In this post over on Banana Republic, TheNewPundit said:

It has not been proven to be a forgery. That is a rumor that won’t die. The issue about a forgery is regarding a scanned image of the certificate. Factcheck held the actual certificate, not a scanned copy. It has the seal and the signature. If he were running around with a fake, the state of Hawaii would take issue.

Polarik replied with:

Care to bet on that? Logic goes right out the window when it comes to Obamassiah and his disciples. Which part of him is NOT crooked?

FactCheck has never produced anything real: printed or imaged. OBama has ducked it as well.

The image is a fake. The paper COLB is a fake. FactCheck forgot to remove some of those “Scanner artifacts” in their photos of it.

Followed by TheNewPundit with:

No problem at all. Name it.

Polarik tried turning the tables with:

If you can prove that the FactCheck scanned image is a faithful copy of Obama’s genuine and original paper COLB, ten I’ll give you $1,000

If you cannot do that, then it means that the FactCheck scanned image is not a faithful copy of Obama’s genuine paper COLB but, is instead, a forged image made to look like a real scan of Obama’s paper COLB. In which case, then you owe me a $1,000.

Deal?

TheNewPundit tried to turn it back around with:

Proof that is is real is the absence of proof that it is fake, therefore you are the one who has the burden.

Keeping with the retard tradition, Polarik finished up with:

Not at all true. First of all, double negatives are grammatically and logically incorrect.

Secondly, you are the one who threw down the gauntlet by claiming that an image forgery has not been proven, which you could only have made based on your knowledge and/or belief that the FactCheck image is real.

On the other hand, I’ve already provided 12 weeks of solid evidence that the FactCheck image is not a true copy of Obama’s genuine paper COLB, as well as evidence that the FactCheck photos are likewise unreal.

The burden, therefore, falls upon you to provide evidence that the image is a real, and you’re already 12 weeks behind in that department.

Citing the efforts of others who only think they’ve debunked my findings will not suffice either, because they are also based on the supposition that the image is genuine. Word-of-mouth will not suffice as evidence, especially when it comes from Obama supporters and/or funders. Personal beliefs won’t work either since they are not empirically testable. So, this is your big chance to do what no one has ever done — to prove the FactCheck image is real and not a forgery. I certainly will applaud that research.

I actually have problems with what both TheNewPundit and Polarik said. However, with regard to TheNewPundit, he was fundamentally correct, but argued it incorrectly. Whereas Polarik was simply wrong on all counts.

My problem with what TheNewPundit said was this:

Proof that is is real is the absence of proof that it is fake, therefore you are the one who has the burden.

While he’s correct that it is Polarik who has the burden of proof, absence of proof is not proof of absence. In other words, just because no one has bagged a Bigfoot does not prove that Bigfoot does not exist. All one can rightly say is that there is no proof that Bigfoot exists.

Similarly, just because no one has proved that the certificates are fake doesn’t prove that they are real. All one can rightly say is that no one has proved that they are fake. For anyone arguing the contrary, the burden is on them to substantiate that they are fake.

And now Polarik.

Not at all true. First of all, double negatives are grammatically and logically incorrect.

There wasn’t no double negative in what TheNewPundit said (as there is in what I just said). Not only does Polarik need to take a remedial course in graphics and imaging, he also needs a remedial course in grammar.

What TheNewPundit was guilty of was a logical fallacy known as negative proof, i.e. something must be true because there’s no proof that it is false.

Secondly, you are the one who threw down the gauntlet by claiming that an image forgery has not been proven, which you could only have made based on your knowledge and/or belief that the FactCheck image is real.

Wrong. A claim that an image forgery has not been proven may also be based on one’s knowledge and/or belief that an image forgery has not been proven.

On the other hand, I’ve already provided 12 weeks of solid evidence that the FactCheck image is not a true copy of Obama’s genuine paper COLB, as well as evidence that the FactCheck photos are likewise unreal.

All Polarik has done is provide 12 weeks of solid evidence that he has absolutely no business talking about graphics and imaging.

The burden, therefore, falls upon you to provide evidence that the image is a real, and you’re already 12 weeks behind in that department.

Again, all one can rightly say is that there is no evidence the image is fake. Polarik is saying the burden is to show him the man who isn’t there.

As I was going up the stair
I saw a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish, he’d stay away.

Moving on…

Citing the efforts of others who only think they’ve debunked my findings will not suffice either, because they are also based on the supposition that the image is genuine.

That clearly excludes myself as I have never argued from any position other than that of their being no conclusive and convincing evidence that the image and photos are fake. And I myself have had questions about the image. However those questions have ultimately been answered, and I must thank Polarik for answering the one nagging question I had left by producing another COLB with the same borders as those of the Obama COLB.

Word-of-mouth will not suffice as evidence, especially when it comes from Obama supporters and/or funders.

That excludes myself as well.

Personal beliefs won’t work either since they are not empirically testable.

No. But the evidence I have presented is, and it has shown Polarik’s claims to range from unfounded, to erroneous, to outright lies. Polarik has not been able to counter with anything more substantive than “you’re wrong” which is nothing more than personal belief.

k

Advertisements