Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[JayUtah]

That'd be the same Ivan Zakovich...

Here's Zatkovich's expert testimony experience. http://www.ivanzatkovich.com/caseexperience.html

Nothing involving Adobe file formats, products, or methods. Nothing involving the forensic analysis and/or authentication of documents. Nothing involving image processing. In fact, his expertise seems to emphasize heavily the business end of computer science, which would be appropriate for a consultant on intellectual property etc. in the digital world. The only subject-matter expertise he lists there is voice-recognition software as it applies to call centers. His c.v. lists his only practical experience as developing software for firmware controllers at DEC. Before he'd accumulated 7 years of practical experience, he moved into management where he's been ever since the Reagan presidency.

I'll be blunt. If he were on the stand testifying about allegedly doctored PDFs, I immediately know a dozen people in my area who would easily be able to challenge his belief that the evidence in the object groups is the product of intentional modification. The school I studied computer graphics at, taught computer graphics at, and from which I draw most of my computer-science employees, might just as well be called Adobe U.

Funny how Robert will happily jump on the bandwagon driven by people such as this, with no interest or inclination to submit them to voir dire of any sort. Yet here, where he has contenders willing to discuss the facts according to considerable expertise, he shies away from any serious discussion. It appears that in Robert's world, experts are not people to learn from and talk with, but rather names to be wielded like clubs.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Here's Zatkovich's expert testimony experience. http://www.ivanzatkovich.com/caseexperience.html

Nothing involving Adobe file formats, products, or methods. Nothing involving the forensic analysis and/or authentication of documents. Nothing involving image processing. In fact, his expertise seems to emphasize heavily the business end of computer science, which would be appropriate for a consultant on intellectual property etc. in the digital world. The only subject-matter expertise he lists there is voice-recognition software as it applies to call centers. His c.v. lists his only practical experience as developing software for firmware controllers at DEC. Before he'd accumulated 7 years of practical experience, he moved into management where he's been ever since the Reagan presidency.

I'll be blunt. If he were on the stand testifying about allegedly doctored PDFs, I immediately know a dozen people in my area who would easily be able to challenge his belief that the evidence in the object groups is the product of intentional modification. The school I studied computer graphics at, taught computer graphics at, and from which I draw most of my computer-science employees, might just as well be called Adobe U.

Funny how Robert will happily jump on the bandwagon driven by people such as this, with no interest or inclination to submit them to voir dire of any sort. Yet here, where he has contenders willing to discuss the facts according to considerable expertise, he shies away from any serious discussion. It appears that in Robert's world, experts are not people to learn from and talk with, but rather names to be wielded like clubs.

Jay, it's "40+ medical witnesses" all over again. He's found someone whose testimony he can twist into sounding like it makes his point, and he'll stick to that one-trick pony until the heat death of the universe.

 

[Bob001]

.....
ZATKOVICH'S CONCLUSION: "The content clearly indicates that the document was knowingly and explicitly edited and modified before it was placed on the web."

Senior officials of the state of Hawaii attested that they produced two photocopies on green safety paper of the original document that reposes in a bound ledger locked in state archives. The White House passed one of those original copies among the White House press corps and gave them photocopies of it. If there were any discrepancies between the original document and the image on the web site, hundreds of people would be in a position to say so. You think they wouldn't?

White House press assistants handed out a six-page stapled packet of photocopies showing the new and old birth certificates as well as the White House's legal correspondence with Hawaii's Department of Health.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-r_n_854248.html

 

[A'isha]

Senior officials of the state of Hawaii attested that they produced two photocopies on green safety paper of the original document that reposes in a bound ledger locked in state archives.

Something that even Zatkovich acknowledges!

 

[JayUtah]

You think they wouldn't?

I believe he's said pretty much that. He insinuates that Hawaii officials know the certificates in circulation aren't authentic copies, hence an "independent" inspection of the paper original is now being called for.

 

[Dcdrac]

I believe he's said pretty much that. He insinuates that Hawaii officials know the certificates in circulation aren't authentic copies, hence an "independent" inspection of the paper original is now being called for.

And of course that will not be acceptable unless Sheriff Joe carries it out as he is the only source of veracity in this matter.

 

[Hans]

I believe he's said pretty much that. He insinuates that Hawaii officials know the certificates in circulation aren't authentic copies, hence an "independent" inspection of the paper original is now being called for.

For grins and giggles it might be wonderful to see Roberts vision of what 'independent' inspection would mean and what they would do to 'verify' it.....

 

[Hans]

Thank you.

Oh, so much information. I'll just quote one little part.




So here's the thing. One might come to the JREF forum and say to oneself, "I will post some nonsense about birth certificates in order to upset the liberals. I don't really believe all this stuff, but I am pretending to be a crank so it will be funny." The catch is that in that case, one is not pretending to be a crank, one is pretending to be like 20-25% of the Republican party.

Howdy Ladewig

It would seem that by the descriptions provided that Robert wouldn't be a crank, perhaps just a fanatic but in my opinion a poorly equipped troll

 

[Arisia]

For grins and giggles it might be wonderful to see Roberts vision of what 'independent' inspection would mean and what they would do to 'verify' it.....

Well he's said he still wouldn't admit President Obama's genuine eligibility to be in office, even if he was shown the original document by the Governor of Hawai'i in person, so all of this would have to be for grins and giggles.

 

[000063]

One question at a time, please.

Quoted for evidence he didn't read the post.

(Hint: only one question was asked in that post.)

 

[JayUtah]

Well he's said he still wouldn't admit President Obama's genuine eligibility to be in office...

...which pretty much follows from his statements that the Democratic Party is "pure evil." It's quite clearly a partisan issue for him. I don't know of any Birthers who are not arch-conservatives.

 

[000063]

I've been using adobe products longer than that. But you seem to claim that a layer mask is a separate layer. It is not. Layer masks and clipping masks are contained in a layer, but their creation does not create a separate layer.

"A mask is an instruction in the layer that tells the layer what parts will show through and what parts will not (masked parts)."

http://www.nyfalls.com/article-photoshop-adjustment-layers.html

I love how you don't address what Adobe themselves says.

For the record, when Arus and I refer to using Adobe products, we're talking about actual, y'know, image editing products, such as Photoshop and Illustrator. Not Adobe Reader.

Come to think of it, experience isn't particularly relevant. You've been flat out unable to prove your claims about clipping masks in Illustrator. Either you have two programs mixed up, or you hoped no one would notice.

For one thing, we'd like to see where else The Anointed One wrote that he was born in Kenya.

So when I write a post with one question, you ask for one question at a time, but when someone else does it, you only respond to one question.

I say respond because it's not actually an answer.

For grins and giggles it might be wonderful to see Roberts vision of what 'independent' inspection would mean and what they would do to 'verify' it.....

I have no doubt he'd go for the standard CT non-falsifiability dodge. No matter what evidence is produced, their either ignore it or handwave it. They never actually say "if you produce evidence of X, I will admit I was wrong".

 

[Hans]

I have no doubt he'd go for the standard CT non-falsifiability dodge. No matter what evidence is produced, their either ignore it or handwave it. They never actually say "if you produce evidence of X, I will admit I was wrong".

I would agree completely, so does this classify him as a crank, fanatic or just your regular type of troll?

 

[JayUtah]

Jay, it's "40+ medical witnesses" all over again.

Very much so. As I've said several times now -- Robert Prey's approach and arguments fit a well-defined and easily-predicted pattern. He just populates the pattern with different details from the different conspiracy theories he espouses from time.

Conspiracists and under-bridge performance artists generally try to push the debate to things that can be haggled ad nauseam, such as appropriate standards of proof, matters of interpretation or opinion, inconsequential details that remain ambiguous, conflicting eyewitnesses. Attempting to resolve the question in a more straightforward, factual fashion generally means the conspiracist very quickly has to admit ignorance of, and error in, appropriate facts and sciences that refute his claim, and the debate is over too quickly. Perpetuating the debate is what most conspiracists want; they want to remain relevant for as long as possible -- especially when there are book deals and TV appearances at stake.

Here, however, the Framers of the Constitution provided for this. And Robert hasn't yet dealt with it. It didn't apply to his other debates, but it does here. Full faith and credit means that when the designated officer of a state has certified a vital record, there can be no more legal standing for a challenge. The Framers foresaw such politically-minded bickering and nipped it in the bud. This is why Sheriff Joe has no more mandate to investigate this officially. He relies entirely on private contributions to do so, and cannot invoke LEO privilege.

He's found someone whose testimony he can twist into sounding like it makes his point, and he'll stick to that one-trick pony until the heat death of the universe.

That seems to be the case. In his script, whatever he Googles up for expert testimony is unshakable. Pointing out that the expert isn't an expert is dismissed as "ad hominem." Pointing out everything the expert got wrong is "contradicting an expert," even if the rebuttal has merit. Robert steadfastly refuses to be tested on his own expertise, and steadfastly denies the possibility that anyone he talks to on any of these threads knows what he's talking about. "Experts" in his mode of debate are simply names he Googles and flings like weapons, the end result of which is supposedly game-set-and-match.

What's funny is that he has elsewhere insisted that the only evidence that we should discuss is that which is admissible in a court of law. But based on his approach to evidence in general and to expert testimony specifically, it's clear he's never seen or been party to a case argued in court. Anyone who thinks expert testimony is assertively unchallengeable in court has never been in court.

 

[JayUtah]

For grins and giggles it might be wonderful to see Roberts vision of what 'independent' inspection would mean and what they would do to 'verify' it.....

Asked and answered. He said the only valid inspection would be by someone "not liable for prosecution for fraud." That led to an amusing discussion exposing the circularity of that qualification, after which Robert dropped the matter.

 

[EventHorizon]

Very much so. As I've said several times now -- Robert Prey's approach and arguments fit a well-defined and easily-predicted pattern.

And yet after thorough, detailed responses to many of his illogical arguments, he has the audacity to call the rest of us 'predictable'. What's so predictable? The fact that nobody is fooled by his dishonesty and poor debate skills?

 

[Hans]

Asked and answered. He said the only valid inspection would be by someone "not liable for prosecution for fraud." That led to an amusing discussion exposing the circularity of that qualification, after which Robert dropped the matter.

Thanks Jay, I must have missed that part.

 

[Hans]

And yet after thorough, detailed responses to many of his illogical arguments, he has the audacity to call the rest of us 'predictable'. What's so predictable? The fact that nobody is fooled by his dishonesty and poor debate skills?

Yes he has characteristics of both fanatic and troll. He has probably found that he can get nowhere with regular discussion but has found with a trolling strategy he can at least bore everyone to death

Jay explanation is great

Conspiracists and under-bridge performance artists generally try to push the debate to things that can be haggled ad nauseam, such as appropriate standards of proof, matters of interpretation or opinion, inconsequential details that remain ambiguous, conflicting eyewitnesses. Attempting to resolve the question in a more straightforward, factual fashion generally means the conspiracist very quickly has to admit ignorance of, and error in, appropriate facts and sciences that refute his claim, and the debate is over too quickly. Perpetuating the debate is what most conspiracists want; they want to remain relevant for as long as possible -- especially when there are book deals and TV appearances at stake.

 

[Robert Prey]

You mean the guy you wrongly said supported your conclusion when in fact he contradicted it -- explicitly? Then when confronted with that, you dropped the Stundie that experts weren't being consulted to "draw conclusions."

Sheesh.



No, that's your spin. We already discussed Zatkovich. Kindly stop misquoting him. He believes the document is legit, so don't quote him as if he's someone who doesn't. At this point you're deliberately misrepresenting him.



Funny -- it seems to work with everyone else, including my employees, clients, and the Mythbusters. Do you hear readers praising you for your knowledge and insight, as they do me? No, you do not. Do you write substantial posts describing the relevant concepts and their impact? No, you just cut and paste from elsewhere.

You've amply demonstrated your substantial disdain for formal education and experience. But some people have chosen to actually do something with their lives. Don't be surprised when they end up having more knowledge and expertise than you do.



Too bad you're consistently unwilling to demonstrate that.

Please tell us in your own words the difference in PDF terms between a layer and an object group. Then go back to every single one of my posts that you answered only with the dodgy word "Baloney" and write a substantial response. Really, Robert, who do you think you're fooling?

When you open the WH pdf file in illustrator and expand the layers pallet, it shows layers. That simple fact cannot be denied. Maybe you can con others on this board, but you can't con all of the people all of the time and your time is up.

 

[Robert Prey]

You mean the guy you wrongly said supported your conclusion when in fact he contradicted it -- explicitly? Then when confronted with that, you dropped the Stundie that experts weren't being consulted to "draw conclusions."

ATKOVICH'S CONCLUSION: "The content clearly indicates that the document was knowingly and explicitly edited and modified before it was placed on the web."

What is it about "edited and modified" that you don't get???