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.





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:


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:


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:


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.


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.