Now anyone familiar with the Birthers would probably automatically suspect that the anonymous "Dr. XXXXXXXXXXXX" is actually the anonymous "Dr. Ron Polarik." I imagine this is pretty well-accepted among those of us who think "Dr. Polarik's" credentials are probably on par with Dr. Pepper, but I honestly don't know what the Birther community thinks on the matter. So, with the assumption that there may still be people out there who think that "XXXXXXXXXXXX" is actually a separate and distinct person from "Polarik," here's a side-by-side comparison of excerpts from XXXXXXXXXXXX's Affidavit, linked above, and "Ron Polarik's" Final Report, as posted on "Polarik's" webpage:
XXXXXXXXXXXX
10. Also, Politifact.org, a pro-Obama fact checking website, published a copy of the same image as posted on the Daily Kos, but also disproportionately reduced it to 811 x 786 pixels, or 1/3 of its size and 1/6 of its image quality.
Polarik
...Politifact.org, a supposedly nonpartisan, fact checking website that is unquestionably pro-Obama, published a copy of the same image as that posted on the Daily Kos, but was also disproportionately reduced it to 811 x 786 pixels, or 1/3 of its size and 1/6 of its image quality.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
11. Factcheck.org, a pro-Obama fact checking website posted a full-sized image copy of same document image that appeared on the Daily Kos and Obama's "Fight The Smears" websites. Factcheck's image copy was identical to the Daily Kos image copy, but was not cropped to the borders. Factcheck.org is run by Obama supporters and is funded by the Annenberg foundation through the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
12. Factcheck.org made the following statement to explain how they received their image copy:
Polarik
...Factcheck.org, a pro-Obama fact checking website ,posted a full-sized image copy of same document image that appeared on the Daily Kos. Factcheck’s image copy was identical to the Daily Kos image copy before that image was cropped. Factcheck.org is owned by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania; a center run by Obama supporters and funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Factcheck.org made the following statement to explain how they received their image copy:
XXXXXXXXXXXX
13. Three months later, no other "reporters" have ever received a copy of this "birth certificate" image, or any other birth certificate image, from Tommy Vietor or from anyone else connected with the Obama Campaign. As noted above, the only parties outside of the Obama Campaign to have ever received a copy of this "birth certificate" image are (a) The Daily Kos, a pro-Obama blog, (b) FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and (c) Politifact.org, another pro-Obama political research group.
Polarik
Three months later, no other "reporters" have ever received a copy of this "birth certificate" image, or any other birth certificate image, for that matter, from Tommy Vietor or any one else...the only people alleged to have received a copy of this document image from the Obama Campaign have been (1) Markos Moulitsas, the creator of the Daily Kos, a pro-Obama blog, (2) FactCheck, a pro-Obama political research group, and (3) Politifact.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
17...To validate my findings that the text in this COLB document image was intentionally altered, and that the pixel patterns were not naturally occurring printer or scanner artifacts, I made over 700 test scans and images using an actual paper COLB and different scanners. By trying different combinations of scanning and image parameters. I was finally able to replicate the Kos image so closely that other image experts thought it was the same Kos image, and not my "clone." From this date forward, when I first discovered the evidence of image tampering, and regardless of the unfamiliar format of the COLB and the questionable information it contained, I collected a great deal of additional evidence, that the scanned image alleged to be a true copy of Obama's original COLB was forged, and that this altered image of an official state-issued document is nothing less than a false identification document as defined by Chapter 18, Section 1028 of the United States Code.
Polarik
To validate my findings that the text in this COLB document image was the result of graphic alternations, and not a result of any printer or scanner artifacts, I made over 700 test scans and images using an actual paper COLB and different scanners that were subjected to different combinations of scanning and image parameters. I was finally able to replicate the Kos image so closely that other image experts thought it was the same Kos image, and not my “clone.”
From this date forward, when I first discovered the evidence of tampering, and regardless of the unfamiliar format of the COLB and the questionable information it contained, I collected a great deal of additional evidence, that the scanned image alleged to be a true copy of Obama’s original COLB was forged, and that this altered image of an official state-issued document is nothing less than a false identification document as defined by Chapter 18, Section 1028 of the United States Code.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
18. All of my findings pertain to a single source image from which the Obama Campaign made four (4) copies. These copies were posted to four different websites: FightTheSmears.com, DailyKos.com, FactCheck.org, and Politifact.com, as referred to and described above. These images are still posted on these websites, and are described in my Final Report,
Polarik
All of my findings pertaining to a single source image and the four copies made from of it that are still posted on the four (4) websites, DAILYKOS.COM, FIGHTTHESMEARS.COM, FACTCHECK.ORG, and POLITIFACT.COM, as referred to and described above, are outlined in my Final Report
XXXXXXXXXXXX
19. Slightly more than two months after the publication of the COLB image on the Daily Kos and Obama's Campaign website, Factcheck published a story, Born in the U.S.A., in which they presented nine digital photographs that they allegedly made of Obama's "real, paper COLB" at his campaign headquarters - the same COLB used to make the document image they posted on June 16. Without a doubt, the COLB image that Factcheck posted is a forgery, and that Obama's real COLB, as proffered by Factcheck, is a nonexistent document. Factcheck had created a conundrum: if the image Factcheck posted is a forgery of a nonexistent document, then how can any genuine photos be made of it? The answer had to be that both the document image and the photographs were all forgeries.
Polarik
...slightly more than two months after the publication of the image on the Daily Kos and Obama's website, Factcheck published their story about nine photos they claimed were allegedly taken of Obama's "real" COLB at his campaign headquarters – the same COLB used to make the document image they posted on June 16. There was no longer any question in my mind that the COLB image Factcheck posted is a forgery and that Obama's real COLB, as proffered by Factcheck, is a nonexistent document. However, Factcheck created a conundrum for me: if the image Factcheck posted is a forgery of a nonexistent document image, then how can any genuine photos be made of it? The answer had to be that both the image and the photos were forgeries.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
20. I have thoroughly examined the photographs that FactCheck published, and have subsequently found clear and irrefutable evidence of tampering in both the alleged COLB object they photographed and in the photos themselves. One of those COLB objects was, in fact, a printout of a forged document image with a Seal superimposed onto it. FactCheck's photos reveal both the absence of known, relevant features found on a genuine 2007 COLB and the presence of illogical and impossible features that would never be found on a genuine 2007 COLB.
Polarik
...I have thoroughly examined the photographs that Factcheck published, and have subsequently found clear evidence of tampering with both the alleged source of the photos, and the photos made of that source. Factcheck has committed sins of omission and sins of commission given that their photos reveal both the absence of known, relevant features found on genuine COLBs along with the presence of irrelevant and illogical features that would never be found on real COLBs.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
2l . With my experience and specialization in document imaging, my findings are conclusive and inefutable, as outlined in EXHIBIT "A," that the COLB images posted by Obama to his campaign website, fightthesmears.com, to the dailykos.com, a pro-Obana blog, to FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, image forgeries, created with the
intent to defraud the American People into believing that these images were digitally scanned from Barack Obama's genuine, "original" birth certificate
Polarik
With my experience and specialization in document imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB images posted by Obama to his campaign website, fightthesmears.com, to the dailykos.com, a pro-Obama blog, to FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, image forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these images were digitally scanned from Obama’s genuine, “original” birth certificate.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
22. With my experience and specialization in photography and digital imaging, my findings are conclusive, as outlined in Exhibit "A," that the COLB photographs posted by FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact photographic forgeries, created with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these digital photographs were
taken of Obama's genuine "original" birth certificate,
Polarik
With my experience and specialization in photography and digital imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB photographs posted by FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, photographic forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these digital photographs were taken of Obama’s genuine, “original” birth certificate.
Either "XXXXXXXXXXXX" is "Polarik," or "XXXXXXXXXXXX" plagiarized the living daylights out of "Polarik," and Orly allowed him to submit it as an affidavit of his own "findings."
So yeah, Orly, when you wrote "how did you know that XXX was Ron Polarik?", did you really think no one would notice that they wrote the exact same things? Or do you just imagine that everyone has the same reading comprehension level as yourself?
So all these folks were conspiring to defraud everyone? Is that what he was saying? I refer to factCheck and politfact. I know factCheck is funded by a foundation that I believe Chief Justice Roberts has a relationship with.
ReplyDelete"Third, Ron Polarik and Sandra Lines are not the only two forensic document experts that have examined these documents and weighed in on them. There is at least one other in the Berg case.
ReplyDeleteYes, Berg cited "TechDude" and even linked to his work early on at his website.
And Sandra Lines didn't say anything that Dr. Neil Krawetz didn't say as well. All she said was that you can't tell an electronic scan of something is authentic unless you compared it to the original. She never said it was a forgery.
BTW, for the record, I was the one posting as "A REAL American."
TechDude imploded after it was revealed that his huge and detailed list of credentials was stolen from a real person.
ReplyDelete