"Ron Polarik" Continues to Rewrite History

After being all but silent on the Townhall blog for the better part of a year, "Polarik" yesterday offered up a huge revelation:

It's Official! Hawaii never issued Obama's 2007 Certification of Live Birth

Last year, while working on my final report, Obama's Born Conspiracy, I called Hawaii's DOH and asked to speak directly to Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii State Registrar and Head of the Office of Health Status Monitoring (OSHM), of which Vital Records is a part. I posed as a writer doing geneology research, knowing that if I portrayed myself as yet another investigator seeking information on Obama's birth records, that I would be immediately shot down. Strictly speaking, I was collecting vital record information on Obama's heritage, after all...

Then, I slipped in the the following question. I asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama's birth information on it, and he quickly replied:

"Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it."

That promptly ended the conversation as Dr. Onaka was not going to respond to any more questions from me. Since then, Hawaii has not answered anymore questions about Obama's birth record from anyone.

First off, it's important to point out that "Polarik"s story doesn't match up with "Polarik"s headline. If we take the story at face value and as fully true, he still fails to claim that anyone in Hawaii admitted they didn't issue it. He claims Onaka denied that anyone had previously confirmed it, and he specifically bolds the portion that he apparently finds significant, but he does NOT claim that Onaka actually disputed issuing it.

So "Polarik" can't even write a headline without getting something wrong. But that's not what I want to focus on.

No, I want to draw attention to a parenthetical of "Polarik":

(BTW, I noted this conversation in an earlier comment, on FreeRepublic.com).

Clearly, an attempt by "Polarik" to head off the obvious question of "Why hasn't he ever mentioned this conversation from last fall before now?" So in anticipation, he cites the best evidence he has, a post he made...on June 16. Last month. Not exactly "last year," when he claims the conversation took place.

However, the fact that "Polarik" has suddenly claimed that this event happened nine months ago allows us yet another opportunity to demonstrate how malleable history is for Mr. "Polarik." First off, let's consider all the times that "Polarik" has actually shared this conversation:

June 16, 2009 - "Last October, I spoke directly with Hawaii's State Registrar and head of Vital Records, Dr. Alvin Onaka, about an image showing what is called a, "Certification of Live Birth," or COLB and he confirmed what my research proved: that Obama's COLB, dated June 6,2007, was never released to anyone by the State of Hawaii."

July 8, 2009 - "Last year, I spoke with the Hawaii State Registrar, himself, Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, who provided me with the following bit of information. When I asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 COLB, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama's birth information on it. He said, 'Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it.'"

July 14, 2009 - "Last year, while working on my final report, Obama's Born Conspiracy, I called Hawaii's DOH and asked to speak directly to Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii State Registrar and Head of the Office of Health Status Monitoring (OSHM), of which Vital Records is a part. I posed as a writer doing geneology research, knowing that if I portrayed myself as yet another investigator seeking information on Obama's birth records, that I would be immediately shot down..." He goes on to describe an extended conversation where Onaka allegedly answered several pedantic questions about Hawaiian vital records before allegedly answering the Obama question and THEN hanging up.

Notice that in just the last month, the story of the conversation has gotten longer and more dramatic.

More curiously, for a conversation that "Polarik" now considers to be so groundbreaking and revelatory, it's strange that he never mentioned it prior to June. Maybe it's just that the opportunity to talk about Mr. Onaka never presented itself.

If only that were true:

November 22, 2008 - "In fact, if the name matches one on file, all you will get back is about the same as what Directors Fukino and Onaka said about Obama -- that a birth record exists."

AND

"[IMPORTANT NOTICE] On Oct 31, 2008, the Directors of Health (Fukino) and Vital Statistics (Onaka) in Hawaii confirmed that there is a "birth record" for Obama in this database."

*No mention of the alleged October conversation with Mr. Onaka.*

December 18, 2008 - "Quote: Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said today she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate. (True, but Lie#5 based on how [Krawetz] used it)"

*No mention of the alleged October conversation with Mr. Onaka.*

December 29, 2008 - "The following points come from my conversations with Vital Records staff and the State registrar, Alvin Onaka..."

*No mention of the alleged October conversation with Mr. Onaka.*

January 26, 2009 - "I spoke with the State Registrar, Alvin Onaka, back in July, and one of the things I asked him was if Hawaii followed the Census guidelines for race classifications. Call him yourself if you want to know what he told me."

*No mention of the alleged October conversation with Mr. Onaka.*

Yes, apparently "Polarik" wants us to believe that he had some kind of astonishing conversation with Mr. Onaka a whole nine months ago that completely validates his argument, and he simply completely failed to mention it until now, even when he wrote his 'Final Report,' even when he was talking about Mr. Onaka, and even when he was talking about other conversations he supposedly had with Mr. Onaka.

Frankly, after so many alleged calls to Mr. Onaka during the middle of 2008, I'm half-surprised that Onaka wouldn't start to recognize the voice on the other end of the phone. I'm sure he gets a lot of calls, but how many can he get from mainland folks wanting details on things like COLB borders and seal placement?

Who knows, maybe "Polarik" really did call Onaka in October. But if he did, you can rest assured that Onaka didn't say anything to validate "Polarik"s work. Because if he had, you would've heard about it long before now. And if you trust "Polarik" to accurately recall a conversation from nine months ago, remember that he couldn't accurately recall his own comments about TechDude, his own academic credentials, or even his own father's name over much shorter timespans.

The Secret Meaning of "Polarik"

As we've seen, "Ron Polarik" has inordinate difficulty keeping his educational resume straight, and he was very much 'for' TechDude and his research before he was strongly against him. Factual consistency is, sadly, not his strong suit.

So let's cut him a break and focus on what should be the absolute simplest aspect of "Ron Polarik": his name.

First off, "Polarik" did not exist before June 2008. On June 13, 2008, his first post was made to the Townhall blog he set up, The Greater Evil.

He has a one-sentence biography at Townhall: "I have studied the Arab-Israeli conflict for 30 years." Strangely, I've never seen "Polarik" mention this bit of alleged expertise anywhere else.

"Polarik" created a Yahoo account on June 16, 2008.

"Polarik" then created a FreeRepublic account on June 22, 2008. His 'About' page states "The first (and only) authority on the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth."

There was also a "Polarik" who posted a blog comment on June 9, 2008, on the subject of gun control. Interestingly, the post takes a pro-gun control position.

During those first several weeks, he was only "Polarik." Not "Ron Polarik". Not "Dr. Polarik." Not "Dr. Ron Polarik, PhD." Just one name, like Bjork, or Liberace.

Then, on August 10, 2008, he signed a TechDude-related apology as "Ron Polarik." I believe that's the first time he gained a first name.

Two days later, the newly christened "Ron Polarik" had a few words about the nature of his name:

"Take it from someone who has also been harassed by Obama supporters, that writing under a screen name may be the only thing that saves your ass from these insane Obamanites.

Those who criticize other people for using a screen nickname instead of their actual name need to crawl back under the rock that's been on their heads since the Internet first became a social network.

Good gosh, without pseudonyms, people would have online handles like johnsmith2004387, and who has to spend all day deleting his SPAM mailbox of emails for the other two million John Smiths in the world.

My take on some of these bloggers that I know who use their real names is that they are such egotistical narcissists that they get off anytime others write to them, using their real names.

Having THEIR blog referenced by another, more well-known blogger is simply nirvana to them."

If we hadn't known already, here we essentially have a confession that he uses a pseudonym.

September 6, 2008 was, of course, the first time he declared that he had a previously-unmentioned doctorate. After this, the "Dr." and "PhD" started appearing alongside his name often. Especially after he shared that he had a second previously-unmentioned doctorate. For instance, his Final Report has "Ron Polarik, PhD" prominently displayed at the top.

October 25, 2008:

"She still does not get it that Ron Polarik is a real name, NOT a screen name,"

So it's not a pseudonym. That is, until it was again when he offered up an origin for his internet handle on October 30, 2008:

"My first name is Ronald. Polarik is my father's last name and also is my 'screen name.'"

Yet, higher up in the same post:

"She still doesn't get that Polarik is a real name, not a screen name."

So "Polarik" manages to simultaneously claim that "Polarik" is a screen name and NOT a screen name. Let's not even bother with the inconsistency of his claim from five days earlier that "Ron Polarik" was a real name.

As I pointed out in my post on "Polarik"s credentials, his own claimed resume necessarily puts his age in the mid-sixties or early-seventies, at the least. This would put his father upwards of 80. The Social Security Death Index reports a grand total of ZERO persons with the surname "Polarik." RootsWeb WorldConnect, a user-submitted genealogy database, also has zero "Polarik"s.

In his pixel-faced YouTube video on November 25, 2008, he shared why he was concealing his identity:

"I’m concealing my identity because I have received threats from people who are loyal to Obama and who don’t want the truth to be known"

Contrast that explanation with the explanation given in his anonymous Declaration in December:

"I am submitting this opinion anonymously because I work for a government contractor and need to remain anonymous in order to keep my employer free from any ramifications due to presenting this opinion. In addition, my family needs the opinion to be anonymous due to the nature of my work."

On November 29:

"Ron is my real first name, and Polarik is what I got from my Father's real last name. I don't sign sworn and witnessed TWO Affidavits if I am a fraud or don't exist."

This could just be a matter of phrasing, but whereas "Polarik" was previously "my father's last name," now it's "what I got from my Father's real last name." That's not quite the same thing. One implies that "Polarik" is his father's actual surname, the other suggests that it's only a derivative of the actual surname. The second is the more plausible, if only because actual people named "Polarik" seem to be in short supply.

Also, despite his claim of having signed two sworn and witnessed Affidavits, a grand total of ZERO signed and witnessed Affidavits have actually been produced for anyone to see.

"I don't sign two affidavits if I'm a fraud."
"What affidavits are you talking about? Where are these affidavits?"
"Sorry. Can't say."

By December 18, 2008, he had taken to signing his posts "Ron Polarik, PhD, MS." He also included this:

""Anonymous pseudonym" is an oxymoron, and given that my name, Dr. Ron Polarik, is known around the world, I am hardly "anonymous." Krawetz uses the term, pseudonym, as a pejorative to imply that I am a "fraud." The truth is that "Dr. Ron Polarik" is the first person to blow the whistle on Obama and Factcheck"

For someone who had previously called bloggers who use their real names "egotistical narcissists" who experience nirvana when their name gets cited on the web, "Polarik" seems awfully proud of his name-recognition here.

Nothing much happens for a few months, and then "Polarik" goes and does a complete 180 on the story behind his name on April 4, 2009 (bolding mine):

"I never said that Polarik was a pseudonym. My critics and detractors did,"

Apparently, all those times he did say that "Polarik" was a pseudonym simply don't count. Like the time he said it again, twelve days later:

"For kicks, I did a search of "Polarik" on the Daily Kos website, and the only things it turned up were two comments of about ten words each -- one, in Dec 2008, by Corvo (whom I believe is actually Jay McKinnon) noting my apparent anonymity and use of a pseudonym (which, presumably, no one else does on the Internet)"

So to recap, "Polarik" is an internet handle that first appeared online for the explicit purpose of perpetuating the Birther theories, and the name "Polarik" is, alternatively,

1) his father's real last name,
2) derived from his father's last name,
3) a pseudonym, or
4) definitely not a pseudonym and any claims that it is a pseudonym is a lie by his critics.

Barack O'Bama

When Joe Biden is referred to as being "Irish Catholic", it's commonly understood that this means he comes from an Irish ethnic background. That his ancestors were Irish, not that Biden himself is from Ireland. Because that would be silly.

But let a reporter covering Barack Obama's visit to Ghana casually refer to the President as "Kenyan" when speaking with a Ghanan citizen, and WorldNetDaily's reaction is, predictably, 'MSNBC reports that Obama was born in Kenya!!!'

English must be a second language for Birthers. And I have to assume their first language is Swiss, which would explain their obsession with de Vattel.

The Ever-Changing Credentials of "Dr. Ron Polarik"

If you've been exposed to Birthers for any length of time in the past several months, you've seen the name "Dr. Ron Polarik." So let's take a moment to look back on the precise credentials that "Dr." "Polarik" has claimed for himself over the past year.

When he first appeared on the scene, in his very first Townhall post, Polarik described his experience thusly:

June 13, 2008:
"I've been working with computers, printers, and typewriters for over 20 years, and given a set of printed letters, I can discern what kind of device made them."

That was Polarik's full resume for over two months. He briefly expanded it eight weeks later, in mid-August:

August 14, 2008:
"As a handwriting analyst, I can say with some certainty, that two people wrote on this record book."

A new skill, but no specific claim of higher education. That first came another two weeks after that, coincidentally a mere couple of weeks after TechDude was exposed as a fraud:

August 27, 2008:
"Little did he [Neal Krawetz] know that I have a Masters in Statistics"

OK, a Masters in Statistics. I'm not entirely sure how that's relevant at all to image analysis, but sure, why not.

In case you want to think this was a typo, he repeated it the next day. And again in an attempted comment on Krawetz's site.

However, in a comment that Polarik made a month earlier on Krawetz's site, on the exact same subject, he fails to mention any Masters in Statistics.

A little over a week later:

September 6, 2008:
"Little did he [Neal Krawetz] know that I'm also a Statistician with a Masters in Experimental Psychology and a Doctorate in Instructional Media. I don't like to flaunt it, y'know."

Now the Masters degree is in Experimental Psychology, statistics is mentioned without citing a degree, and, for the first time, he claims a doctorate in Instructional Media.

September 10, 2008:
"What was particularly irksome to me, as someone with a Doctorate in Experimental Psychology, is implying that I don't understand "basic physics," "

Now the Masters in Experimental Psychology is a Doctorate in Experimental Psychology.

September 12, 2008:
"I’ve been working with computers for 40 years. I’ve been a graphic artist for 50 years. My first “personal computer” was an S-100 I built in 1977, followed by a TRS-80, a Commodore 64, Apple I & II, IBM PC, Original Macintosh, Timex/Sinclair 1000, and lots of IBM and Unix mainframes along the way. Ive done programming in CP-M, ASP, Basic, Visual Basic, C and its variants, Java, Javascript, VBScript, Plato, DB2, HTML, SPSS, SAS, Minitab, StatPro, and everything Microsoft.

"My PhD is in Instructional Media and Experimental Psychology (dual major)."

"Well, yes, I did lie about my experience. It’s so much greater than I initially reported. I figure that credentials don’t mean squat if you cannot use your brain."

Back on August 28, Polarik criticized Neal Krawetz's credentials on this ground: "Nowhere will you find ANY specific or related experience in 'analyzing computer-generated images'". Now look at Polarik's claimed resume above. Can you taste the hypocrisy?

Also note how readily Polarik is willing to cop to lying in order to concoct a reason why it took him almost three months to mention he had multiple doctorates, as opposed to his original resume of "working with computers, printers, and typewriters."

December 18, 2008:
"I am an expert in Hawaiian Certifications of Live Birth,"

If you're willing to be generous, you could take this to mean that Polarik achieved expertise in Hawaiian COLBs between June and December. Sure, it's an obscenely narrow field to consider oneself an "expert," and I'm not sure he's claimed to have ever held more than one physical COLB (Michele's), but if the claim is that he's wasted more time obsessing over a Hawaiian COLB than anyone else, he might be right.

December 21, 2008:
"Krawetz and his crowd like to taunt me with "Krawetz is a Real PhD with a Real Name and is a Real Expert," but I got my Masters degree before Krawetz was born, and my Doctorate while he was still in grade school."

Significantly here, Polarik says "Masters degree," not "degrees." Even though between August and December he will have claimed three very different Masters degrees.

Also, Krawetz is approximately forty, so Polarik's numbers suggest that he is at least in his early-to-mid sixties. Combined with his earlier claim that he has been a graphic artist for 50 years, either he's counting back to his teenage days for that figure, or he got his "Masters degree" when he was closer to thirty, and he's now pushing seventy or more.

I welcome readers to watch Polarik's video and decide for yourself whether the pixel-faced guy in the video looks like a senior citizen.

Finally, we have the resume Polarik presented as part of his 'Declaration of XXXXXXXXXXXX' (not an Affidavit, as often claimed; it's not signed, dated, notarized, witnessed, or styled as an "Affidavit." And, of course, it's anonymous):

December 2008:
"I hold a PhD in Instructional Systems with 25+ years of
post-doctoral work experience, and a Masters Degree in Educational Research, Design, and Testing. I have worked with computers and computer printers, plotters, and optical/digital scanners, typesetting, offset printing, and automatic typewriters, for over thirty (30) years.

"In my professional career I have held positions as a Computer Programmer, Web Designer, Media Consultant, Research Director and Statistician. I have testified as a Statistical Expert in Governmental hearings over the last twenty (20) years.

"I began working with computers on or about 1969 and with graphic arts since 1965. I have worked with document image scanners since 1982 and with digital images and digital editing software since 1987. I have received professional training in the use of Adobe Photoshop and Image Ready software with a particular focus on creating web graphics. I have also worked with laser printers since 1986."

Now he adds plenty of mentions of digital imagery experience, which he apparently didn't consider important enough to mention back in September. His original claim in June of 20 years of computer work has also now doubled to 40 years.

But that's not the big reveal here. That would be the naming of Polarik's THIRD Masters Degree, this time in "Educational Research, Design, and Testing." (Fun Fact: Googling "Educational Research, Design, and Testing" produces only a handful of webpages, all of which are quoting Polarik.) Plus, his doctorate in "Instructional Media" is now a doctorate in "Instructional Systems."

Finally, I can't put a specific date on it, but Polarik's Townhall blog, The Greater Evil, has a one-sentence biography stating: "I have studied the Arab-Israeli conflict for 30 years." Strangely, I've never seen "Polarik" mention this bit of alleged expertise anywhere else. It seems likely that this was written when the blog was created in June 2008. It also provides an explanation for why the blog is titled "The Greater Evil," as that would fit a blog intended to be about the Arab-Israeli conflict more than about Obama's birth certificate.

So to recap JUST the specific claims regarding degrees from educational institutions, from June 2008 through December 2008:

Jun. 13, 2008 - Aug. 26, 2008: None.
Aug. 27, 2008: Masters in Statistics
Sep. 6, 2008: Masters in Experimental Psychology, Doctorate in Instructional Media
Sep. 10, 2008: Doctorate in Experimental Psychology
Sep. 12, 2008: PhD in Instructional Media and Experimental Psychology (dual major)
Dec. ??, 2008: PhD in Instructional Systems, Masters Degree in Educational Research, Design, and Testing.

Two different doctorates (or possibly three, depending on how accurately Polarik can name his own doctoral programs). Three different Masters degrees. And zero schools. Polarik learned his lesson well from TechDude's crash-and-burn: if you're too specific in your made-up credentials, you open the door to having those specifics discovered to be false. Better to be impenetrably vague, and not open the door to verification and exposure. If people will believe that a Iowa scam artist has a mysterious and elusive Kenyan birth certificate, then they certainly won't have any problem accepting a mere doctorate from an unnamed school.

However, when creating a false resume, it helps to be more consistent than Polarik. People may notice when new degrees appear out of thin air, or when previously claimed degrees disappear, or when a Masters suddenly becomes a Doctorate (which, in turn, then disappears entirely). People may notice when a three-times-over doctor admits to having trouble making his rent. And if you're going to initially claim that the reason for your early secrecy was a reluctance to flaunt your credentials, perhaps you shouldn't then suddenly start putting "PhD" after your name and calling yourself "Dr." at every opportunity. Consistency isn't hard when you're telling the truth, but it's the key to being an expert liar. The irony is that while Polarik insists that he is an expert but not a liar, it's the opposite that's true.

I'll give Polarik this: in his pixelated video statement, he cites his among his credentials that he's "done a lot of work with reading web pages." And I have no bones with his assertion that he's read a lot of web pages. Granted, "reading web pages" is not the kind of credential you'd normally expect to hear cited by someone with three doctorates, but it does sound like the kind of credential someone with no doctorates might make up.

A Special Message from Polarik, on TechDude

"Ron Polarik" wants you to know that he NEVER trusted TechDude, a/k/a 'the other guy who claimed a whole bunch of phony credentials to bolster his claims about Obama's birth certificate':

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.

There's a Birther Suckered Every Minute

So after having his previous five auctions pulled, Lucas Smith of Cedar Rapids, Iowa posted a sixth eBay auction on the evening of July 2. I don't know if he'd seen this blog, but he'd definitely seen the fallout on FreeRepublic:

So now eBay removes my listing for selling a picture? That doesn't sound bizarre to anyone? And I read that people are finding information about Smith posted on the internet which supposedly discredits him? Smith is a scammer? Give me a break.

And now when we go to log into InspectorSmith's Youtube account our password is not recognized. All this for a scam, huh, a good laugh?

Just the other day I noted that I was thankful for freerepublic dot com. Reminds me of a bunch off lukewarm turncoats. Change your opinion every time that the wind blows in a different direction. Here's another quote, “Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” - Alexander Hamilton. And what, what will be your opinion tomorrow? "O" was born in the USA? Make up your minds, have a little backbone.

I happened to stumble across the auction less than ten minutes after it was posted, and although I promptly reported it to eBay (with a link to my last post attached for good measure). Yet it's still there, four days later. And no, I'm not going to link to it.

At first, I wondered why eBay wasn't acting this time. Then I realized why: Lucas isn't breaking the rules this time. In fact, while I rather doubt this was his plan from the start, he's ended up engineering quite the ingenious little scam here.

Here's the relevant parts of the auction listing, stating exactly what the auction is for:

Autographed photo of Smith and Andylenny, abroad. In airport.



There won't be anymore eBay auctions for documents, stories or dissertations.

The photo in this listing is up for auction. On the left is Smith and on the right is Andylenny. This photo will be signed by Smith, as Smith. This will be the only autographed photo put up for auction. One auction, one winning bidder, one photo. No more. There wont be duplicate photos or other photos for auction later. (Though I might try a relist if eBay kicks this auction off before enough people have had the chance to see this photo.)

You are welcome to copy and paste, or save, the digital photo in this listing. This auction is not so much for $$$ gain. It's meant to give a face or two to the O proof story. If anyone comes forward with our O proof other than one of the two faces that you see in this auction then you'll know that it wasn't the proof offered in our five previous auctions. Also this picture will vouch for the credibility of the soon coming Youtube video. If you don't see one of the two faces that you see in this auction then you'll know that it's not our Youtube video.

For the record I want to state that this auction is for an autographed photo of Smith and Andylenny. Signed by Smith, as Smith. You are not bidding on anything other than that, there will be no accompanying documents. There will be no meeting at the Iowa Capitol Building. This is not an attempt to circumvent eBay policies.

This photo will be shipped USPS Priority Mail. It will be shipped free of charge (domestic addresses) to the winning bidder.

For this, Lucas's auction has so far received a total of 21 competitive bids, for a current high bid of $2,850.00. The starting bid was $100. And there are still over three days left.

He makes it abundantly, and repeatedly, clear that the auction is ONLY for the photo, and nothing else. He continues to talk the Birther talk, but still offers up nothing that actually backs up his previous claims. He doesn't even explicitly claim the photo is from his alleged trip to Kenya; it's just a photo of himself "abroad. In airport." Given what we know about Lucas Smith's history, and given the look of this photo and the other photos he previously posted, it's incredibly likely that this photo was taken in the Dominican Republic.

Yes, some gullible Birther is about to be the proud owner of a three thousand dollar Caribbean travel photo. Signed by some dude from Cedar Rapids.

The ingenious part of this is that after that transaction takes place, I'm not sure that Lucas Smith will have done anything actionable. He clearly states that he's auctioning a signed print of that photo. He, presumably, will deliver a signed print of that photo. This auction listing is not misleading or even ambiguous as to what's being offered for sale. The winning bidder simply isn't going to have anything to stand on if they complain to eBay; they bid for a photo, they won a photo. It's not eBay's fault or Lucas's fault that they were stupid enough to pay three grand for it.

I'm not even sure it's WorldNetDaily's fault, but they're definitely guilty of some willful journalistic ignorance on this. They've posted multiple stories on Lucas's auction, often burying mention of his failure to evidence his claims. And although they ran a front-page story on the appearance of this auction, they have run no stories about all the revelations that have come to light about Mr. Lucas Smith of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The most positive explanation for this failure is that WND has just somehow failed to see those reports; the negative explanation, on the other hand, is that while WND led its readers down the rabbit hole of believing this guy's fiction, they're afraid to admit their mistake now. And so rather than cop to it and look foolish, they're playing silent and allowing readers to continue believing in this guy enough to pay him thousands.

Of course, this doesn't tell us anything new about WND's journalistic integrity. But I think it does show us just how much contempt WND truly has for its own trusting readers. It could save some gullible reader a lot of financial pain by running a simple correction and apology; but while Joseph Farah is willing to pay ten grand for Obama birth witnesses, it seems that eating a little crow is more than he can afford.

Now of course, maybe the bidders aren't being serious either, and have no intention of paying. I'm not sure if we'll ever know the answer to that. But even then the great irony will be that they will be the ones violating eBay policy in this particular auction, not Lucas. He may be a crook and a liar, but doggone it if at the end of the day he hasn't managed to con the Birthers without actually promising anything he can't deliver. If it wasn't for the fact that he made it so easy to track down his real identity, I'd almost suspect he was a decent conman.

colmado_naranja Revealed

As previously reported, WorldNetDaily has been feverishly covering the eBay seller colmado_naranja, and his auctions for the alleged Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate that he claims to have in his possession. There have been plenty of twists in this story, almost entirely on the part of colmado_naranja's own representations, but there's one 'twist' that I'm compelled to cover, and cover immediately.

Here is the latest auction, now reduced to simply auctioning off signed photographs. In it, colmado_naranja ndicates that he intends to upload a video to his YouTube account, InspectorSmith, and posts several photos of himself:

   

One enterprising Free Republic poster put that name and photo together with the seller's apparent home of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and stumbled across this photo:



That's a CBS Photo of the Day, from a year ago. The caption reads "Lucas Smith rides his bike through the water after checking up on his flooded house in the southwestern area of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Friday June 13, 2008." It looks an awful lot like colmado_naranja, doesn't it? And it's not an understatement that he has an interesting Wikipedia page. References to "Colmado Scarlette" and a Smith-penned book about the Bush Administration?

So "colmado_naranja" is apparently Lucas Smith, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Another quick round of Googling promptly turns up thisstory from the Syracuse Post Standard:

Jim Jr. was born with one kidney. It kept him going for the first 18 years of his life. He rarely missed school, and even felt fine the day a school nurse took his blood pressure and realized something was wrong. Go see a doctor, she told him. Right away...

Jim Jr. was put on the national kidney transplant list in November 2001, five months after doctors diagnosed him with end stage renal disease...

In late 2002, a man from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, sent an e-mail to the family. The man, who called himself Lucas Smith, said he was 23 years old and had emigrated from Russia five years earlier. He had seen the Web site and, Smith said, he wanted to help.

The Wilsons stopped searching for a donor. Smith passed all of the medical, physical and psychological tests. They thought he was going to save their son's life.

Then, on May 3, 2003, Smith sent Jim Wilson Sr. an e-mail saying he wanted to be compensated for donating his kidney.

Wilson said they would pay his airfare, but because it was illegal to receive money for an organ donation, they wouldn't give him any other cash.

Five months after holding out a lifeline, Lucas Smith disappeared.

Jim Wilson Sr. called the Cedar Rapids police.

Yes, at least one Lucas Smith of Cedar Rapids, Iowa has previously attempted to extort money for a valuable commodity in his possession, only to never deliver on it. Maybe it's the same Lucas Smith of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Maybe not.

Bravo, Joseph Farah, for putting this story and this attempt at con-artistry in the limelight. Bravo.

Update (7/3): Another FreeRepublic poster ran Mr. Smith's name through the archives of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, and unsurprisingly, Lucas Smith has a criminal history. Most notably, in 2000 he pled guilty to passing several bad checks after opening a bank account with false information, and in 1998 he received a deferred judgment on a charge of forgery.