posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:38 PM
Polrik's analysis on the forgery (Source: IsraelInsider Talkback)
Polarik - U.S.A
07/05/2008 22:40 IT Sorry to disagree with other theorists on this matter, but my analyses prove that OpenDNA's images -- both of them -- came
directly from the Kos image. Absolutely, 100%, no doubt. The "little dot" as one person has called it is actually an anomaly -- a piece of junk on
the scanner glass or on the COLB itself.
Regardless, it is a very clearly seen, ROCK, on the Kos image that appears like a large, but fuzzy PEBBLE on the OpenDNA image -- a definite sign of
What is throwing people off are the differences in the resolution of the images and not the size or quality.
Nearly all monitors are scaled at 96 DPI, which is why web images are scaled to 96 DPI -- to look best when seen by a monitor. The ONLY reason, then,
why OpenDNA's image appears of "higher quality" is there difference in resolution.
OpenDNA's images are 800 x 781 - exact scale reductions from 2427 x 2369, and by changing the resolution to 96 DPI from 300 DPI was not done just to
make them look better -- but also to make one think that, "Hey maybe this was the original image derived from a scanner, since the default resolution
of scanners is 96 DPI."
But, when you look at the Kos image and OpenDNA's images simiarly-sized, under edge detection, the "dot" looks huge compared to the tiny dot of
When you enlarge OpenDNA's image to Kos size, that "well-defined, rock" looks positively smeared on OpenDNA's image.
A casualty of causality.
Because of space and visual limitations here, I invite you to visit my my blog, polarik.blogtownhall.com, where I compare "apples to apples" instead
of "apples to guacamole," by slicing off the upper right-hand corner of each image after setting all images to the same size and resolution, namely
2427 x 2369, 96 DPI. All images were saved at 100% JPG quality, with slice dimensions being around 786 x 268px., without image enhancements because
the differences are plainly seen by the naked eye.
I also left the images unmarked because, by now, you should know that the "dot" in question lies right below the E in "CERTIFICATION" and directly
to the right of "STATE OF HAWAII."
My thesis is this:
In the beginning, there was "Dr X." Dr X. took a certified COLB, OR an image of one that DID NOT BELONG TO OBAMA, scanned or copied it, and then
proceeded to Photoshop out two of the three folds, and all of the field headers and data, using pieces of the background and the HEALING tool to blend
them in -- that is why the Kos seal and signature block are nearly invisible to the naked eye.
Then, with a blank canvas on which to paint his "masterpiece of fakery," freshly typed in the filed names and the MODIFIED data fields to make it
look like a COLB from BHO.
Dr X then gave it up to the Kos, who then proceeded to proudly display it on its web page on June 12th. Before "Smears" posted their copy of the
same image, on the same day, the authenticity was challenged by OpenDNA, and produced two of his own faked COLBs as evidence of how easy it is to make
I gotta give him poetic props for using "Haye I. B. Ahforgerie" as a data field. Nothing says "faked" like "Hey, I be a forgery."
Realizing the dumb move of posting a really good copy of the fake that was open to inspection, the Smears shmucks pulled it down and replaced it with
one almost half its size, and not proportional, either, so that when you enlarged it, the "OHSM" was so blurry, it looked like "OHBM" as in OH
BOTTOM LINE: If Obama's COLB really DOES EXIST somewhere (which I'm beginning to doubt), we have NOT seen it, and probably will never see it.
These forged images all came from one, "proto-image," which, despite what people can make appear on it with image enhancement, proves only that Dr
X. had to start with a COLB template.
But, and you can bank on it, EVERYTHING from the first fold on down was recreated graphically.
And not convincingly, too.