Posted on 11/22/2008 9:08:58 PM PST by Polarik
Where are they posted and who are the others?
Okay. Did that. Got this:
Thursday, July 2, 2009
President Gigolo?
Furthermore, why all:
“Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: ‘Where’s the birth certificate?’”
this if Joe “knows.”
Are you saying Farah is trying to scam us poor, unsuspecting dupes for, gasp, DONATION MONEY????????
Well, just dammmmmmm
And while we’re here, I believe my original post, to which you replied, was to mr.hacker. He doesn’t seem to be very responsive...life support maybe?
Thank you.
I can't run with this brief statement, however.
There is no description of WND's investigators, their process or findings -- just a statement.
In view of the findings of Polarik and Sandra Lines and even WND's own, later investigations, I would be reluctant to publish WND’s pronouncement without more facts.
On a side note — things do change — in this article, WND attempts to discount several allegations about Obama — evidently based on its suspicions of Phil Berg's motives — now WND is leading the charge.
WND has come a long way since August, 2008, as we all have.
In this article, WND even use FactCheck.org as an authority. FactCheck has since been found to be a participant in the conspiracy to sell Obama’s COLB to the public.
Here's my own take on FactCheck.org’s “investigation”:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_BogusPOTUS/20090217.htm#FactCheck010
Where are they posted and who are the others?
If you had read this very thread, you would have seen some, ironic isn't it?
By The way, since you are a professional and I am less than a rank amateur, can you explain why on a scanned document that was originally green and black, white areas only appear in or around certain letters, as can be seen on Obama’sCOLB and not on the other scans.
Surely with your years of experience in photoshop you can explain this anomaly, can’t you?
“What you saw was a scanned image of the certified laser printed CoLB.” But whose name was originally on the scanned image since the date which bled through from the reverse side does not correspond to any document sent regarding Obama on the date shown?
*
The article at hackerfactor link provided up thread does a much better job than I could and the author has a real PhD.
President Gigolo?
Posted: May 27, 2004
1:00 am Eastern
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Listen. That FactCheck thing was posted at factcheck.org on Nov 1, 2008 before the election.
WND never saw it, never independently verified it. They are citing fact check. Who is playing games here.
I won't be responding to you anymore for obvious reasons.
WND claims to have examined the document itself while both Polarik and Sandra Lines speak only of the image scanned and published on the internet - two entirely different things.
On a side note — things do change — in this article, WND attempts to discount several allegations about Obama — evidently based on its suspicions of Phil Berg's motives — now WND is leading the charge.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? It wouldn't be the first time a publication perpetrated a hoax to increase readership.
Changing the subject...is there any truth to this http://top10badguys.blogspot.com/2008/11/know-your-api-accomplices-meet.html
WorldNetDaily most definitely said they saw it and independently verified it:
Democrat sues Sen. Obama over 'fraudulent candidacy'
August 23, 2008
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
"A separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there."
I read it, and was unimpressed.
Rather than attempt to find the truth he was more bent towards proving he should be the sole source of the conclusions.
And so what if he is a PHD, and that means is that he has spent a lot of time being told what to thinkl by liberal professors and judged on weather or not any of their thinking has taken hold in his thesis.
Logic tells us that we should attempt to prove how those anomalies were created in the first place. His point is that they don’t exist, or of no consequence. I say they do exist and I can show how they were created, and that they can be created with photoshop, which is very important, because it shows them to be a forgery.
It certainly appears that way.
— You came here only to attack Polarik. It is the reason you joined this forum. —
You’re damn right, I am. I made that clear from the start.
— Do you know Ron Polarik? Do you know he hasn’t earned a Ph. D.? —
He has been repeatedly asked — politely and impolitely — to provide credentials and documentation of where he earned his PhD. He is unable to do so. Now why do you think that is?
Because he is a liar, Parker. There is no way around it. Now add in the fact that he manufactures evidence, and impersonates a PhD., and what else can you call him?
This is who you - and a handful of freepers - put stock in. Shame on you all.
Come on now, when his credentials keep changing, how do you expect him to remember where he got them from?
For instance, last June, "Ron Polarik" described his credentials as thus:
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.
In that whole initial report, no mention was made of any advanced degrees or credentials beyond the above. Not even an identification as "Dr." Some months later, those credentials became:
I'm Dr. Ron Polarik. I have a Ph.D. in Instructional Media. And my expertise is in computer graphics and the use of computer peripherals, such as printers and scanners, to input digital images into the computer. I've done a lot of work with reading web pages, where image size and image quality are very important. I'm fully qualified to spot inconsistencies and anomalies in images, especially digital images, given my expertise.
My personal favorite credential is "I've done a lot of work with reading web pages." So he reads a lot of web pages. Impressive.
At some point, "Polarik" also started (irregularly) claiming that he had a Masters Degree in Educational Research, Design, and Testing.
For what it's worth, "Polarik" once rebutted Neal Krawetz (whose credentials ARE published and verifiable), by stating that he got his Masters before Krawetz was born. As Krawetz is approximately 40, this would make "Polarik" approximately 65 or older, and would mean he got his 'doctorate' sometime in the late 1970s. Or closer to 30 years than his initially-claimed 20.
Fun fact: the JPEG was invented in 1991.
Yeah. It’s obvious alright. You gave me a bogus link that gave me an article about John Kerry from 2004, (which I just checked again from your link,) and here is some of it:
“President Gigolo?
What kind of life experience leads to being a good president?
George Washington worked tirelessly as a surveyor and became a military leader. In between, he became a successful farmer and agricultural innovator.
John Adams went to Harvard at 15, became a schoolteacher, ran a successful farm, studied the law and repeatedly answered the call of duty to his young nation – leaving home for months at a time on treacherous journeys across the Atlantic.
Study the lives of the great presidents in American history and you will find they developed their character through hard work and challenging life experiences.
In 1992, surely for the first time, America chose to elect a president who never held a job outside of government.
In 2004, America will be faced with the second opportunity to elect a president who has no real work experience outside government.
Worse yet, as my colleague Rabbi Shmuley Boteach pointed out in his most recent column, Kerry’s main work experience seems to have been marrying extremely rich women.
There are many reasons not to vote for John Kerry. He is wrong on virtually every issue – even when he’s trying to be on both sides of those issues. He betrayed his Vietnam war comrades upon his return from Vietnam – calling them “monsters” even while they were fighting in the jungles and being tortured in prisoner-of-war camps. He is hopelessly out of touch with the American people and seems driven to achieve not as a matter of service to his country, but as service to his ego.
But if there is one characteristic of Kerry’s life that should disqualify him absolutely as a candidate for president, it is the fact that he has sought out millionaire wives to take care of him. Not to put too fine a point on it, he’s a serial gigolo.
Let me ask you this: How many single women do you know worth a hundred million dollars or more?
I don’t know too many. Kerry has managed to marry two.”
___________________________________________________________
and/or you don’t read what Farah actually says from your own post. THAT report was posted on fact check on November 1 of 2008. Check it for yourself. Farah or nobody else from WND never saw the original document, only the photos on factcheck. They repeated what factcheck said verbatim.
You know, insisting you are right because WND says so can be very limiting.
At least if you are going to issue a challenge, do some back up research of your own. Farah ain’t an oracle.
Now, you are the one who responded to me about a post made to someone else entirely. I replied to you because we disagreed on sources. Sorry. I suppose it isn’t good for newbies to challenge oldbees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.