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)

Advertisements