Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Meet Ronald Jay Polland

Allow me to introduce you to someone you may already know:



This is Dr. Ronald Jay Polland. He received a BA in Psychology from Florida State University in 1970, a Masters in Educational Research from FSU in 1972, and a Doctorate in Instructional Systems from FSU in 1978. His curriculum vitae lists the other accomplishments he finds noteworthy. He holds himself out as an expert on surveys and market research.

As of a few years ago, he worked in the Office of Institutional Research at the University of North Florida, where he helped conduct surveys and generate statistical reports. For instance, he wrote this Satisfaction Survey of A & P Employees. Polland is not currently listed as being on staff with that office, and it is unclear what his current occupation is.

However, surveys and statistical reports are not the only aspect of his life. He is the "President and Founder of Dr. RJP Consulting, an international consulting firm," begun in 1989. Polland's previous corporation, Innovative Systems, Inc., was involuntarily dissolved by the state of Florida in 1988.

Polland also has deemed himself an expert on dating. As he writes on his MySpace page, he is an "Expert advisor on relationships, romance and .. dating," and describes himself as "a psychologist by training who has devoted part of his life to helping others with questions and issues related to .. relationships, romance and dating."

He writes the following about how he came to find and recognize this expertise:
"His interest and research into Internet dating began in 1995, the year following the end of his 23-year marriage. His search for a woman to date also brought him into contact with many others who had previously used the Internet to find romance. From his own experience and the experience of others, he noted that both men and women often misrepresented themselves on the Internet. He found that people often lied about their age, looks, background, and occupations to others they met online."

With its talk of online misrepresentation, I imagine this passage is more autobiographically ironic than it was perhaps intended to be. Because if you have not realized it yet:

Ron Polland is Ron Polarik.

As you can see, Polland/Polarik does have the educational degrees he named in his anonymous declaration. He does not hold the other degrees he has claimed: a Masters in Statistics, a Masters in Experimental Psychology, and a Doctorate in Experimental Psychology. Additionally, the proper title for his doctorate is Instructional Systems, not Instructional Media.

It is, perhaps, ironic that the one and only time Polarik accurately named and represented his degrees was in a document that he refused to sign either his real name OR his online pseudonym to.

Also, despite specific (yet contradicted) claims that he was writing under his real last name, or that "I never said that Polarik was a pseudonym," it can now be firmly acknowledged that 'Polarik' is not his real name. Which is, of course, in agreement with the other occasions when he did say that 'Polarik' was a pseudonym.

Given Polarik's history, I fully expect him to respond to this revelation by trying to direct attention to the discrete details he's given that weren't lies. The degrees that he does have, as opposed to the ones he made up, or the false insinuations of technical expertise that he tried to draw from his educational resume. If he addresses his naming at all, I expect him to attempt to convince people that a mere history of misrepresentation shouldn't make him untrustworthy. That people shouldn't doubt his expertise in computers and scanners simply because he's not actually an expert in those things.

Because as is readily evident from his C.V., his education, and his work history, Polland/Polarik has no discernible expertise in computer forensics, digital imagery, or document examination.

I feel I should repeat that with emphasis: Ron Polland/Ron Polarik has no discernible expertise in computer forensics, digital imagery, or document examination.

His trade is in statistics and surveys. He has no degrees relating to computers or technology. He is not a computer expert; he has used computers. He is not a scanner expert; he has used scanners. At best, he is an amateur photography buff. He may have a doctorate, true, but it is in a field wholly unrelated to computer technology. Just see Florida State University's program profile. Even had he signed his real name to his 'XXXXXXXXX' declaration, he still would not have qualified as an expert in the field in which he was attempting to provide expert testimony. Polland would never survive a Daubert challenge, and any lawyer would be foolish to attempt to pass him off as an expert on these matters.

Thus, when Polarik was identified by Phil Berg as one of "three (3) Document Forensic Experts", this was a gross misrepresentation. A gross misrepresentation that Polland must not have minded, as he had his reports posted on Berg's website, without any comment or correction.

Contrast this lack of technological expertise with the credentials of one of his leading critics, Dr. Neal Krawetz. Krawetz holds a Bachelor's in Computer and Information Science, and a doctorate in Computer Science. His specialities are in computer security, software development, and computer forensics. Krawetz has given presentations on how digital images can be manipulated.

And what was Polland's response to this critic who has immensely more education and expertise with computers and digital forensics than himself? "[Krawetz is] a charlatan who falsely used his credentials to fool others into thinking that he is more than qualified to critique my research;" "He doesn't know what scanners can or cannot do;" and "I can say, flat-out, that Krawetz does not have anything close to the research skills I have."

Admittedly, Polland is correct on that last point; Krawetz does not have skills that are comparable to Polland's. Krawetz's relevant skills are far, far superior to Polland's. I refer any and all interested readers to Krawetz's criticism of Polarik's 'research'.

If all of this sounds comparable to the TechDude incident from last year, that's because it is. TechDude passed himself off as an expert in a field where he had no such expertise, declared that he'd made a bunch of stunning discoveries, a lot of people bought into his armchair 'forensic research,' and he was eventually exposed as a phony. They both even doctored their evidence. The reason why Polarik defended TechDude right up until the day he was exposed as a fraud was that Polland simply lacked the expertise to recognize TechDude's errors. Errors that Neal Krawetz, incidentally, did not miss.

The key difference between Polarik and TechDude is that TechDude only managed to pull off his charade for a month. Whereas Polland has managed to stretch his out for over a year.

Don't let him continue it any longer.

41 comments:

  1. Bravo Loren, Bravo!

    I eagerly await the story of how you found him :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, how'd you do it?

    -Patricia

    ReplyDelete
  3. Whoa, awesome. :-0

    This is me, bowing.

    Oh, and . . . YEAY!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Seems like a WAG...(wild assed guess) with really no proof whatsoever but hey dont let me get in the way of defamation lawsuit waiting to happen...

    ReplyDelete
  5. mrscsi - Maybe if he's lucky, "Dr Polarik" can get Orly to represent him in said lawsuit.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  6. HAHAHA! Cannot wait to hear his spin on this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Polarik" has informed me via EMail that he is not Ronald Jay Polland.

    So it would appear that he is doing the same thing that the infamous "TechDude" did; falsely claiming the bona fides of another person.

    k

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, I don't.

    I was simply pointing out in a rather sarcastic fashion that whether one believes him or not, either he's Ronald Jay Polland, or he's pulling a TechDude.

    k

    ReplyDelete
  9. K
    Yeah, kinda hard to imagine that an unrelated "Ron Polland", with credentials that match XXXXXX's credentials almost perfectly and with the same vitriolic hatred for muslims as Polarik.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If he got a bachelor's degree in 1970, that makes him about 60. That's not a recent picture then.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah, that makes him about 60. And he claims to have been a graphic artist for 50 years. Which means he must have become a graphic artist at the tender age of 10. ;)

    k

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. TechDude copied the credentials line from line from an "Adam Fink", which is one of the things that tripped him up. Either Polarik IS Ronald Jay Polland, or Koyaan is right and Polarik swiped Dr. Polland's credentials to boost his own.

    The problem is that Dr. Polland has voiced the same hatred of Muslims that Polarik has, which tends to lend some credence to the idea that he is Dr. Polland.

    ReplyDelete
  14. patgund wrote:

    Either Polarik IS Ronald Jay Polland, or Koyaan is right and Polarik swiped Dr. Polland's credentials to boost his own.

    Whether or not Polarik is pulling a TechDude, he does share one particular trait with TechDude, and that is he just makes shit up he knows not to be true and tries to pass it off on idiots who don't know any better, like TechDude's claim that Obama's half-sister Maya's name could be seen in the scanned image of Obama's certificate.

    There is no better example of this than the claim Polarik made today over on Free Republic:

    I have a $100 Canon scanner that I used to make real scans: ones that clearly show the texture of the paper, clearly show the Seal and both folds, and accurately reproduce the actual color and appearance of a real COLB.

    But, what they did instead, was to make a single scan image that does not show the texture of the paper, does not show anything more than pieces of the Seal, does not show both folds, and does not accurately reproduce the actual color and appearance of a real COLB.

    I began my research on June 13 of last year with a very simple hypothesis: "

    Is it possible to naturally produce an original scan image like the one posted online?"

    The answer is, "No."

    The fact that I am the only one to take an original scan of a real COLB and make it look like the Obama COLB "scan" - and to document what I did to do that, should be telling, in and of itself.

    Basically, the bottom line is that you cannot take a real COLB, put it on the scanner, any scanner, and simply press SCAN, and expect it to come out looking like the Obama COLB "scan." You have to manually manipulate the image itself by changing the color balance, blurring, then sharpening the image, and saving it more than once.


    Polarik knows this is not true and what puts the lie to this claim is the scanned image of the Michele COLB which has been residing in his Photobucket album since last summer:

    http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/SKMBT_C45008071717410.jpg?t=1221868947

    As you can see, there is no fundamental difference whatsoever between the scan of Michele's COLB and the scan of Obama's.

    You cannot see any paper texture. The only evidence of folds is where the toner has been chipped off in the borders. And there was no seal visible until it was gone over with some pencil lead and re-scanned.

    According to Polarik himself, this COLB was scanned using a Konica Minolta BizHub C450.

    Whatever Polarik's real name is, he is a fraud and a charlatan.

    k

    ReplyDelete
  15. "If he got a bachelor's degree in 1970, that makes him about 60."

    According to the MySpace page I linked to, he's 61.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Time out.

    TechDude IS Adam Fink.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Loren, please email me - sluggojd@yahoo.com.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Can't recall why TechDude disappeared:
    adam@missouriforensics.com/
    http://www.missouriforensics.com/

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am not a computer scientist or anything else mentioned above. What I am is a motion picture art director.

    What does that have to do with anything? I spend part of practically every working day with graphic artists, producing fake documents of every kind.

    When I first read the analysis of "Dr. Polarik" it was immediately clear to me that he didn't even understand much about the basics of photoshop and illustrator, and he didn't have a clue about how a real professional would go about forging a document of this type. Believe me, if our graphic artists wanted to make a fake Hawaiian birth certificate, by the time they got done, you would not be able to tell it was phony from six inches away, let alone from a computer image.

    We often have a time span of hours to produce these things. With his whole life riding on it, I'm sure Obama could have done as well as us.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The detail that would complete the identification would be to show that Polland is a descendant of the Bulgarian financier Petko Strashnika. [No, I'm not joking.]

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dr. C, I know what you mean, but that assumes Polarik was telling the truth when he went off at Wikipedia.

    Have to be honest here...I cannot confirm Loren's conclusion at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Loren must have some Aces up his sleeve to make this connection...and I think I found one, that connects Ron Polland to Bulgaria - yes, Bulgaria.

    I won't link it. It's Loren's research, and he deserves all the mojo in the world if he is right. I'm sure he will be writing more soon...I would!

    ReplyDelete
  24. How to contact Dr. C.:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/contact/

    ReplyDelete
  25. http://www.scribd.com/doc/17882344/ZLiberiltrtoJudgeRobrenoreInjunction073009-73009

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ooops.

    We might have confirmation that Loren was right. From Philip Berg of all people

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/17882344/ZLiberiltrtoJudgeRobrenoreInjunction073009-73009

    ReplyDelete
  27. Good, I appreciate accuracy. But this information doesn't substantially change the fact that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosue.

    There isn't anything wrong with this lady's credentials.

    Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit that states, in part:

    After reviewing Dr. Polarik’s analysis, Sandra Lines says, “I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Dr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Sandra Ramsey Lines summary is posted at U. S. Law Blog.

    ReplyDelete
  28. You need a forensic document examiner to tell you that an online image cannot be relied upon as genuine? Duh.

    But "cannot be relied upon as genuine" is not the same thing as saying it is fake. You see, Lines has no real opinion about the online COLB because, as she admits in her affidavit, she gave it only a "cursory inspection." No documents examiner worth their salt would cursorily inspect a document and then declare it to be fake.

    Most importantly, there's no competent evidence to suggest that the online COLB differs from the paper COLB, as the birder "expert" on this subject has been exposed as a fraud. (Thanks, again, Loren!)

    The Hawaiian government has repeatedly and unambiguously stated Obama was born in Hawaii. For someone who claims to deal only in facts, you sure seem intent on avoiding them.

    "But this information doesn't substantially change the fact that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosue."

    Huh? Obama releases his COLB, and there's no competent evidence that it is fake, but Obama isn't practicing full disclosure?

    Try again.

    For those unaware, AtH runs the birfer blog, "The Steady Drip": http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  29. Folks, get with the program lol

    Loren has laid out his case in his newest post, which leaves no doubt that Polland is Polarik.

    And as Patrick posted, Berg has confirmed that Polarik has been "outed."

    Now then, who is Texas Darlin?

    ReplyDelete
  30. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=3571


    Seems Orly is confirming Ron Polland = Ron Polarik

    ReplyDelete
  31. where was obama born and what is he hiding?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Oh, you'se guys been punked -- by the White House no less! http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/08/dr-ronald-polland-white-house-posts.html

    ReplyDelete
  33. It must be a slow day at WND: they're trotting this guy out again.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Long time no see so excellent article, and I am very interested in your article, but also very much hope you can come to visit our websitePandora Jewelry&Pandora Bracelets

    ReplyDelete
  35. Long time no see so excellent article, and I am very interested in your article, but also very much hope you can come to visit our websitePandora Jewelry&Pandora Bracelets

    ReplyDelete
  36. This is very interesting, You are a very skilled blogger. I have joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your great post.Lingerie

    ReplyDelete
  37. Doesn't matter what his name is - the fact still stands, that Obama's Birth Certificate, as released by the White House, is clearly a forgery.
    Now ask your self, why did Obama give the State of Hawaii, $2,000,000.00? What did Obama get for giving Hawaii that much money?

    ReplyDelete