You’ve heard of those who can’t see the forest for the trees? Well Polarik can’t even see the trees for the leaves.

In this post over at Banana Republic, Polarik tries to defend his bullshit claim that the top fold in the document shown in the FactCheck photos is diagonal, compared to the top fold shown in the scanned image which is straight.

You also don’t understand the principle of perspective: objects further away from an observer will look smaller than objects close to the observer. Yet the the distance from the border to the fold on the left side is greater than the right side. It’s like 123 pixels to 145 pixels.

Take a look at photo 5 and you’ll see that the distance from the fold to the top inside edge of the border does not vary in any significant way.

Measure it. You’re slicing soime more balooney I’ve measured it before removing the perspective as well as afterwards, and I’ll post a few pictures.

THe fold on the Kos image is horizontal and parallel — not so for the FactCheck image

Polarik just can’t seem to pull his head out of Pixel Land (otherwise known as his ass).

In a previous post in the same thread, I’d given some simple instructions so that anyone with a pair of eyes would be able to determine for themselves that the top fold shown in the photos was not folded diagonally, and that it is indeed the exact same fold that appears in the scanned image.

But apparently Polarik can’t follow simple instructions so I guess I’ll just have to borrow one of his crayons and draw him a picture so that even his tiny short bus brain can grok it.

topfold.jpg

The top portion of the image is from FactCheck photo 5. I’ve numbered the pairs of horizontal bars that are just below the fold. As you can see, at the first pair of bars, the fold is just above it and right at the ends of the vertical pair of bars. Following the fold along to the right, you can see that it gradually gets a bit further above the horizontal bars, until at 18, the bottoms of the vertical pair of bars is a bit below the fold.

The bottom portion of the image is from the FactCheck scanned image and I’ve numbered the pairs of horizontal bars corresponding to those in photo 5. As you can see, the fold has the exact same location and follows the exact same path above the exact same horizontal bars in the scanned image as it does in the photograph.

So now how can this be the case, and Polarik’s claim that the fold in the document in the photo was diagonal compared to the scanned image also be the case?

Quite simply, it can’t. The fold in the document shown in the photographs is the very same fold shown in the scan.

k

Advertisements