Wednesday, May 18, 2011

theKansasCitian: 3, Market-Ticker: 0

After having his forgery theories fully debunked by yours truly, Karl Denniger, AKA the Market Ticker, is back with more “evidence” the Obama long firm birth certificate released by the White House is a forgery.  And once again, his evidence is backed by an incorrect analysis of the typography in the document.

His case:

marktet-ticker_curves

 

The page portion here is curved as it is allegedly "scanned" from a book page. The curvature is consistent with both the margin lines and the printed word "Sex."

 

The typed word Male shows no curvature in the baseline of the text; this is physically impossible if the word "Male" was originally printed upon the same page that was scanned. Worse, the entire hospital name is straight while the text of the caption is properly curved at the margin - but not elsewhere.

Everyone has tried to explain away the various "coincidences." But for this to have happened "coincidentally" the typewriter would have had to curve the text it was typing.

His “smoking gun”:

Now let’s take a look at why anyone with even the least bit of graphic knowledge can clearly see his analysis is not only wrong, but how he appears to be deliberately disseminating misinformation to his readers.

Lets take his first claim, “the typed work Male shows no curvature,” but wait, if his photo shows no curvature, then why does the letter M break the guidelines he drew on his photo across the top and only one leg touches the bottom guideline? 

The answer is a simple one, because the letter is being curved. To illustrate this take a look at his original photo with guides on the word “Male” and our photo showing guides drawn at the letter level.  You will notice the rotation from letter to letter as you go through the word making the curvature clearly visible.

Male_comparison

When I pointed out the fallacy of his argument to Denniger you can guess what he did next?  That’s right, he banned me from his blog claiming I’m an Obot stumping for Obama (obviously he doesn’t know me to well).  He posted this reply thinking I would not be able to see or respond to it:

Absolute nonsense KC.

Here's your "K" showing the "cant" you claim makes it all ok.
akcs-www

That's off "Kapiolani" and shows that the letter is properly curved off the top, right?

Uh, wrong:
akcs-www2

You have to work off the character baseline; anyone who knows anything about typewriter typography knows this, as well as the fact that typewriters also had descenders on some letters (most-notably on lower case "g", "p" and "y")
If you know the typewriter was a "basket" (sometimes called a "bow") unit with hammers mounted on spring steel if you find low capital letter strikes or high lower case ones your eyebrows should go up; capitals will always mis-strike high on such a unit and lower case letters will always mis-strike low. The latter, if it occurs not in immediate conjunction with a capital, is extremely suspicious as well.

This is twice you're run utter, complete and intentional crap, and that exceeds my tolerance.

Scratch another Obot.

At first I thought Denniger just had blinders on when it came to the evidence I presented him that suggested his original analysis of the link layer theory was mistaken, so now when he correctly states, “[y]ou have to work off the character baseline,” with regards to determining if the characters show signs of rotation, I can only surmise the reason he is ignoring the clearly visible fact that the bottom of the left leg in the letter “K” intersects the baseline in his example while the right leg doesn’t is because he wants to deliberately misrepresent the facts.

Lets take a look at his example and the proper baseline of the letter “K” (Apparently he has taken this example from the AP version of the long firm birth certificate and not the white house version, likely because the white house version much more clearly shows the rotation):

K_compare
AP Version

K_compare2 
White House version

Your move, Denniger.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hmm, the next "move" will be to explain the (lack of) alignment of the vertical column.

Your move, Flynn.

theKansasCitian said...

Seriously, you need me to explain perspective to you?

Do this experiment. Hold up a peice of blank paper 8 1/2 x 11 with both hands (left edge in your left hand, right in your right hand). Now move the left side back a few inches. Notice how the vertical edges remain parallel. Now look at the horizontals, you will notice a distinct angle to them.

This happens because when a page is curved it simply moves the left edge further back in space. This distorts horizontal lines but leaves verticals parallel. There are many fine articles written on perspective that you can read on the web.

Check & mate.