Thursday, December 18, 2008

Bad Stridence: Proof positive that credentials do not equal credibility

Ron Polarik, PhD, MS

UPDATE: The self-proclaimed image analysis expert, Neal Krawetz, added the following lines to his Bad Science skreed:

Moreover, the only technical analysis that indicate a digital forgery are from TechDude (an impersonator and fraud) and Polarik. Polarik was recently outed and identified as a fraud who has no background in image analysis.

First of all, let's see what background Dr. Krawetz has listed on his biography:

About Hacker Factor

The company, Hacker Factor, was established in 2002 by Dr. Neal Krawetz.

Neal Krawetz holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Texas A&M University and a Bachelors degree in Computer and Information Science from the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Dr. Neal Krawetz operates Hacker Factor Solutions ( and specializes in non-classical computer forensics, online profiling, and computer security. His research into anti-anonymity technologies combines fields as vast as ergonomics and child development to artificial intelligence and theoretical biophysics. He is the author of Introduction to Network Security (Charles River Media, 2006) and Hacking Ubuntu (Wiley, 2007). His work experience spans small startup companies, academic and university environments, and large Fortune-100 corporations.
  • Computer Security (20+ years). Auditing systems and software for potential exploits, evaluating and assessing risk potentials, developing security-oriented solutions, tracing remote intruders, tracking undesirable email (Spam) sources, and training non-security-oriented software engineers. This work includes computer forensics and profiling.
  • Software Development (25+ years). Custom software architecture, design, and development. Previous projects include large-scale e-commerce servers, web robots, VPN solutions, automated cryptanalysis tools, radio harmonic analysis, and billing systems.
  • Computer Networking (15+ years). Recommending and implementing network solutions. Previous projects include numerous network-based software applications, network administration, integration, debugging and troubleshooting, designing solutions for network services and hosting, and physically wiring facilities for network access.
  • Operating Systems (20+ years). In-depth knowledge covering a variety of operating systems including Unix, Linux, Windows, Macintosh, and other systems. Previous projects include software development, cross-system porting, and system administration. 
OK, according to his "Years of experience," Dr. Krawetz is 80+ years old!!! Gee, he looks so young in his photo:

If you search through his bio above, you will NOT FIND the word "image!" How, exactly does one become an image analysis expert with NO DISCERNIBLE EXPERIENCE with an image?

Easy. You tell everyone that you are. You say you have a PhD in Computer Science, which has nothing to do with the Scientific Method, conducting well-controlled scientific experiments, or anything even remotely looking like real, scientific research, and every like-minded liberal Einstein in America will annoint you, "The Image Analysis King."

The word, "Scientific" does not appear in his bio, either. The word, "Science" only appears in his two degrees titles, a Bachelor's in Computer and Information Science and a PhD in Computer Science

Way to expand your breadth of knowledge, Dr. K. What can you do with a PhD in Computer Science that you cannot do with a BS?

Write a book, of course.

 Dr. K was trying to cast aspersions on my PhD degree by claiming it was "an Education degree." Memo to Neal: my PhD is about ten quantum leaps more scientific than yours will ever be. 

I wonder,"How many steps of the Scientific Method he can name."

I'm not sure, but "formulate a hypothesis," is not one of them.

I always thought that the idea behind "outing" someone is to prove that he does not have the experience he repeatedly stated in signed and sworn affidavits submitted to the courts.

Yet, the guy you claim "was outed" has a PhD in Instructional Systems with a major focus area of Instructional Media and over 30+ years of postdoctoral SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH EXPERIENCE in instructional design, computer-based training, health care, social services, mental health, and about a half-dozen more areas, and has authored all kinds of publicly and privately funded research programs in these areas.

The efforts to marginalize 40+ CUMULATIVE years of experience by a pond scum of a person is predictable. What's your excuse, Dr. K?


Not long after the release of my final report last November, Obama's Born Conspiracy, a vicious rumor was started and bandied about the pro-Obama websites, that I'm a "fraud," that I "don't exist," and that this research report is "bunk." The source of this rumor, however, is a charlatan in every sense of the word. He has never read my final report, he is totally clueless about the research I conducted, and hopelessly confused about the entire birth certificate controversy. The rumormonger has managed to use his lofty-sounding, but irrelevant. credentials to fool other people into thinking that his lies, slurs, baseless conclusions, and fabricated images have refuted my research when, in fact, they repudiate his credibility and his competence.

There is no way for anyone to judge a person's competence and credibility based on his credentials
alone. If a person is dishonest in his actions and virtually delusional about his discoveries, then his credentials are meaningless. To put it another way, when a detractor thinks that his trash talk, interspersed with technical terms, can pass for real research, and that his credentials shield him from scrutiny, then that detractor is both a fraud and a fool who underestimates and insults the intelligence of the Internet audience.


On June 12, I began my research on the image posted by the
Daily Kos that was purported to be Obama's Certification of Live
Birth. I did not cite my degree titles and credentials at the time because I wanted my work
to speak for itself -- and it has, in spades. However, as I came to learn, there are some Internet users
who give more credence to the paper credentials of a researcher than they give to the merits of the research itself. For this reason, the online community has been burned twice by "credentialed frauds" who falsely claimed to have proven that Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB) was a forgery. One of these had initially taken credit for forging the COLB image (who later recanted his story), while the other was someone I revealed to be a fraud when I obtained a copy of a real 2007 COLB that did not match the "real one" that he said he had.

Consequently, the ramifications of their actions were to cause people to mistrust anyone now claiming to have proven the COLB image was forged, especially if they listed themselves as an "expert." Therefore, the last thing I wished to do was to be lumped in with those prior frauds.

My final research report, "Obama's Born Conspiracy,"
is the culmination of four months (now five) of intensive empirical research
on Obama's alleged COLB image and photographs. It contains 160
pages of fully documented research and 140 images for supporting
evidence. Anyone who reads this report thoroughly will know that it was written by a genuine researcher using sound, scientific methods to explore these forgeries in depth. Frauds do not produce 160-page reports with 140 images that fully document the steps taken, that clearly explain the phenomena under investigation, and more importantly, provide sufficient information to allow other researchers to validate the findings. However, not everyone appreciates all of the hard work that I have done and some people fervently wish that this report never existed.

These are the people who still cling to the lie that Obama has shown his original birth certificate on the Internet. They are so desperate to prove me wrong that they would rather listen to fools than to facts. Predictably, the fools were coming out of the woodwork. After the release of my final report, I began hearing the rumors about who I am and what I did. I've dealt with critics before, but this one was different. This critic told a bald-faced lie that he debunked my final report when it is patently obvious that never read it. He is so totally clueless about the work I did, about the problems with the COLB images and photos, and about the entire birth certificate controversy, that I did not know whether to laugh at him or get angry. However, nobody calls me a "fraud," a "liar," and that I "manipulated evidence" without being confronted and challenged.

I tried convincing him to remove his slanderous comments and
baseless accusations from his website, and to quell the vicious rumor that he started, but he refused to do so. Consequently I am forced to write this response to set the record straight and to protect my reputation.
He goes by the name of "Dr. Neal Krawetz," and
he had the unmitigated gaul to trash my final report
-- which he never read --
in a hack-job titled,
"Bad Science: How not to do image analysis, Part II."
The great irony of his "Bad Science" screed is that it
shows just how clueless, thoughtless, skillless, and disingenuous is
Dr. Krawetz:

  • He is a liar who claimed that he "debunked" my
    final report when he never read it or the fifteen other
    reports I wrote going back to June;

  • He's a charlatan who falsely used his credentials to fool
    others into thinking that he is more than qualified to
    critique my research;

  • He is clueless as to the actual research I did and the
    results I found, preferring instead to tell lies and to
    fabricate findings in his head;

  • He provided no relevant, concrete evidence of his own to
    support his baseless accusations, asking others to
    believe him on faith alone;

  • He used unrelated images, that he intentionally
    manipulated for effect, to fraudulently claim that they
    "refute" my research findings;

  • He used different image formats that he deceptively
    claimed were of the same type to trick his audience into
    accepting them as comparable;

  • He closed off his blog when I confronted him, and then
    secretly replaced these same manipulated images to hide
    the evidence of his deceit;

  • He does not have the research skills or the experience I
    have in working with COLB images to replicate even one of
    my experiments;

  • He used lies, baseless accusations, faulty logic,
    unsubstantiated claims, and character assassinations to
    demean me and denigrate my research;.

  • He's never seen or held an actual Certification of Live
    Birth (COLB) document as I have;

  • He has never produced a single scanned copy of
    Certification of Live Birth (COLB) document while I have
    made over 100;

  • He's never analyzed a single Certification of Live Birth
    (COLB) document image in depth as I have;

  • He's never created a single test image of a Certification
    of Live Birth (COLB) document while I have created over

  • He knows nothing about the Obama birth certificate
    controversy, confusing fiction for fact, and then making
    erroneous proclamations;

  • He doesn't know what scanners can or cannot do; i.e.,
    saying that they can't copy a COLB Seal, the folds, and
    its texture while I've done all three.

  • He doesn't know what are scanner artifacts or even common
    JPG artifacts and frequently confuses the two;

  • He tosses around technical terms to dazzle his audience
    but uses them incorrectly and inappropriately, and
    without definition;

  • He falsely compared a magazine page (typographic text on
    white paper) and a paper COLB (laser-printed graphic on
    thin, green security paper);

  • He frequently contradicts himself to the point where his
    conclusions don't match his assessments, and vice-versa;

  • His screed and my report were peer-reviewed by an
    objective third party who gave my research a "Thumbs
    Up" and Krawetz a "Thumbs down."

  • His screed was repudiated by World Net Daily, while my
    final report was corroborated by one of the top document
    forensics expert in the country.

The credentials Krawetz claims to have do not convey his credibility,
but do confirm their irrelevance to my research report.

Recently my final report was reviewed by one of the foremost
forensic investigators in the country. She is a leader in
document forensics and an expert in distinguishing forgery from
genuineness. Her name is Sandra Lines, and she is a former
Federal Examiner and a retired Law Enforcement Officer. Without
question, she is infinitely more qualified than Krawetz to render
an expert opinion on my final report, and she has corroborated it
and fully supports its conclusions. Unless Krawetz can absorb
information by osmosis, he has no excuse for failing to read my
report. Since Krawetz has already planted both feet in his mouth,
by going on record as having read it, it's too late for him to
start now.

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. I can say, flat-out, that Krawetz
does not have anything close to the research skills I have and,
consequently, he could never replicate the research I conducted
if he tried. Krawetz has done nothing to refute my research, and
his plan to verbally tear me down in order to build himself up
has not worked.

I have prepared a detailed response to Krawetz's "Bad
" screed below. It identifies all of his lies,
falsehoods, distortions, character assassinations, baseless
accusations, fallacious conclusions, flawed logic, and
intentional deceptions that he made. For someone who claims to be
such an "expert" on image graphics, Krawetz
demonstrates throughout his "Bad Science" just
how how wrong someone with "credentials" can possibly

Response to "Bad Science," or
"How not to review something you failed to read"

Krawetz has not read my report and he has no factual
understanding of the Obama birth certificate controversy, which
is patently obvious from the first words he utters
in italics

Before I begin evaluating Polarik's claims, I would like
to point out that the entire claim -- that Obama was not born in
Hawaii -- is false.
(Lie #1)

Representatives from the State of Hawaii have repeatedly
authenticated Obama's COLB.
(Lie #2)

27-June-2008. Janice Okubo from the Hawaii Department of
Health confirmed that the document was valid.

15-Aug-2008. Politifact validated the information. (Lie

31-Oct-2008 (alternate link). 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 he used it)

Hawaii confirmed that Obama has a real birth certificate from
Hawaii. Regardless of whether the document on the web is real or
tampered, the argument is moot; an authentic document exists.
Thus, the conspiracy has no basis.
(Lie #6)

Now, given that Hawaii confirms it, why would they release a fake
COLB when they could just as easily release a new one?
#7 )

Clearly, Krawetz has no idea what he's saying here and cannot
discern fact from fiction. Krawetz does not even understand the
basics of the birth certificate controversy, and what actually
transpired in Hawaii's Health Department. In reference to me,
Krawetz said,

Today, there is only one person who continues to propagate
the "COLB is fake" conspiracy.
(Lie #8)

I don't know where Krawetz has been hiding for the past few
months, but there are now tens of million people who continue to
call for Obama to release his real, original birth certificate --
something Obama has never done anywhere, at any time. Likewise,
there are several million or so who are convinced that the COLB
posted online is a fake. AOL recently conducted an online poll as
to whether Obama's failure to produce his birth certificate So
much for Krawetz's one-person "conspiracy." Krawetz is
part of a shrinking minority who continue to claim that Obama had
released his original birth certificate in mid-June.

He calls himself "Ron Polarik" (an anonymous
pseudonym -- not his real name), and he also uses bad science to
support his claims.
(Lie #9)

"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 creating and proffering a
false identification document, and in doing so, I did not
ingratiate myself with the die-hard, Obama crowd who would like
nothing better than to shut me up. For this and other legitimate
reasons, I chose not to stand on a rooftop and shout my name or
waving my credentials around like a flag as Dr. Krawetz has done
in a desperate attempt to get attention. I am being cautious and
rightfully so. Yet, what did I do to Krawetz to engender such
utter distain? Nothing!

Krawetz, on his own accord, came hunting after me with a
vengeance, but he was outgunned from the start. Krawetz has
clearly demonstrated that he knows nothing about the actual
research I conducted over four months and nothing about the
scientific methods I used. For him to even imply that I use
"bad science," only underscores his
pretentiousness. Someone has to end this charade, and it fell
upon me to tell Krawetz that he's spitting into the wind.

The first thing that Krawetz needs to do is take some Birth
Certificate 101, as he does not know what is the difference
between a Hawaiian Certificate of Birth and a Certification of
Live Birth. He has no knowledge on what each of them contain, how
they look in person or when they are scanned or copied. His
"Bad Science" screed offers no relevant
evidence whatsoever
to support his claims and his
accusations. Not a single COLB image scan is presented for

At the beginning of this hastily-prepared mess, Krawetz makes
a rather astounding conclusion when he says that "Regardless
of whether the document on the web is real or tampered, the
argument is moot
." Is there anything more preposterous
than for Krawetz to admit that the document on the web "can
be a forgery," but that document fraud is "no big
deal?" If that's his logic, then why did he attack the
research that would confirm his admission? For all his bluster,
Krawetz has no clue about the seriousness of document fraud, the
significance of Obama spending a millon dollars to duck the issue
entirely, as well as having no handle on what my research entails
and the science behind it. After all, why let the biggest fraud
in American political history get in the way of Kraetz cracking
on me for no, good reason:

Polarik's findings are not supported by the data. He has
manipulated evidence, selectively ignored facts, and overlooked
obvious findings. He has made over-reaching and gross
assumptions, which vary from baseless to provable inaccurate.
Moreover, he claims vague credentials that are unsupported by his
work. I have serious doubts about Polarik having a Ph.D., but he
sure has a lot of BS.

Which part of that is NOT a bald-faced lie??? I
never manipulated anything! Is Krawetz so full of himself to
think that I would read this and then go off into a corner to
cry? Does he think that I am as spineless as he is and would be
afraid to call him out? After stripping away all of the vitriolic
language in Krawetz's "Bad Science" screed, along with
the lies, baseless accusations, unsubstantiated claims, and
faulty logic, what remains is rather meaningless as it bears no
relevance, whatsoever, to the research I conducted, to the
results I found, and to the real process of scientific inquiry
that is so foreign to him.

Krawetz has forced me to do what I absolutely tried to avoid,
and what I dread having to do now, and that is to take everything
he wrote, go through it line by line, lie by lie, falsehood by
falsehood, and point out every bogus claim and comment that he
has made.

Here we go:

Polarik claims that a zoom-up of the letters contains
off-color pixels that do not belong. For example, zooming in
shows gray dots in the middle of the black letters. He claims
that this means that the letters were replaced.

I never said anything about
"off-color" pixels. I specifically mentioned
"white and gray-shaded pixels between the letters."
I've said this repeatedly for six months..

For example, zooming in shows gray dots in the middle of
the black letters. He claims that this means that the letters
were replaced.
(Lie #11).

I never said anything about any "gray
dots in the middle of the black letters,"
either! These
two statements confirm that Krawetz failed to read my final
report, as well as any and all of my interim reports from June 13
to December 3. I have said it so many times that I am blue in the
face, and I'l aay it again: that the lack of any greenish colored
pixels in between the letters cannot occur naturally, and is a
result of the original text being covered over with portions of
the background and new text being typed on top of it. Krawetz
just does not get it, and I doubt he ever will.

Not when he copeis one of my images and fashions a lie out of

First, the highest copy quality of the COLB contains no
instances of the word "BIRTH" that looks like this.

Does Krawetz really expect everyone to simply
take his word for it, someone who has already made eleven previous
lies? There is no evidence provided to even suggest that Krawetz
did anything beyond looking at something with his naked eyes.
Krawetz never identified what is the "highest copy
quality of the COLB
" that he saw, if any. I've seen
every COLB ever posted along with unposted COLBs from 2006, 2007,
and 2008. I seriously doubt that he did anything to enlarge this
"copy of the COLB."

For someone who claims that I use "bad science," one
of the essential task for a researcher is to operationally define
his terminology. In my final report -- which Krawetz
never read
-- I determined that there is no such thing
as an Obama COLB image with the "highest copy quality."
In my final report, I demonstrated that when the Factcheck COLB
image is cropped to the same dimensions as the KOS COLB image,
and then saved at the previous compression level (defined as the
ratio between file size and memory size), they are virtually the
same, and that the only difference between them are the somewhat
higher color count in the Factcheck image. I took the trouble to
analyze the COLBs at the pixel level by using a graphics program
that overlays a pixel-sized grid on top of the image to
differentiate among the individual "dots" of color.
Since the pixel grid is not saved or copied, I made a screen
capture of the grid and the image:

But, where is the second image I put below it for comparsion??
This "BIRTH" image was created five months ago from the
KOS COLB image and using the same screen capture process, I made
a comparsion image from a real, 2008 COLB. Krawetz conveniently
left it out, that is, iif he even found it on his own. My final
report has 140 images, and Krawetz has to deliberately break up a
set of mine to do what exactly? Where is this "highest copy
quality" to which Krawetz refers? Does it exist only in his
head along with the unsubstantiated conclusions he made?

Once again, I refer back to my final report where the followed
comparasions are made:

Here is the "HOUR OF BIRTH" header from Barack's COLB
enlarged 5 times:

Here's the same header taken from Dan's
2007 COLB scanned at the same resolution with the same amount of
file compression:

For those who still cling to the myth that Obama actually
released his real Certification of Live Birth, there are no
limits to the number of cockeyed excuses they have made to permit
this bogus birth certificate to exist -- which it does not --
while simultaneously calling for my research to be replicated and
peer-reviewed! In six months time since the question, "Where
is Obama's original birth certificate"" was first
asked, there has been this one, and only one, scan image
presented that Obama supporters allege was made from the front
side of Obama's "original birth certificate." Obama's
"Fight The Smears website still proclaims it as such."
Meanwhile, I have made well over 100 original COLB scans, both
front and back, at various settings, that I have thoroughly
analyzed and repeatedly tested. how is what I did in any way
comparable to zero COLB scans made by Krawetz or
zero COLB copies that he supposedly examined?

I demonstrated that the pixel paterns I discovered were also
visible in the Factcheck image, but were not present in any of
the more than 100 scans I made using three different scanners!
"Word of mouth" is not a part of the scientific method.

Every instance [of the word, "BIRTH"] has that
green thatched background around the letters
. (Lie

By saying that every instance has that green thatched
background around the letters
, he contradicts himself
because he acknowledges later on that the lack of greenish pixels
around the letters are the result of "compression
algorithms." apparently Krawetz is looking at a COLB copy at
its original size and without any magnification. No wonder he
does not see anything of interest! If you look back at the
previous Obama COLB image, you will see no "green thatched
background" around the letters. Remember that I never talked
about any "pixel halos" (as Factcheck called them) but
specifically limited my analysis to the pixels in between
the letters
. This distinction is crucial and one that
Krawetz repeatedly misses.

Along with the missing green from outside the letters,
Polarik claims that there should be a green thatched pattern
within the letters ("O", "B", etc. have
internal areas that should contain green)
(Lie #13).

I never said anything about a "green thatched
pattern" being inside the letters. I have to conclude at
this point, that K is hopelessly confused as to what I said, what
I did, and what I examined. Krawetz has absolutely no business
claiming that he has done otherwise. If he had read my report,
then he would have known that I have only talked about the
white and grayish pixels in between the letters
. I
specifically stated that the appearance of these white
and grayish pixels in between the letters
are what rule
out any naturally-occuring process. This is not rocket science
for anyone who actually read my final report would know this..

However, the green thatch [in the middle of the letters]
is not as clear as the rest of the image. This happens because
the image is at a very low quality
(Error #1).

He said earlier that he was looking at the "highest
quality" COLB image. Now he says that the image "is at
a very low quality." So, which is it?I don't know how
Krawetz defines, "Quality," but, like beauty, it is in
the eye of the beholder. From a pragamtic point-of-view, quality
is a measure of how closely a perceived image matches the
physical object in appearance. I have a real, paper COLB, whereas
Krawetz has never seen one. I know what its physical appearance
looks like and what its virtual appearance looks like in both
digital scans and photographs.

In other words, I speak from facts and experience working with
a real COLB, something that no one else has done. The reason why
I have 700 images is because they are products of all the tests I
ran, comparing all of the other alternative explanations that
people have given as to why I was obtaining the results I found.
If I wanted to "manipulate evidence," then all I would
have are a handful of images I "doctored," as
"Dr" Krawetz might claim.

JPEG uses a lossy compression algorithm that drops off low
contrast colors and preserves high contrast.
#2 and #3

Does Krawetz think that everyone reading his screed
understands what he means by saying that "JPEG uses a lossy
compression algorithm?" Except for Mac owners, the average
reader does not know that JPEG and JPG are synonymous. Saying
that, "JPEG uses a lossy compression algorithm," is
like saying that "automobiles use energy
inefficiently." A JPEG may use any one of a dozen separate
compression algorithms that attempt to control or eliminate
different kinds of artifacts that degrade the perceived quality
of a JPG image. JPG artifacts do not, however, cause the white
and grayish pixels in between the letters
of the Obama
COLB, and anyone who claims that they do is dead
. End of story.

The black text on light background is preserved, but the
pale green thatch on light green paper blends together when
combined with the high-contrast black lettering
. (Error
#4 and #5)

What does Krawetz mean when he says, light background,
light green paper, and pale green thatch
? The paper used for
the COLB document is green with darker green pairs of bars
printed on it that run perpendicular to each other and in
alternating patterns. The original paper COLB shows clear, black
lettering on the green patterned paper. If a real COLB is scanned
as a color document at 300DPI or higher, you will be able to see
nothing but green inside, around, and between the letters. There
is no automatic blending in colors that would yield gray and
white pixels in between the letters, but green and white pixels
everywhere else.

The loss of the green background when scanned is
intentional. Security paper, such as the green thatched
background, is designed to distort when scanned. That's a
security measure. Thus, even if Polarik had not tampered with the
image, removing the green from around the letters, the thatch
background should not be crisp
. (Error #6 and #7,
Bald-faced Lie #14 and Slander #1)

Krawetz is calling me a liar,here by saying that I
"tampered with the image." That is a bald-faced lie and
slanderous, too. Besides never reading my final report, Krawetz
has also never experimented with COLB images, never made a scan
image of a real COLB, never made a photograph of a COLB, never
made a scan image or photograph of anything even remotely
resembling a COLB, and never stopped to realize that he is
uniquely unqualified to review my research.

For "comparison" purposes, he presents two images
comprised of two, totally-different formats that he fraudulently
claims were made from one scan allegedly made from an object that
is totally incomparable to a real COLB in every way possible:

The biggest COLB online is 2550x3300 pixels. At 300dpi,
that is 8.5"x11" (a full sheet of paper). I scanned in
a portion of a Newsweek article at 300dpi. The portion that I
selected contains text at various sizes and thicknesses. Looking
at the paper version, it all looks uniform and black. However,
the scanned image (full color, no enhancements, scanned on an HP
Scanjet 3570c) shows that the black text contains a variety of
(bald-faced Lie #15 & #16)

Krawetz is intentionally trying to pull a fast one here, and
he thinks that everyone else is simply too ignorant to know what
he is doing. Anyone in their right image-graphic mind would
honestly say
that JPEG is not suitable for images with
black text on white paper and images with sharp lines.
Conversely, someone who didn't know Jack about images or scanners
would not think twice about taking a two-color, black on white
magazine page, original, printed by Rotogravure at 2400 dpi, and
then scan it as a full-color copy at 300DPI -- which is what
Krawetz did.

On the other hand, if someone wanted to intentionally
introduce a lot of color noise into a second image, and pretend
like it's just an enlargement of the first, he would change the
image format. Then he would fiurther deceive his audience by
claiming that his test images are the same thing as copying a
green-paper COLB document graphic that was printed by a laser,
then he would have done everything that Krawetz did.

Here is the scan copy he allegedly made at 300 DPI:

However, this image is a 72 DPI JPG, and not 300 DPI. It is
also saved at 2.5%

Krawetz presents a second image that he claims is a 400%
enlargement of the previous image:

A closer inspection of the photo; i.e., looking at the image
information, shows it to be a 24-bit color PNG bitmap, an image
format with six times the number of colors as the first image.
Here is how this demonstration should have been done (even though
it is totally unrelated to scanning COLBS):

Original scanned JPG image (taken from Road & Track

400% enlargement saved as JPG image:

400% enlargement saved as PNG image:

All of these images are approximately the same file size and
memory size as the ones Krawetz used. What is different from his
is that I did not deceptively and secretly introduce noise into
the image.

During the time that he locked me out of his blog, Krawetz
switched the images shown above! I was able to enter via another
portal, so his attempt to block me failed. Plus, the night before
I sent my Cease and Desist demand, I made a full HTML copy of his
web page that contained "Bad Science II" or BS-II for
short, so I know what images were subsequently switched. Now,
instead of a JPG and a PNG, there are two GIF files, which are
image formats restricted to 256 colors, instead of the 4,527
colors for the JPG and 27,557 colors for the PNG. In other words,
Krawetz switched to a format that did not reveal the color noise
of the second image that he deliberately interjected into the
first. Thus, Krawetz is not only a liar, but also a desperate one
as well, willing to use deception and trickery to support his
baseless claims. Given that he has now flim-flammed his audience
twice, what he says below is now meaningless gibberish.

The areas of text that should be all black are not
uniformly black. Combining these "non-black" areas with
the JPEG lossy compression (which uses 8x8 blocks) yields square
patches that are different dark colors.
(Error #8
& #9 and Lie #17)

Krawetz deliberately introduced noise into his scan image by
creating a color JPG from a B&W source. He lied about the
scanning resolution of the images. He lied about the image format
-- TWICE! He's talking about the presence of "dark
colors" in an image that should only contain white, black,
and minimal shades of gray. He created these "square
patches that are different dark colors"
by increasing
the JPEG compression and by using the wrong scan settings
initially. These random dark gray pixels would
not have been there
if the Newsweek page was scanned
properly and honestly, namely using no more than 16 colors

These look like the exact same artifacts that Polarik
claims indicate a forgery. Polarik is wrong -- they are nothing
more than scanner artifacts.
(Lies 18 & 19)

They look absolutely nothing like the pixel patterns I
. His claim that these random pixels are
"the exact same artifacts" is a bald-faced lie.
Does he really think his audience is that stupid? He's already
said that I am. First, he intentionally created an irrelevant
image, and then fabricated a second image for
"comparison" that he used to fool people into thinking
it was equivalent to the COLB images I examined. Krawetz
intentionally introduced noise into his image that should not
have been there. Krawetz, therefore, is the fraud.

The pixel patterns I found in between the letters are
irrefutably not scanner artifiacts, and anyone
who say that they are is flat-out wrong. In fact, this is how I
am able to tell if a critic of my research knows what he's
talking about, Clearly, Krawetz has demonstrated a total lack of
knowledge about my research findings, about scanning COLB
documents, about analyzing COLB images, and has also shown a
willingness to fabricate evidence to fit his conclusions -- which
are also way off the mark.

On Claim #1, Polarik has manipulated the data, forgot
about the purpose of security paper, ignored the image quality,
and incorrectly determined that scanner artifacts are signs of a
. (Lies #20, #21, #22, and #23)

Remember than Krawetz never read my final report, and even if he
did, he does not understand even the basics of analysing scanner
images and would have made a lot more false statements and errors
than he has already made. The "manipulation" charge is
a blatant lie, and he is dead wrong about "scanner
artifacts," even if he had used a color COLB, instead of a
black & white magazine page. Again, anyone who claims that
"scanner artifacts" caused the pixel patterns I found
is dead wrong and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

Polarik claims that the border looks different from other
examples of Hawaii's birth certificate. In particular, he says
that it looks blurry. We don't know the history of the actual
image (was this a scan converted to JPEG, resaved as another
JPEG, etc.). What we do know is that the image is at a very low
quality, and JPEG loses fine details when saved at a low quality
#10, #11, and #12)

If Krawetz had bothered to read my report, then he might have
known that these statements of his are erroneous, and that, in
fact, after four months of experimenting with 700 images, I do
know the history of the actual image because I was able to
replicate it. However, he demonstrates, yet again, his lack of
knowledge and understanding of scanning and image
characteristics, both in general, and in particular, as they
relate to copying a paper COLB.

Polarik continues to say that the blurriness is because
one border was applied on top of another. (This is a fun argument
because it is so stupid.)
(Error #13 and Lie #24)

I never said that "one border was applied on top of
and Krawetz compounds his lie by making a
derogatory comment about me, "This is a fun argument
because it is so stupid."
The only thing that is
"stupid" is making judgments on something he does not
understand and on a report that he has never read. I said that
the green patterened background was forged separately before the
border was ever applied, and that the border came from a second
COLB and was pasted on top of the green patterened background. I
proved this by replicating the steps required to make the border
separately and then to add it on top of the "new"

The discussion that follows his "stupid"
remark makes no sense whatsoever, and are in no way even close to
how I replicated the border. He describes three processes,
"overwrite," "selection," and
"merge," that have no connection to the well-known
process of "layering," or placing one image layer on
top of another image layer. This process is more commonly known
as, "superimposing one image onto another," and when
the word, "Photoshopped" is mentioned, it is this
process of superimposition that most often comes to mind -- even
for people who have never worked with graphics.

Polarik incorrectly concludes that the border was added to
the image. However, I and other analysts have been unable to
identify any sign of digital manipulation
. (Lies #25
and #26)

Krawetz has done absolutely nothing to refute my
findings, nor has anyone else
. This statement is bogus
times two. As is typical throughout his screed, he makes
unsubstantiated statements and presents his opinions as if they
were cold, hard facts, without any concrete evidence to support
them whatsoever. He is expecting people to take him at his word,
but since we now know that he cannot be trusted to present images
honestly, we should not even believe a word he says. The reason
why he was "unable to identify any sign of digital
manipulation" is because he did Jack-squat to find any. We
now know that Krawetz does not know anything about how the COLB
image was made, how it was forged, how to recognize signs of
manipulation done to it, how to replicate the actual
manipulations done to it, and to validate them through
experimental testing. The reference to "other analysts"
is a red herring, because it implies that these
other "analysts" of his are as misinformed and confused
as is Krawetz.

Hawaii (and every other state) uses a variety of forgery
deterrents and regularly change the deterrents
. A very
fine black-thatched border, like the light green thatched
background, should not scan correctly
. (Error #14)

First of all, that is meaningless to even mention because it's
not even relevant to the issue at hand, namely comparing a true,
original scan image to one that is an obviously altered scan
image. Additionally, the borders on 2008 COLBs scan exactly as
shown on the paper, or hardly something that could be called, a
security border. Krawetz never performed even a single scan of a
real COLB as I did, nor did he even look at more than one COLB
scan, nor did he print off any scans, nor to try any of the
experiments I did. Krawetz never read my final report and
that onus is on him.

Depending on the scanner, it may appear blurred or
bi-tonal or contain a different patterned than the one found on
the paper
. Depending on the scanner, it may appear
blurred or bi-tonal or contain a different patterned than the one
found on the paper. Thus, the dark, blurry background is more
likely due to the security paper and not due to manipulation.
#15 & #16)

Krawetz's failure to scan a paper COLB or to analyze other
COLB scans, or to conduct any tests to see if the borders can be
replicated by any other means, or even to provide some concrete
examples to support his conjectures, are what led him to state
these erroneous conclusions. I demonstrated, actually and
factually, that Krawetz's conclusions are not only patently
false, but are merely thoughts off the top of his head.

Then again, without a copy of the official document and a
list of the various and ever-changing security methods employed
by Hawaii, any visual analysis of "it looks wrong" is
nothing more than speculation.
(which is exactly
what Krawetz has done)

Krawetz just affirmed what I said about his lack of knowledge:
that he has been stating nothing more than mere speculations. He
does not have a copy of the official COLB document, nor copies of
five of the seven possible border pattenrs used between 2001 and
2008. I do, and he doesn't, but that fact has not prevented him
from making more erroneous speculations.

Of course, borders could be added to a fake document,
printed, and then scanned in and I would not be able to detect
it. But that isn't what Polarik is claiming happened. He says
that they were added to the digital image. That claim is not
supported by the image compression level, color scheme, and other
artifacts. Polarik is both wrong, and not in a position to
validate even if he were right.
(Lie #27, and
Bald-Faced Lies #28 and #29)

Saying that someone could "add Hawaii's borders" to a
fake document is totally ridiculous that further highlights how
clueless is Krawetz. I would love to hear how Krawetz would find
these "borders,"and he would add them to a "fake
document." What does he even mean by "fake
document?" Now, I have gone through the steps of digitally
adding a separate border to a premade background, as part of the
process for reconstructing the Kos COLB image. Krawetz does not
even know the process I used to do it -- he would if he read my
report -- and therefore, he cannot comment on it.


The answer that Krawetz gives above, that "Polarik is
both wrong, and not in a position to validate even if he were
are bald-faced lies, uttered by a man who does
not possess the skills to detect the image alterations I found,
to identify the steps that were taken to create the image
forgery, and to follow those same steps to create a clone of the
original forgery. His statement, that my "claim is not
supported by the image compression level, color scheme, and other
, reveals both Krawetz's ignorance of my research
and his arrogance in denigrating something he has never done at
all. Pretty bold talk for someone who never read my report, never
bothered to understand the issues, and never conducted one iota
of real COLB research. I, on the other hand, spent four months
producing multiple variations of real COLB scans, while Krawetz
has done ZIP!

"The missing seal" and "The missing
fold" Polarik claims that the online COLB is missing the
official seal and folds.
(SOS #1 & #2)

The missing seal and fold are the Same Old
Stuff from June, and it proves that Krawetz's is
rehashing old issues, and has never read my final report.
These two missing elements were noted by thousands of other
people who voiced their concerns when the Obama COLB was first
published on June 12 of this year. Krawetz's comment sounds like
it was pulled from his "Bad Science, Part I" in
verbatim. I can only conclude that Krawetz has got his head in
his past here. The missing lower fold is still an issue, however,
and one I discussed at length in my final report.

I don't know what to say here except "Polarik is
He seems to not mind hyperfocusing on
pixels in the text, but ignores the pixels that disprove his
conclusion. This isn't just "selection bias", this is
intentional ignorance.
(Lies #30 and #31)

I don't know what to say here, either, when someone points at
me and says, "You're wrong," without knowing anything
about what i did. However, I do know what to say when someone
calls me "ignorant," and it is not "Happy
Holidays." The charge that I am ignoring any pixels is
patently false, as well as saying that there are pixels that
disprove my conclusion. Krawetz has never even looked at a COLB
scan at the pixel level. He provides a section of an image that
he says came from the "large online document," which I
assume to be the 2550 x 3300, 300DPI Factcheck copy.

The edge detection that Krawetz misapplied here is probably the
Sobel technique, and he did a lousy job, too. The seal is hardly
visible at all in his image. I originally said on June 13 that a
real COLB image was used as the template, and therefore, I would
expect it to have a Seal. I would also expect it to have two
folds. Before this technique was presented as a way to highlight
the Seal, I was unable to see enough of the Seal to know what it
was, and neither could anyone else at the time. The image that
Krawetz supplied is junk.

Polarik says that you should be able to see the embossed
pattern on the scanned image without image enhancement. The
quality of the seal's appearance depends on the scanner and image
quality. Remember: the seal is not a change in color; it is a
change in texture that the scanner may not capture well. In this
case, I see it above, but I use enhancement to make it easier to
(Error #17)

Every scan that I made using a $99 scanner without any
image enhancements produced both folds, the Seal, and the texture
of the paper
, as well as the scans made by others, so
Krawetz's claims do not reflect reality. Here are four examples:

Speaking of reality, since the Seal causes ridges in the paper
to form, these, in turn, causes shadows to occur around them, and
that's why a cheap scanner set on AUTO will pick them up, time
after time,

Polarik refuses to acknowledge the seal because admitting
it exists would damage his claim
. (Lie #32)

I spent an entire chapter on the Seal in my final report. In
fact, it was the Seal that conclusively proved the Obama COLB
image and photographs to be fake. As I noted, Krawetz is stuck in
time, back on June 13, before I (and may others) learned how to
use the Sobel edge detection process found on the GIMP program.

Polarik also claims that the second fold is missing. In
this regard, I must admit that I do not see the second fold.
However, I have scanned many pieces of folded paper and not seen
folds (scanners pick up color, not texture)
(Lie #33
or Error #18)

I have proven, conclusively, that scanners do, indeed, clearly
copy the fold. If Krawetz is not picking it up in his scans. then
he is not performing them correctly. Given that he made a color
scan of a B&W original, the latter might also be the case.

What I do see in the COLB is evidence suggesting a fold.
Follow the right edge of the right border down the page. It has a
slight lean inward, meaning it is crooked. At about a third of
the way from the bottom, the border changes direction, bending
outward. It changes direction where the second fold should be
located. And since the green thatched pattern does not show any
breaks or separations, it is very unlikely that this is a paste
or splice.
(Lie #34)

This is pure bunk. Any kinks in the border prove that it came
from another COLB, and do not confirm the presence of a second
fold line. There is NO second fold line, exccept in Krawetz's

Polarik claims the border and seal do not match the form
from 2007 or 2008. He forgot to mention that the bottom corner
says "11/01" meaning it is the 2001 form, and not
either 2007 or 2008.
(Major error #19)

As I said repeatedly, Krawetz has no knowledge of what is a
COLB, and he never read any of my blog posts. In fact, Krawetz
never read any other blog posts to know that the
"11/01" identifer is the date that the current COLB
form was introduced, and has nothing to do with the date the COLB
was printed, the date stamp, the embossed Seal, and the border.

There is a difference between "real" and
"authentic". Digital image analysis can tell if an
image has been manipulated, but not if the original source was
authentic. In fact, any analysis based strictly on the online
image cannot be used to validate the authenticity of the border.

(Errors #20 & #21)

I have repeatedly said that the COLB image was made from a
real COLB, but not from Obama's and is not an authentic
representation of Obama's birth record. However, nobody would
ever create a forged document image if an authentic copy of the
original is easily obtained. Krawetz second statement is patently
false. If the border shown on a 2008 COLB image is the same as
the one used on the 2007 COLB, then the border shown in the 2008
COLB image is not an authentic 2008 border. It's simple logic.

The only one who can say whether the border and document
are authentic is the state of Hawaii
(Error #22)

This statement is a non sequitur. I have two 2008 COLBs and
the borders, layout, and Seal are identical. When someone
personally picks up a copy of his or her COLB from Vital Records,
ans has it stamped by Vital Records, it is certified as
authentic. This statement is thrown in here as a bogus Catch-22
that because no one has ever seen Obama's real COLB -- which we
know does not exist given all of the evidence -- then we cannot
assess its "authenticity."

That is hokum.

And Hawaii has been saying that the accusation of a false
COLB is "pretty ridiculous."
(Lie #35)

No such accusation has ever been made. What we are postulating
is that a "manufactured COLB" was posted on the
internet to fool people into believing that they had just seen
Obama's real COLB, when in fact, novosy has seen it,. and that
the document shown in the image does not exist in reality.

So none of Polarik's claims hold up to inspection. What
about Polarik's credentials?...So let's see..."Dr. Ron
Polarik". Many years ago I saw a comedy troupe called Duck's
Breath Mystery Theater. They had a skit called "Ask Dr.
Science". In the show, Dr. Science legally changed his first
name to "Doctor" in order to give his theories more
credibility. ("There is a thin line between ignorance and
arrogance," he says, "and only I have managed to erase
that line.")
(Slander #1 through about #25)

The only one who can say whether the border and document are authentic
is the state of Hawaii. And Hawaii has been saying that the accusation
of a false COLB is "pretty ridiculous." (Lie #36)

As far back as 15-Aug-2008, they have said that the COLB image is "a valid Hawaii state birth certificate".(Lie #37)

Since Polarik has never claimed to be an expert in Hawaiian birth
certificates, I'm going to have to go with the State's opinion here and
conclude that Polarik is wrong.(Lie #37)

I am an expert in Hawaiian Certifications of Live Birth, and that's the entire point of my final report -- which Krawetz never read. Krawetz is at the opposite end of the spectrum, someone who knows Jack-squat about the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth.

What is so typical of a Leftist coward who runs from confrontation is to feign indignation when I angrily responded to his trash talk. He cherry-picked my comments and then lecturse me as to what a "PhD should do."

I did not copy the rest of his condescending and libelous remarks, but
the proof is in the pudding: Krawetz has conclusively proven that
credentials do not create credibility, for whatever credentials
Krawetz holds, they were of no use to him in reviewing my final
report -- which he never did. He made multiple lies and errors
throughout his critique that actually gave his credentials a big,
black eye. I ask that I be judged on my work, but when someone
like Krawetz comes along who does not know what he is saying and
has never read my reports, then that individual has no right to
make any comments about me or my research.

The bottom line is that Krawetz has tried every excuse possible,
and every trick in the book to invalidate my research and to discredit me, and he has fallen flat on his face.
He did not so much as make a dent in my research. By failing to counter my claims, Krawetz reinforced them.
The forgery evidence is irrefutable, and that is not going to change by virtue of any
claims made by charlatans like Krawetz or anyone else. I am sure that his remarks
will continue to be posted on many pro-Obama websites, whose
owners would like nothing better than for my research to be
invalidated. Yet, the only person who manipulated evidence and
who masqueraded as an expert qualified to judge my research, is
Neal Krawetz, and he is now duly notified that his slanderous
actions will not be tolerated.

Krawetz says that he "stands behind his claims about
me," except for the fact that I've challenged him to prove
that the pixel anomalies I found are scanner artifiacts, and he
failed to accept my challenge. In what will be a shock to many of
Krawetz's recent supporters, I'm not the first person on whom
he's done a hack job, and then turned tail and hide when
challenged. Here is an incident that happened in the Spring of
last year when a company named GOBBLES called out Krawetz for
making false associations:

GOBBLES is calling out Dr. Neal Krawetz.

Dated April 21, 2007

Dear fans,

Below is an email we sent to Dr. Neal Krawetz, author of
"who_is_n3td3v.pdf", a document that uses flawed logic
to "prove"

that GOBBLES Security members are behind the alias n3td3v, which
obviously is not true. We have tried numerous times to establish

contact with the good doctor, and to have him publish an apology
and retract his libelous allegations. He is however adamant in

position that he is correct, and refuses to entertain any
evidence presented that proves his conclusions contrary.

Since he is no longer answering our emails, and authoring
articles on the subject of internet character defamation for

we have no choice but to call him on his bullshit publicly.

If you run a security conference and would like to provide
the venue for the challenge described below, please contact us

immediately. For the record, we have never had anything to do
with the online identity n3td3v, and to our collective knowledge
have had no

contact in any way with the individual(s) behind the alias. Also
for the record, Neal Krawetz is an academic fraud who cannot cite

the source of the axioms he constantly refers to, since the basis
of all his research is clearly horseshit.

In God We Trust,

GOBBLES Security

The similarities between what Krawetz did to me and to GOBBLES
serve to reinforce my assessments of him. I can relate to the
issues that GOBBLES Security raised about Krawetz. He
has deleted all of my messages to him. He has refused to retract
his libelous allegations against me, and refused to entertain any
evidence that disproves his conclusions about my research.
Likewise, since Krawetz has also locked me out of his blog, I,
too, have to call him out on his lies and false accusations in a
public venue.

If Krawetz really wants to stand behind his trashing of me and
my research, then let him validate his claims, openly and
honestly. Let him try and recreate the white and gray-shaded
pixel patterns between the letters on Obama's bogus COLB by
scanning alone. Likewise, let him prove that what I observed as
signs of forging are only JPG artifacts. Let him try and recreate
the COLB border by scanning alone. Let him prove that the border
and the text on the Obama COLB image were produced together and
at the same time.

I am not the one who has been bragging about his credentials,
or putting someone else down for theirs. Only Krawetz has done
that. I am not the one trying to grab some glory by being the
first person to refute someone else's research. What I am is
simly this: the only person on the planet to have ever deciphered
how the bogus Obama image was made, and to use that information
to replicate it, including the telltale pixel patterns, the
separate border, the missing second Seal, and so on, by scanning
a real, paper COLB document and then graphically altering it as
the forger might have done.

What will be instructive are some of the comments made about
my research from an objective reviewer, named Chuck, who has seen
both my report and Krawetz's screed.

Here’s a brief...list I made, while going through
the “final” report by Dr. Polarik. Good means he found
something interesting, which I also found.

Good: He points out a resample goof by KOS. I
believe he’s noting they went and created their cropped
image, and ended up with the same number of pixels. I think that’s
a common mistake - leaving “resample” on. Probably
nothing nefarious here.

Good: photo session of the
piece of paper “taken in Aug”, had EXIF date of March
12th. Just odd.

Good: “missing green” - what’s
the rest look like? could be gone because of level adjust? All
the other text has this same “effect”.

Good: ‘header text absolutely looks
pasted. artifacts abound’. When I first saw an isolated,
cropped image of the “suspect” text, it did look
pasted. See my previous - it doesn’t.

Good: - where are the folds? The scan doesn’t
show the folds like one would expect. When enhanced, only the top
fold can be see. The photo session shows a tri-folded document.

Good: it does NOT look like a scan of a
physical document. No 3D features such as the edge of the paper
or folds. I agree - all other scans of COLBs he has show folds.
All scans I’ve ever done myself show folds, unless some
exceptional adjustments are made - even then, there are still
remnants of all folds.

Really Good: Seal too small. It measures 1.5?.
A 2001 seal is 1.675, and Polarik claims 2008 seal is same (or at
least, larger than 2007). This one is a big oddity. I measured BO’s
COLB seal at 1.5?. I found a scan of a 2001 HI COLB - its seal
measured 1.675?. Polarik himself says the 2008 is larger than BO’s
2007. Very odd one here.

  • Outwardly, this [KOS image] appears to be WAY over
    processed - no detail. The border detail is terrible. I
    would say, the text artifacts aren’t from pasting,
    but rather due to high compression and/or multiple
    compression cycles. Levels are blown out.|

  • This does NOT look like a scan of a real document. It is
    extremely hard to remove folds so completely. If
    enhanced, only the top fold is visible.

  • Looking at the full RGB histogram - there are NO
    mid-tones. Odd for a scan. Again, doesn’t look like
    a real scan, but more like a digitally rendered image
    (such as an original from a page layout application).

  • No embossing in seal - it would have shown in scan
    easily. The photographed document seems to show the
    embossing, but the scan doesn’t. They look like two
    different documents.

  • I measure the KOS seal as 1.5? - is this 2007 or 2008? I
    found a HI COLB from 2001 and measured its seal at 1.675?.
    Polarik claims 2008 seal is bigger than the seal in BO’s
    2007 COLB. This seems to be a problem.

  • No folds - again, doesn’t look like a scanned,
    physical document.

Dr. Krawetz doesn’t have a lot of real strong arguments
or analysis reputing him [that I could find], despite his low
opinion [of Dr. Polarik]. The “Xenon” work doesn’t
mean much, given what looks like an abundance of compression

A real scan would have midtones, but the lack
thereof might be from over correction and overprocessing.

A real scan would have a “3D”
appearance - folds, edges to paper. There is definitely something
different between what’s in the photographs and the scan.

However, except for the seal, the scanning issues (missing
folds and embossing) could be either ineptness or something
deliberate to hide something -  we can only guess what, if
anything. The seal size discrepancy is the biggest problem I see.


I hope that this commentary will be instructive for those who
are not familiar with my research and/or who have been led astray
by Neal Krawetz's "Bad Science" boondoggle. As I said
above: before making any hasty judgments about me or my research,
you have to read the entire final report first, and to read it
with comprehension. Then, look around at what my critics have to
offer in rebuttal. Whether you agree or disagree with the central
premise of the research, that America still has not seen Obama's
original paper, long-form birth certificate, your decision will
not be made on the basis of someone's stated credentials, but on
the validity and significance of the research.