In my old thread over on Banana Republic, Milligan wrote:

How many forensic document experts examined OB BC?
Can’t rely on factcheck.org experts….conflict of interest here.

Kevmoron replied:

None. Because Obama hasn’t offered the document for examination. But there have been Technical Guys that have examined the electronic version offered on Obama’s FightTheSmears website and they’ve determined it to be a forgery. One of the premium examiners is the freeper Polarik.

And over on pissant’s thread, TheNewPundit wrote (in part) to Polarik:

You claim that no one has refuted your evidence, yet your evidence wouldn’t hold water in a court of law.

To this, Kevmoron replied:

It’s already holding water in a court of law, Berg Vs. Obama. The judge has not thrown out the lawsuit as trivial because the evidence is strong enough to consider.

The evidence is strong enough to consider?

What a rube Kevmoron is.

The “evidence” with regard to the COLB presented in Berg’s case is the “evidence” of the infamous Techdude. On his website Berg says:

My deepest thanks and appreciation our forensic analyst’s unwavering commitment to the truth despite the threats and harassment, the slashed tires and the dead animal on his porch.

The analyst is an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association – the list goes on. He also a board certified as a forensic computer examiner, a certificated legal investigator, and a licensed private investigator. He has been performing computer based forensic investigations since 1993 (although back then it did not even have a formal name yet) and he has performed countless investigations since then.

Yup. That’s Techdude alright.

The same Techdude who was exposed as a fraud. The same Techdude who was found to have been fabricating his “evidence.” The same Techdude whose articles were pulled off both TexasDarlin and NoQuarter because even they could no longer deny that they had been duped.

And if Kevmoron doesn’t believe me, he can take it up with the “premium examiner” Polarik, who just this past Sunday over on Atlas Shrugs said this:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but TechDude is a liar and a fraud who fabricated evidence, and outright stole the ideas of others.

So much for the case not having been thrown out because the “evidence is strong enough to consider.” The case wasn’t thrown out because Berg did not exercise due diligence and fed the judge a steaming pile of fraudulent bullshit. Something the judge will not be made aware of until after the defendants have been served and their motions to dismiss have been filed.

k

Advertisements

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

I just checked out my thread over on Banana Republic and found this new post from Kevmo.

He says:

I found this article on Media Matters. Free Republic does not allow it to be posted as a separate thread. The weird thing is that I can’t find the claim on the WorldNutDaily website. I would expect this article to be taken down soon from the Media Matters website as an embarrassment.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808260014

Even WND disputes Corsi’s phony Obama birth certificate claim

Unfortunately the embarrassment is Kevmo’s.

Here’s the World Net Daily article:

Democrat sues Sen. Obama over ‘fraudulent candidacy’
Lawsuit disputing U.S. citizenship based in part on discredited claims

Actually the article is about Phil Berg’s lawsuit and makes no mention of Corsi. However both Berg and Corsi are parroting the same things so it’s rather a distinction without a difference. It seems Media Matters was looking to add some irony to the story (since Corsi writes for World Net Daily).

k

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

While a couple of posters at Banana Republic have asked that I have posting privileges restored, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. So for those who may have some interest, I’ve started this thread for replying to the comments posted over there. I will post them as separate comments in this thread.

k

I guess being away from politics as long as I have has caused me to forget just how utterly batshit crazy some people can be.

I posted this thread over at Free Banana Republic earlier this afternoon. Within an hour there were shrieks of “TROLL!,” the title of my thread was changed, and my posting privileges revoked.

Someone there posted a link to this blog, so if anyone from over there would like to ask any questions about or take any issues with what I’d posted, they’re more than welcome to do so here. I won’t stoop to the cowardice that was displayed over there.

k

Well, it seems that someone has nuked Free Republic, so instead of writing my “A Case Against The Cases Against Obama’s ‘Birth Certificate'” thread, I thought I’d talk about “swear words.”

In a comment in the “Again, I say Polarik is full of shit” thread below, Polarik goes on a self-righteous rant about “swear words.”

Just a few snippets:

Inside my class, you would never hear the filth that seems to give you a kind of perverse pleasure — much like a serial killer feels after mutilating a body. No, they were a lot more mature than this bunch of potty mouths.

However, the person I hold responsible for taking an open forum down to the depths of depravity, as if he thinks that he can score debating points by showing off his repetoire of excrement euphemisms.

No one is going to seriously take anything you have to say when it is peppered with curse words…

The truth is that I have answered him every time, EXCEPT, when he resorts back to his nasty habit of using swear words.

Let me just start by saying Polarik, you’re a fucking hypocrite!

If you check out his latest post on his blog, it begins with this:

What’s This, FactCheck??

WTF? Gee, what’s that mean?

Of course anyone who’s been online for any length of time will come to know that “WTF” is an acronym for “What The Fuck?”

Polarik would likely try to weasel out with the excuse of “But I didn’t actually say ‘fuck’.” While technically true, it’s ultimately a distinction without a difference. Anyone cluing in on the “WTF” (which is clearly what Polarik intended) who knows what it means will have “What the fuck?” conjured up in their minds, making it fundamentally no different than if he had literally said “What the fuck?”

Again, you’re a fucking hypocrite. If you’re going to get all high and mighty about “swear words,” you don’t use acronyms like “WTF” which contains not only an implicit “swear word,” but the worst “swear word” of all.

Moving on…

I don’t believe in “swear words,” or “curse words,” or “bad words,” or whatever you would like to call them. They’re just words. Believing in “bad words” is about as irrational as believing in the Tooth Fairy.

Many times I have tried to engage in rational discussion with those who do believe in them. Why exactly is a particular word a “bad word” I’ll ask. “Because it is” is the most common first response. Ok. But why? “Because many people find them offensive.” Ok. But why exactly do they find them offensive?

It’s usually at this point that most will become frustrated, defensive, and end the discussion. Becuase the “why” is something they don’t want to come to grips with, much as the child often resists coming to grips with the fact that there is no Tooth Fairy, there is no Santa Claus, and there is no Easter Bunny.

The “why” is simply that others have tried to condition us to be offended by certain words. Just like so many Pavlov’s dogs. And some to the point that they’ll never even stop to question their conditioning and become irrational about it.

It’s also highly hypocritical (which is really just another form of irrationality).

If you say for example, “I fucked up,” many will shriek in horror. However if you say “I screwed up,” most of those same people would hardly raise an eyebrow. Hell, you can even hear people say “I screwed up” on primetime broadcast television.

Why is that? Screw means the exact same thing as fuck and is used the exact same way. Yet fuck is “the mother of all bad words” while screw is pretty much ok.

Well, put simply, screw just doesn’t have the hundreds of years of Pavlovian conditioning behind it that fuck has. Fuck has been around since about the 16th century. Screw, when used as a euphemism for fuck, hasn’t been around nearly so long.

You see, whenever the status quo firmly establishes a given word as a “bad word,” others find ways around it. Loopholes if you will. The status quo is so distracted freaking out over words like fuck, words like “screw” tends to escape their notice and hence the same level of Pavlovian conditioning.

Same thing with shit and crap, damn and darn, hell and heck, etc.

Hypocritical and irrational.

And the irrationality goes beyond just the words themselves. For example, dismissing an argument because the person making the argument used a “bad word.” As if should Einstein have said “E equals MC fuckin’ squared,” it would have invalidated it.

There is no Tooth Fairy and there are no “bad words.” Our language is a rich and dynamic one. Words like “fuck,” “shit,” are just words. They can be used to provide a little seasoning, or to more succinctly express how we feel at the time. Like anything else they can be overused, but the words themselves are harmless.

And on that note, allow me end this post by saying…

GIMME AN F!

k

Quoth Elliewyatt.

It’s worse than that, Ellie. The boy’s retarded.

Remember the signature stamp that was barely visible, even under heavy image enhancement? Remember how this amorphous blob was located way off to the left side of the COLB?

No, I don’t. I remember that the PD COLB had the signature stamp way off to the left. But not the signature stamp on the Obama COLB.

Well, now it’s clear as day, right smack dab in the middle with the date stamp riding directly above it. Not only are date stamps never placed right above the signature block on any existing COLBs was on the forged COLB.

Date stamps are never placed right above the signature block on any existing COLBs?

Is not the Michele COLB an “existing COLB”?

Here is the back side of the Michele COLB (which I had previously downloaded from Polarik’s own blog site):

micheleback.jpg

Well what do you know? There’s the date stamp right above the signature block.

And as for the signature block on the Obama COLB being placed way to the left, this is a load of horse shit. The signature block on the Obama COLB (along with the date stamp) are in the same place that they are on the Michele COLB, approximately in the middle of the page.

To highlight the blue ink of the date and signature stamps, I pulled the FactCheck image into PhotoShop 5.0LE, went to Color Balanced, set it for Shadows and Preserve Luminosity, then pulled the Cyan/Red slider all the way to the right (+100) and the Magenta/Green slider all the way to the left (-100).

Here is the result after mirroring the image:

stamp1.jpg

And here is the same image with some notations:

stamp2.jpg

A is an area which has a concentration of rather indistinct blue ink.

B shows a vertical element.

C shows a rounded element.

D shows another vertical element.

E shows a somewhat rounded blob, followed by yet another vertical element, followed by another blob.

Next I cropped the date and image stamp from the image of the back of the Michele COLB, set it to approximately 50% transparency and overlaid it on the stamp1 image.

Bingo.

Here’s an animated GIF to help illustrate:

stamp.gif

As you can see, A corresponds to the “I CERTIFY…” text block of the image stamp. B corresponds to the “l” in Alvin. C corresponds to the top of the “O” in Onaka. D corresponds to the upper portion of the “k” in Onaka. And E corresponds to the upper portion of “Ph.D.”

You can also see the signature stamp corresponds to other, less distinct elements.

Anyone who takes seriously anything Polarik has to say needs to have their head examined.

k

Just as it says.

k

I just got off the phone with Daniel Amon at the Selective Service System and he confirmed that he indeed had provided Bob Owens with Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration information.

k