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.
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
Koyaan's Weblog 
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 30, 2008 at 5:49 pm
polarik
Stretch Marks II: The Wrath Of Polarik.
August 20, 2008 at 12:48 pm
koyaan
There’s nothing left to say except you’re a stupid fucking retard.
k
——————————
And you said that you never said that.
“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 you have never had an original thought on this, either.
Oh wait a minute. Who else, but you, thinks that if you cut off the white space around an image, you’ve created a new image? How whacked is that?
For you to make that claim of there being “no conclusive and convincing evidence that the image and photos are fake,” you have to either know for a fact, or believe, that the COLB image is rea,l OR, you have to admit that you know jack-squat about what makes an image a forgery.(BTW, I never said that the images are “fake”).
So, which is it Steve? Do you believe that it’s real, or is it that you know jack-squat about image forgery?
Let me answer this one for yaa. You really do know squat about image forgery. YOU would not know one even if it bit you on the butt. YOU are the one who constantly says, “you’re wrong,” and, your equally lame, “blah-blah-blah, which is incorrect.”
Think that I haven’t proven a forgery? Go find me some “scanner artifacts” that produce pixel patterns like the ones in the Kos image?
If you can’t, and you won’t, then you lose once again.
Think that I haven’t proven a forgery? Go find a second fold in the Kos image that is so clearly present in the photos?
If you can’t, and you won’t, then you lose once again.
Oh, I have no doubt that you will provide a bunch of non sequiturs, interspersed with ad hominem arguments, that you THINK others will believe…but those do know what is, and is not, an image forgery…will see it for the baloney it really is.
Once a loser, always a loser, Steve. This L is for you.
You’ve always been a loser, Steve.
So, who’s the liar, here Steve? Who’s the one who’s full of baloney, Steve? Who’s the real loser here, Steve?
No one but you.
And, do you even know why you are a loser, Steve? You’ve always been a loser in everything you’ve done in life. Outside of your little Cyberworld, you have no life. You grew up in a world where you were never loved by your parents. You’ve been bullied all your life, and now your taking out your childish frustrations on me. You use foul language because, in reality, you are really a wuss. So, you hide behind this veneer of invincibility, thinking you’re “all that.”
But, you’re nothing. Zilch. Zip. Zero. Nada. you’re nothing more than a stain on my computer screen…like a squashed bug. Nothing but a pair of flapping gums…and a total waste of white space.
Loser.
August 30, 2008 at 6:05 pm
koyaan
Just a quick comment before I reply.
PLEASE NOTE THAT POLARIK DID NOT ADDRESS
ONE SINGLE ISSUE THAT I BROUGHT UP IN MY POST. NOT ONE.
That’s because he is both a coward and a weasel. Whenever he makes retarded claims that get shot down, he resorts to responding with nothing but personal attack making himself out as a “victim” to try and cover the fact that he simply has no defense for his retarded claims.
And note that I said “nothing but personal attack.” I have also made personal attacks against Polarik, but typically the accompany substantive arguments against his retarded claims. Substantive arguments that Polarik cannot offer any defense for.
k
August 30, 2008 at 8:41 pm
elliewyatt
“Polarik intentionally misleads”
“cherry picking”
“nonsensical bullshit”
“erroneous and misleading”
Or, as Alexander Haig would say, “terminological inexactitude. Also, a tactical misrepresentation”.
In other words: FUCKING LIES.
August 30, 2008 at 9:04 pm
elliewyatt
Since we’re doin’ quotes, here’s one for the freepers like Kevmo:
“If a lie is repeated often enough all the dumb jackasses in the world not only get to believe it, they even swear by it.” ~Billy Boy Franklin
August 30, 2008 at 9:23 pm
polarik
PLEASE NOTE THAT POLARIK DID NOT ADDRESS
ONE SINGLE ISSUE THAT I BROUGHT UP IN MY POST. NOT ONE
Why the heck would I waste my time responding to meaningless drivel from a loser like you? You think that what you’re doing is meaningful? It’s like farting in a space helmet. I could do what you do with both my eyes closed, and one hand in my pocket. It does not require much grey matter to say, “No, it’s not,” and then curse, and then post cropped pictures to obscure the truth.
Please…gimme a freakin’ break. You are a 5-yr old trapped in a 25 yr old body.
You could never do what I do because you have no imagination, no creativity, no insight, and no hrip on reality.
If you don’t like what I posted on Free Republic, then get on it and post a rebuttal.
Oh, wait. You’re banned from FR. What a class act you are, Steve. You leave a trail of garbage wherever you go. That’s why no real blog would ever let a pathetic loser like you post on their blog,
So, you go on Free Republic, STEAL THEIR MATERIAL, and sit back in the comfort of this cesspool you call a blog, and think up all kinds dumb, stupid, moronic titles for your verbal diarrhea.
What a sick, demented, no-brain, no-class, no stones loser you are.
If there were no curse words, Steve, you’d be at a loss as to what to say.
The only way that you’re going to make a contribution to society is to crawl back under that rock from whence you came.
ADDRESS YOUR ISSUES? You’ve got plenty of issues, Steve. You need professional help, Steve. You need full-time supervision, Steve, because without this cesspool of a blog where you think you sre a god, you just might lose whatever spark of consciousness you have left between the ears…right next to the “This Space For Rent” sign.
I was going to send you a few photos of a real 2007 COLB, and a real 2008 COLB — things that you don’t have, but cannot visualize – but, what’s the point?
You’ll crop them top fit your lies, which come really, really easy for a pathological liar like yourself, Steve.
Sorry, Steve but I’m done giving you a reason not to off yourself.
Guess that you’ll have to resort to making all of them up — a skills for which you deserve an OScar..
[Note: I rest my case – k]
August 30, 2008 at 9:30 pm
elliewyatt
“polarik” claims to be insulted by comments made about him, yet he persists in trying to insult my intelligence.
This latest load of crap about “tape”, “tear”, “stretched lines”, “dodge tool”, determinations of when the seal was applied, just takes the cake.
I can hardly wait for the next installment.
August 30, 2008 at 9:42 pm
elliewyatt
“a real 2007 COLB, and a real 2008 COLB”
So post them.
August 30, 2008 at 9:58 pm
koyaan
Stretch Marks II: The Wrath Of Polarik.
August 20, 2008 at 12:48 pm
koyaan
There’s nothing left to say except you’re a stupid fucking retard.
k
——————————
And you said that you never said that.
I said no such thing.
You said that you had to turn off comments on your blog because of my calling you, among other things, a “f*cking retard.”
I never called you a “f*cking retard” on your blog. I called you a “fucking retard” here, on this blog.
Which is why, as I said, your claiming you had to close down comments on your blog because of my calling you, among other things, a “f*cking retard” was being less than honest. Why would you have to close down comments on your blog for something that was never said on your blog but someplace else?
How retarded is that?
“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 you have never had an original thought on this, either.
Oh wait a minute. Who else, but you, thinks that if you cut off the white space around an image, you’ve created a new image? How whacked is that?
And once again you’re being less than honest here when you say “cut off the white space around an image.”
The matter at hand here had to do with cropping out everything in the original image outside the outer printed border. This is not simply “the white space” around an image as you disingenuously claim.
It is the difference between this, and this.
Again, not simply “the white space” as you disingenuously claim.
And when you crop out the rest of the image like that, you do indeed now have a new image. Because you clearly are not left with the original image.
I prefer to work with complete, original images. Helps keep things more honest and harder for people like you to manipulate and mislead.
For you to make that claim of there being “no conclusive and convincing evidence that the image and photos are fake,” you have to either know for a fact, or believe, that the COLB image is rea,l OR, you have to admit that you know jack-squat about what makes an image a forgery.
That’s incorrect.
To say that there is no conclusive or convincing evidence that the image and photos are fake is not predicated on the belief that they are genuine. To hold such a belief is a logical fallacy known as negative proof, i.e. x is true because there is no proof x is false.
So for you to say that the only way one can say there is no conclusive or convincing evidence that the image and photos are fake can only be predicated on believing they are genuine just shows that you don’t know “jack-squat” about basic logic.
So, which is it Steve? Do you believe that it’s real, or is it that you know jack-squat about image forgery?
And here you’ve just leaped from one logical fallacy to another. In this case, the false dichotomy, i.e. “Yes or no: Do you still beat your wife?”
So which is it, Polarik? Are you truly so clueless about basic logic, or do you intentionally use such logical fallacies and simply hope that your readers are clueless?
Let me answer this one for yaa. You really do know squat about image forgery. YOU would not know one even if it bit you on the butt. YOU are the one who constantly says, “you’re wrong,” and, your equally lame, “blah-blah-blah, which is incorrect.”
That’s incorrect.
I say “you’re wrong” and then I explain why you’re wrong, even going through the trouble of producing graphic illustrations to help substantiate my claims.
You’re the one who makes claims they cannot defend, ignores every argument made against your claims and is left with nothing else to resort to but trying to weasel out with silly obfuscations such as this.
Think that I haven’t proven a forgery? Go find me some “scanner artifacts” that produce pixel patterns like the ones in the Kos image?
And now you’re back to the negative proof logical fallacy.
Just as one cannot assume that the images are genuine because there is no conclusive, convincing evidence that they are fake, one also cannot assume they are fake just because you can’t find those “scanner artifacts” after doing an image search on the Internet.
Ultimately the burden of proof is on you. And you would do that by using a genuine paper COLB, scanning it in a wide variety of ways, and then showing that none of the scans showed any signs of the pixel patterns seen in the Omama image.
But you haven’t done that. And you’re not going to make your argument by simply stomping your feet.
However even though you have the burden of proof, let me just give you an example of what scanner and JPEG artifacts can do.
I don’t have a genuine Hawaiian paper COLB. However I do have a template based on the Michele COLB. So I laser printed it on a sheet of solid green paper.
Here’s a photograph of it.
greensheet.jpg
Next, I scanned it on an HP PSC 1510xi All-in-One using the default settings of the HP scanning software which came with the machine except for changing the resolution from 200 DPI to 300 DPI.
Here is the raw scan, straight from the scanner without any JPEG processing. I zoomed in at 9:1 and did a screen capture. I saved the resulting image with a JPEG quality factor of 1 (i.e. best quality) so that the JPEG processing had no meaningful effect on the image.
greenbirthraw.jpg
As you can see, even though what was being scanned was black text on a solid green sheet of paper, you can see a good number of white pixels around and between the letters and in the closed portions of the B and the R. Most of these pixels are full on, 255, 255, 255 white.
So how did we get these white pixels when we were scanning black and green? Did I use some White Out to remove some text and print over it again?
Nope.
Them’s is what’s called scanner artifacts.
Next I saved the raw scan as a JPEG. I zoomed in at the same 9:1 on the same “BIRTH” as shown above and did another screen capture.
greenbirthjpeg.jpg
While the JPEG processing effectively eliminated the full on white white pixels, notice what’s happened between the B and the I and the I and the R.
Whereas in the raw scan there were a good number of decidedly green pixels between those letters, the JPEG processing has turned the pixels between those letters virtually colorless.
And again, this is a scan that was taken from a sheet of solid green paper, as compared to the COLB which is printed on a white sheet of paper with a green background pattern printed over it with plenty of white left between the elements of the pattern. In fact, overall, there’s more white than green on the COLB.
Keep that in mind as you look at the same “BIRTH” from the FactCheck image under the same circumstances (i.e. zoomed 9:1 and screen captured).
obamabirth.jpg
I see nothing inconsistent here with what occurred in the scan on the solid green background.
And just for easier reference, here are all three images combined.
threebirth.jpg
So now, what does Polarik have left?
Oh yeah.
Think that I haven’t proven a forgery? Go find a second fold in the Kos image that is so clearly present in the photos?
From all evidence, the second fold in the Kos image is in the same place that the seal is in the original Michele COLB image (and the “eaten” portion of the seal in the Kos image). Nowhere.
The distortions in the paper due to the second fold simply didn’t rise to a level high enough to cast a sufficient enough shadow be captured during scanning.
I fail to see why the lack of a second fold in the Kos image somehow proves its a forgery, but the lack of a seal in the original Michele image does not.
And like that, Poarlik seems to be left with… nothing.
Once a loser, always a loser, Steve. This L is for you.
You’ve always been a loser, Steve.
So, who’s the liar, here Steve? Who’s the one who’s full of baloney, Steve? Who’s the real loser here, Steve?
No one but you.
And, do you even know why you are a loser, Steve? You’ve always been a loser in everything you’ve done in life. Outside of your little Cyberworld, you have no life. You grew up in a world where you were never loved by your parents. You’ve been bullied all your life, and now your taking out your childish frustrations on me. You use foul language because, in reality, you are really a wuss. So, you hide behind this veneer of invincibility, thinking you’re “all that.”
But, you’re nothing. Zilch. Zip. Zero. Nada. you’re nothing more than a stain on my computer screen…like a squashed bug. Nothing but a pair of flapping gums…and a total waste of white space.
Loser.
And that is what’s called “projection.”
k
August 30, 2008 at 10:34 pm
koyaan
Polarik had asked me to keep his EMail correspondence with me private. And I was perfectly happy to grant him that courtesy. However given that what he has spewed in his last two posts is rather at odds with what he had written in that EMail, I feel that he is no longer deserving of such courtesy.
Now, he may well deny having written it. And those reading this will not be able to truly know whether he did or he didn’t. You can believe whatever you wish to believe. And that’s ok with me because I have no interest in convincing anyone else to believe it. I post it in large part because whether he owns up to it or denies it, I’ll have discovered a truth about Polarik.
Dear Steve:
First of all, I would appreciate it if you kept our email correspondence confidential.
Secondly, I want to thank you from bringing to my attention any errors I’ve made. Your counter claims did lead me to reconsider those contentions of mine and to change them if I agreed with them.
Thanks to you, I have paired down on quite a few claims of the early claims I made about Dan’s 2007 COLB images vis-a-vis the FactCheck image. As I said, I do not lie or intentionally do anything that I knew beforehand was not 100% true. When you check back to my blog, you will find that I’ve deleted most of the faulty ones that you brought to my attention on Free Republic.
I’ve read your posts on FR and I know that you are fully capable of professionally debating an issue without resorting to name-calling. As far as what you have called me on your blog, I do not take them personally because I know that they give your blog anedgy and controversial quality. Perhaps that’s exactly what your audience needs and has come to expect.
I do respect your opinion when it is delivered, sans epithets, because you seem to be the only one of my detractors who actually provides visual, concrete evidence to support your contentions.
They also keep me “honest,” so to speak, even though I have never intentionally lied or stated information that I knew to be false. I am also being 100% honest by saying that you are, indeed, a worthy adversary when you choose to leave the demeaning comments at the door.
We are too, very opinionated people who are passionate about our individual analyses about a very sensitive issue. Although we may never see eye-to-eye on the basic veracity of the image and photographs, it is very helpful for those who have been on the outside, or even the periphery, of our “conflicting opinions,” because they would quickly get the jist of the differences.
It’s not rocket science here. There are only two, possible outcomes: either the image is a genuine copy of Obama’s real paper COLB, or it is not. This dichotomy may never be resolved if it is relegated to the trash heap. There are lots of other issues that serve to differentiate the candidates, and this controversy may not even wind up as a footnote to the 2008 election.
Nevertheless, as the old saying goes, “In for a penny, in for a dollar.” You and I have both invested a lot of time and effort into this debate, and as long as the question is still in the air, I know that I not stop what IU’ve been doing for the past 12 weeks, and I also know that you’ll be there, right behind me, ready to deconstruct my work as you have done so well up to now.
Seriously, Steve. I would like you to give some thought to filtering out some of the unnecessary personla attacks on your blog. I truly beleive that your level of credibility will increase as a result of it.
Regardless of whether you incorporate any of the suggestions I’ve made, I would sincerely like for you to keep this conversation just between the two of us. However, I would also appreciate it if you would also encourage your readers to keep it clean and professional.
I have no way of moderating or deleting comments, so if you would like me top post some of yours, email them to me, and I will be happy to do so, if you will promise, in return, to stop the vulgarities on your blog.
Thanks,
Ron Polarik
k
August 30, 2008 at 10:39 pm
koyaan
Oh, just one thing.
So, you go on Free Republic, STEAL THEIR MATERIAL…
You might wish to read Banana Republic’s disclaimer:
All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Then do a little research on the fair use doctrine before you talk about my stealing anyone’s material.
k
August 31, 2008 at 11:26 am
elliewyatt
Interesting bit on Cannonfire this morning regarding ‘TechDude’.
August 31, 2008 at 11:58 am
koyaan
Thanks.
Yes, it is quite interesting.
Though whether Techdude was Fink or someone else, there’s absolutely no question that his analysis was fabricated.
And if it was Fink, someone should bring this up with the various associations he belongs to. As Patrick pointed out, most of them have codes of ethics and conduct and Fink sure as hell threw those out the window with this sham of his.
k