Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs reports that Techdude, the analyst who first reported that the Internet-posted birth certificate is a forgery, has been threatened with violence.
Pamela writes:
"I have heard from 'Techdude'.
"'My family is now being harassed and threatened. She [his wife] is absolutely terrified and is afraid to leave the house or even go to work. She is begging me to stop and I am going to listen to her. I cannot endanger my family any further...'
"I stand behind his analysis. The COLB is the fake, not "techdude". Anyone who makes such a sorry claim is looking to kill the messenger..Argue his findings. I welcome peer review by his peers, not highly opinionated cyber geeks."
"There is more to come on Obama's citzenship issues. It is well beyond the COLB now. Stay tuned."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
A short time before Techdude's imaginary terrorist left a dead rabbit on his porch, he had speculated on one of the blogs about someone cooking his pet bunny in a pot.
Ray--are we to believe you over Pamela? If so, what are you credentials? You are using a pseudonym, she is not. On balance, it is you who would seem to be more likely to be imaging things. I'm not a believer in pseudonyms or anonymous review because anonymity deflects responsibility from the reviewer to the void. That is part of why I do not believe that academic review processes are effective, or that universities have been able to advance knowledge, especially in the social sciences and humanities.
mitchell langbert wrote:
Ray--are we to believe you over Pamela? If so, what are you credentials?
If you're referring to this current topic, credentials or one's full name is not an issue. I was merely mentioning the suspicious coincidence about rabbits. which can be verified without anyone's credentials.
Incidentally I'm new to blogs but because of the flakey way in which blogs have been programmed for names, I have just used a few quick names out of convenience -- "Ray", "Ray_in_Aus" and "rayinnaus". I don't hide my name because for a decade I've always use my email address (which can lead anyone straight to me via 10,000+ messages on the net plus 10,000+ full names plus thousands of IP numbers).
I have hardly any interest in politics, apart from the Gitmo and Habeas corpus atrocities, and I'm here mainly to get ordinary (public) information about Senator Obama. If I WAS interested in politics I'd become very talkative indeed. If was an American voter I'd vote for Hillary - not because I think she's the best, but the best they've got who could win the votes. America is not ready for anyone like Obama. He's not the right sort of person for a country that's in the arms racket.
Ray
Dr. Langbert, I also find the circumstances suspicious. Ron Polarik has been not been operating under a psuedonymn, has also been doing extensive "COLB forgery" analysis, and has not been threatened. Pamela Geller has likewise pushed the story hard, and she has mentioned no such threats. Techdude, on the other hand, has steadfastly maintained his psuedonym, and yet he is being threatened.
If Obama zealots know of his identity, why have they not posted it? Finally, he has made some pretty bold claims, promising all along that he would "soon" post his report, supporting his claims. Yet, after his methodologies were questioned by numerous other non-psuedonymous graphics experts, and after it was shown that his credentials seemed to have been copied almost verbatim from another person, he suddenly is threatened, thus preventing him from posting his report. That raises a dozen red flags for me. Until he actually supports his claims, I don't find him credible.
Mitchell Langbert wrote:
I'm not a believer in pseudonyms or anonymous review because anonymity deflects responsibility from the reviewer to the void. That is part of why I do not believe that academic review processes are effective, or that universities have been able to advance knowledge, especially in the social sciences and humanities.
Well I'm an amateur student of human nature without much formal education, and I don't mind dealing with anonymity because it hooks up with my other main interests - law and justice, and anonymity allows me to be less biased when looking at evidence. As a matter of interest I have this quirk where I often make a point of not asking people about their background - at the risk of seeming disinterested or ignorant.
With regards to your comment about advancement in universities, I have a rough idea what you're referring to, and it's not surprising when we consider that even in the sciences, where things tend to be more clear-cut, many of the supposed truth seekers are continually playing games and look like they're in those desert island tv shows where they are forming allegiances all the time - instead of getting the job done!
Post a Comment