tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2616261316550803840.post3738405199077450391..comments2024-03-17T03:13:50.328-04:00Comments on Barackryphal: Polarik's "Breaking" News is BrokenUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2616261316550803840.post-41547095404459529212011-08-20T10:51:40.416-04:002011-08-20T10:51:40.416-04:00h2ooflife: Yes, it is provable, but first of all, ...h2ooflife: Yes, it is provable, but first of all, , you got the size wrong. <br /><br />What ison Snopes is an image 1024 x 1000 pixels and I am the first and only person to produce an image that size. Any others you see are either mine or made from mine.<br /><br /><br />Aslo, what is on Snopes is not simply a resized version of an existing image: it is one that I created using the image posted on Factcheck June 16, 2008. <br /><br />To prove that the Kos image was a version of the Factcheck image that blog owner, Markos Moulitsas claimed he trimmed (but never said why he trimmed it), and that the original image posted by Fight The Smears in a PDF (for only 16 hours though) on June 12, 2008, contained a 42% direct reduction of Markos trimmed image, here is what`I did:<br /><br />I trimmed the Factcheck image exactly as Markos had trimmed his. Since he resaved his image at 44% quality using an unknown editor, my goal was to make an image comparable to his in terms of quality, color, color count, and file size.<br /><br />That was the first step.<br /><br />Markos' image contained the same Photoshop Exif data as in the Factcheck image, but it was not saved in Photoshop.<br /><br />The next step was making a replica of the image that appeared in the PDF file to be the same file size as the 2nd image posted on fight The Smears - one that was not made from the Kos image since its dimensions were 585 x 575 - and did not match up with the Kos aspect ratio.<br /><br />I also made it have the same file size as the 2nd FTS image, of 110k, and also keep the original Photoshop Exif data in it.<br /><br /><br />Also, since the image on Snopes is the my image, i.e, the only one to have the Photoshop Exif data along with the original file size of the Kos image, 2427 x 2369px, and 110k, that clearly proves it is my original image and mine alone because i have the intermediary image - the Kos-sized version of the Factcheck image.<br /><br />That Kos-sized version is idiosyncratic as well and that image has never been posted on the Internet.<br /><br />True, these images were not "original recreations" of the Obama forgery like the ones I have now, but they were intented to prove that the Obama Campaign - and now the Obama Administration - has never had its own images to post.Dr-RJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11483183372880260477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2616261316550803840.post-79644514320464318072011-08-16T21:29:32.756-04:002011-08-16T21:29:32.756-04:00I think you totally missed the point that he was t...I think you totally missed the point that he was trying to make. He was mostly interested in demonstrating that instead of the White House being in possession of a real hard-copy from Hawaii that they could themselves easily scan, or photograph and post on the WH website, they instead resorted to linking to or obtaining an outside version that had no certified attestation behind it, whose origin was not something they could prove. If they were the creators of the first image that DailyKos mysteriously obtained, then why was that never publicly made known? There would be no reason to hide that fact, unless it weren't factual.<br /><br />Point 2. Dr. Pollard may be guilty of what others are guilty of, which is in referring to his original COLB as being a fake, when it was not his creation at all but merely a re-sized version that matched standard screen resolution of 768 X 1024 pixels. I believe his account is that he replaced that with an altered version in March 2011, years after it was online unaltered. <br /><br /> Still, it seems his claim that what is on the Snopes.com or White House servers are versions of his re-sized version are not provable since anyone can re-size any image to screen size. If he had sized it at 1023 or 1025 pixels, then his claim would have credibility -if that were the size of the other versions. But as usual, we are left with many unanswered questions instead. <br /><br />see my extensive LF COLB expose and fake SF at http://photobucket.com/obama_bcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2616261316550803840.post-54844677041061460742011-08-13T05:56:07.772-04:002011-08-13T05:56:07.772-04:00This is a very clear exposition of the facts. Cong...This is a very clear exposition of the facts. Congratulations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2616261316550803840.post-86062875434302590792011-08-13T05:01:01.737-04:002011-08-13T05:01:01.737-04:00Good explanation, Loren. I'm glad you have lot...Good explanation, Loren. I'm glad you have lots of saved Polarik data- his claims are going to get crazier and crazier over time, and will need a rational debunking such as this. <br />-obsoletePeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16616303081221656544noreply@blogger.com