH” from that scan in raw form, i.e. just as it came from the scanner (WordPress cuts off part of the image, so just right click on the image and select “View image” to see the whole image):

greenbirthraw

As you can see, even though the original document was nothing but green paper and black printing, the scanning resulted in white pixels around, between and within the letters.

And here is a blow up of the same scan after it has been saved as a JPEG and undergone JPEG processing:

greenbirthjpeg

Notice that while in the raw scan, and in spite of the white pixels introduced due to scanner artifacts, there were distinctly green pixels between the B and the I and the I and the R. Now those same pixels, after having gone through JPEG processing, are now virtually colorless. Notice also that the green has been diminished within the closed portions of the the B and the R.

And again I remind you that this was a scan of printing on a solid green sheet of paper, not a sheet of white paper with a green pattern printed on it.

Here is “BIRTH” from the Obama certificate:

obamabirth

And here is “BIRTH” from the Michele certifcate.

michelebirth

As you can see, there is no significant difference between the two. They both bear the same artifacts of scanning and JPEG processing.

Moving on:

Any text made by a typewriter, laser printer, or even inkjet printer, on a piece of colored paper, would have that color showing between the letters. When the paper is digitally scanned, it would still have some of that color showing between the letters. What it would not have, are only smeared, black & white pixels between them.

And yet, as has been shown, even when printed on a solid green sheet of paper, the combination of scanner and JPEG artifacts can significantly effect the color between letters.

I said it from the start, and I’ll say it yet again, Polarik has absolutely no business talking about graphics and imaging. Whatever claims he makes with regard to “experience” are either fabricated or he has learned nothing in all those years.

k (aka Trallfaz)

Well it seems that the COLB issue has pretty much run its course, and the summer slump will be coming to an end soon. So I’ll be going back to focusing my attention on things audio rather than political. I’ll keep the blog up and will continue to receive EMail notices of any posts. But unless something new comes up, I won’t be posting.

My thanks to those who have contributed here. It’s been fun. Feel free to drop me an EMail or give a call to shoot the shit.

Ciao for now.

k

redpoint

TexasDarlin re-posted a Palin-Obama Comparison Chart.

While I was glancing over it, one entry rather stuck out to me. And that’s this entry under Foreign Relations experience:

Governor of state that borders two foreign countries (Canada and Russia)

Alaska borders Russia? That’s rather like saying Florida borders Cuba.

But be that as it may, while Alaska does indeed border Canada, the US Constitution prohibits states from engaging in foreign relations. So Palin could have no more foreign relations experience than anyone else who happened to live in Alaska, or any other state which shares a border with Canada or Mexico.

Who dreams up this goofy shit? Is Polarik doing some moonlighting now that the whole COLB thing is coming to an end?

k

UPDATE: My reply at TexasDarlin was not allowed (surprise). Polarik continues hiding behind skirts.

From Polarik over at the newly-named td blog:

Since being a member of WordPress entitles everyone to comment on others blogs, I would like for everyone here to voice their support for TD and I, who have been repeatedly slandered by Steve Ellis, aka Koyaan. in his libelous blog posts. Personally, I want to file a libel lawsuit against him, to put him in his place. But, short of that, I wonder how he would stomach several hundred TexasDarlin supporters telling him to zip his grille.

I posted the following reply there (I’ll post an update here if it ever shows up there):

Seeing as I have been specifically mentioned in a comment here, I think it only fair that I be allowed to respond to it.

Polarik is just miffed because I keep pointing out to others that he can’t seem to get anything right and having a little fun at his expense along the way.

For instance…

Polarik:

Since being a member of WordPress entitles everyone to comment on others blogs…

That’s incorrect. The owners of individual blogs control who can and who cannot comment on their blogs. WordPress members are not entitled to post on other people’s WordPress blogs without permission of their respective owners.

I would like for everyone here to voice their support for TD and I, who have been repeatedly slandered by Steve Ellis, aka Koyaan.

See? He can’t even get my name right. Even though he’s received close to a dozen EMails from me, several as recently as a few days ago (when one receives an EMail from me, my full name is in the From field).

Personally, I want to file a libel lawsuit against him, to put him in his place.

I’m sure that will come as quite a surprise to Steve Ellis.

But, short of that, I wonder how he would stomach several hundred TexasDarlin supporters telling him to zip his grille.

Anyone here [there] is more than welcome to post on my blog.

k

And in hindsight, I should have added this:

…who have been repeatedly slandered by Steve Ellis…

Slander is defamation by spoken word. Libel is defamation in written form.

Again, just can’t get anything right. That’s three errors in just one short paragraph.

k

Just found this new thread from Polarik over at Banana Republic.

It’s ultimately just more of the same. Throw out a bunch of nonsensical bullshit and see how many morons you can get to unquestioningly lap it up.

What do you do when you have to remove evidence that does not support your claims?

Easy. I provide other evidence that does support my claims…

This should more accurately read:

What do you do when your previous bullshit claims have been shot down?

Easy. I just start a new thread and make up more bullshit claims…”

Like the overuse of Photoshop’s DODGE tool to artificially lighten the fold and erase the text on the left-hand side.

Artificially lighten the fold and erase the text on the left-hand side?

Whatever “experience” Polarik may claim to have, it’s pretty clear that photography isn’t on that list.

And the text that Polarik claims was so nefariously erased from the FactCheck photo he presents as his “evidence,” appears in no less than four of the other photos.

text1.jpg

text2.jpg

text3.jpg

text4.jpg

So the folks at FactCheck go through all the trouble to erase the text on the left-hand side in one photo, but completely forget to erase it in four other photos. I guess we can only conclude that the folks at FactCheck are as retarded as Polarik for them to have overlooked that.

Like creating an iridescent area in the Seal

I’ve no idea just what definition of “iridescent” Polarik is using here, but I see nothing in the image he offers as proof that indicates any sort of iridescence. I just see the light, shadow and texture that would be expected when the primary lighting is at a highly acute angle of incidence.

Also, while he names the file “birth_certificate_1-grayscale.jpg,” it’s not exactly a grayscale image.

In a true grayscale image, the RGB values of the pixels will be the same. In other words, for a given shade of “gray,” the values of R, G and B will be the same. It’s the value itself which sets the shade of gray.

However in the image Polarik provides, while the values of R and G are pretty much consistent, the value of B is consistently lower than R and G. So the image does have some color to it. Perhaps it’s this slight tinge of color that’s being passed off as “iridescent.” If it is, then it’s erroneous and misleading.

Like the background being comprised of two long, stretched lines instead of two short lines that should be separated by white space.

Not quite sure what he’s referring to here. I suspect he means the “stretched” lines shown in the center of this image:

lines1.jpg

As you can see, the vertical pair of lines appear to be stretched and too close together, and the two pairs of horizontal lines on either side appear to be compressed and too far apart.

And I have to admit, this does look rather odd in the image Polarik provides for his “proof.”

But as he’s done before, he’s left something out. And in this case it is the fact that the image he uses for his “proof” has been rotated 90 degrees to the left from its original orientation. Let’s take a look at those same lines in the original orientation of the photograph:

lines2.jpg

In its proper orientation, our brain’s visual perception can make a bit more sense out of it and we see that nothing’s been stretched, it’s simply foreshortening caused by the acute angle at which the photograph was taken.

And if we look at the very same lines from another photograph taken at a more direct angle:

lines3.jpg

We see that there’s absolutely nothing unusual about them at all.

Polarik, just as Techdude did, is cherry picking what he chooses to show his readers in order to mislead them.

Like intentionally cutting off the top of the Seal because it was applied BEFORE the COLB was folded.

Oops.

I meant to say that the COLB was folded BEFORE the embossed Seal stamp was applied.

Polarik provides absolutely zero evidence that the COLB was folded before the embossed stamp was applied and I see absolutely nothing in any of the photos indicating that it was.

Again, just like Techdude, Polarik makes a wholly unsupported claim and expects readers to unquestioningly swallow it.

Like having a well-defined second fold that can be seen in the photos, but that cannot be seen in the image, even under image enhancement.

This is nonsense that has already been addressed here. But just as a reminder, the seal in the Michele COLB could not be seen, even under image enhancement. It ultimately had to be enhanced with pencil lead and re-scanned before it could be seen. Polarik continues to ignore this fact in order to intentionally mislead others.

Like making the deepest Seal impression ever seen in a 2007-2008 COLB.

This is a bullshit apples and oranges comparison. No one has provided any photos of a 2007-2008 COLB other than the Obama COLB. And as I have already explained, there is a huge difference between taking a photograph of a three dimensional object where the main lighting is coming in at a very acute angle of incidence, and a scanned image of a flat surface where the lighting and imaging element are perpendicular to the surface.

Again, in spite of his protestations to the contrary, Polarik intentionally misleads.

Like never showing all of these pieces in one complete photo

Which proves absolutely nothing.

Please bear with me. I will reduce these photos. FactCheck made them this big, and I did not want anyone to say I manipulated them (except for the rotated gray-scale.

Why don’t you just learn a little simple HTML and put them in as links instead of vomiting a shitload of large images on the page?

I meant to say that the COLB was folded BEFORE the embossed Seal stamp was applied.

This caused a tear in the COLB which they taped up with Scotch tape before taking photos of the front side of the COLB.

It is the reason why all of the photos of the reverse side of the COLB only show the Seal below the tear.

Sorry for the first sentence being redundant. I just include it here for completeness.

There is absolutely zero evidence of any tear anywhere in any of the photos. None. Yet based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, Polarik claims that they taped it up this tear with Scotch tape and that’s why they don’t show anything in the photographs of the back side of the document above the fold

This claim is right up there with Techdude’s claim that Obama’s sister’s name could be made out in the image. It comes straight out of thin air and Polarik’s imagination.

Also, for what it’s worth, the rough texture of the paper on which the COLB was printed is not found on 2007-08 COLL=BS.

It’s worth absolutely nothing.

The paper’s texture is only evident in the photos due to the lighting’s highly acute angle of incidence. A condition which does not exist in a scanner. That Polarik compares photographs taken of a three dimensional object under completely different lighting conditions to a scanned image just further indicates that he has absolutely no experience and no business talking about graphics and imaging.

k

Just noticed this over on Banana Republic:

We’ve already had way too much bluster and way too much empty rhetoric from folks, who, like yourself, are tilting at windmills and biding their time until this “dust up” simply blows away like so many leaves in Winter.

Trust me, That is not going to happen. The heat is going to be turned oin “incinerate” after the Labor Day weekend, and if I was a forgery doubter, I would not want to be in the vicinity without some SPF 5000 sun screen to splash on my body.

I’ll be waiting with baited breath.

In the meantime, everyone have a great and safe weekend!

k

Here’s a laugh that’ll last you the weekend.

Over on Banana Republic Polarik writes:

The court in which I have presented a claim is the court of public opinion, which is solidly behind those who believe that this Obama COLB image is as phony as a $3 bill with Barack’s face on it.

Let’s see.

He has presented his claim on his own blog, where he has a track record of closing off comments when opinions aren’t in his favor. Check it out. I see an “Email It,” I see a “Print It,” I see a “Trackbacks,” and I see a “Flag as Offensive.” Don’t see no “Comment.”

He has presented his claim on TexasDarlin, who selectively censors comments posted there.

And he has presented his claim on Banana Republic, where within an hour of my having posted a thread addressing the claims made by Polarik and others, my account was suspended.

Court of public opinion?

What a joke.

k

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.