August 24, 2008:
"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.
"I've known that he was a fraud for a long time now, but kept it silent because my friend,TexasDarling, had bought into deception, as you did, Pamela...
"BTW, I stand behind my work, and have never made up suspicious alibis like TechDude did with his, "I've received death threats" which he used when his cover was blown."
August 25, 2008:
"PS: I'm sorry that you were taken in by TechDude. I feel badly moreso for you and TexasDarlin than I do for myself. It's tough to see someone plagiarize your ideas, and then get lionized by the blogsphere, while knowing, all along, that he was a con artist."
August 27, 2008:
I never trusted TechDude from the start and was suspicious of some of his claims, including the Hollywood-like "dead rabbit" in the mailbox trick, but I kept my thoughts to myself because Texas Darling and I are friends, and I did not wish to embarrass a friend who had trusted TechDude...
It sucked to sit on the sidelines while TechDude was sgetting all the accolades, and it also sucks now, because since the arguments raised against his research are now validated, it casts a pall on mine -- even though I stand behind everything I've done, and have never resorted to any tomfoolery to prove a point.
April 15, 2009:
"Now, I was the one who first discovered that Techdude was a fraud and I warned TexasDarlin, early on, not to trust him. My warnings about TechDude were ignored and she published his work anyway. She would, eventually, stop publishing his work, but not because he was a fraud -- she said that it was in response to TechDude's worries about his safety and the safety of his family. THAT story was bogus, the tale about the dead rabbit was bogus, and we now know that TechDude had stolen the identity of a real forensic document examiner, but when he couldn't do what he promised to do, he dropped out of sight using the excuses listed above.
"I knew that TechDude was way off the mark when I saw his preliminary work, and that a real forensic document examiner (which he had claimed to be) would never make such dubious claims)."
So there you have it: Polarik always knew TechDude was a phony. End of story. Just thought I'd share.
Oh, wait. The internet has a memory, doesn't it? Man, that's unfortunate:
July 20, 2008:
"Very nice work, TechDude, but it would have been better if you gave a little credit to others where that credit is due.
"It would also solidify your claims by adding the information from others that support it."
July 23, 2008:
"How can an article, posted on July 20, or a full month after my original proclamation that Obama's COLB image was graphically altered, be labeled as exclusive? I will admit that the techniques used by the author, TechDude, were not the ones I used to discover the forgery, and that he was the only one, to my knowledge, to have used them.
"For that, I'd like to offer a pat on the back to TechDude for the work that he did, but also a slap on the wrist, to both Techdude and Pam Geller for misleading the public by implying that they were the first ones to present evidence of a graphic forgery…
"Now, this is not to take away any of the work that TechDude has done, which is notable in its own right, and if you read my blog, you will see proper attributions made to him and his work...
"Also egregious is the fact that TechDude, myself, and TexasDarlin had agreed to publish a joint document, and, as you have now seen, one of us renegged on that agreement and stole the spotlight...
"I also confirmed that my critics and detractors, coincidentally, are also the same to TechDude and his research. It is safe to say that there will always be people who are antagonistic to others who reveal unpleasant truths...
"Hopefully, the critics and detractors will come up with their own clones made in the ways that they claimed. In the meantime, the evidence provided in my posts and in TechDude's posts far outweigh any evidence that the images are are genuine, accurate reproductions of a paper COLB document."
August 12, 2008
Why is Techdude unheard from now?
"Because this dumb-ass blogger blew his cover, and slandered both him and TexasDarlin in the process. I can tell you that I know who is TechDude, and that he is who he says he is, I can also tell you that he is temporarily laying low because of what these nutty Obama supporters will do."
I suppose I should acknowledge that in the course of his talking smack about TechDude, Polarik gave himself an 'out' for all his previous comments: he always knew TechDude was a fraud, but he "kept it silent."
Granted, it's a little surprising that in Polarik's August 10 rant about TechDude's research that while he was willing to complain about TechDude's conclusions, he didn't come close to calling him a fraud. And it's a little curious why, if Polarik knew TechDude was a fraud, he apologized for that post a couple of hours later. And it's very significant that Polarik didn't simply sit quietly on the sidelines while people fell for TechDude's act; no, Polarik was in there himself, actively praising and defending TechDude. In fact, IsraelInsider declared TechDude to be "so much hot air" on August 12, and Polarik was still actively defending him just two days earlier. The whole "kept it silent" excuse doesn't hold much water.
So it wasn't that he was keeping silent, but rather that he was simply lying the whole time. Y'know, to spare his friends' feelings. That's why he wrote praiseworthy comments in threads about TechDude's 'work.' That's why he said he was planning a joint document with TechDude. That's why he said that criticism of TechDude's verisimilitude was tantamount to slander. It was all part of his big ball of lies.
You can choose to believe that Polarik was lying during all those early weeks. You can choose to believe that Polarik has been lying since then, and never had a clue that TechDude was a fraud. Either way, he's firmly established himself as not only willing to lie to his audience, but willing to lie consistently and for extended periods of time.
So was he lying before, or lying since? Take your pick. The important thing to remember is that you don't have to choose just one.