Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
ATKOVICH'S CONCLUSION: "The content clearly indicates that the document was knowingly and explicitly edited and modified before it was placed on the web."
Click to expand...


Ah, we down to argumentum ad rubrum.

Robert Prey said:
What is it about "edited and modified" that you don't get???
Click to expand...

What part of "the state of Hawaii confirmed that the document presented by the White House is true and accurate" do you not get"???
 
How many other multi-colour documents, which have been scanned by someone using Quartz and then optimised and published to a website, have you opened in Illustrator, Robert?
 
Robert Prey said:
When you open the WH pdf file in illustrator and expand the layers pallet, it shows layers.
Click to expand...

Nope. I just opened it in CS4 Adobe Illustrator and I get one layer with a number of object groups in that layer. And when you look at the individual groups, they are fully consistent with the haphazard way optimizers create objects, and not at all consistent with the way Adobe creative users employ layers (which would have produced multiple layers, not multiple object-groups in a single layer). I've also inspected the PDF with specialized PDF-editing tools (Illustrator is not the tool of choice, believe it or not, since the Illustrator development team has historically "done their own thing" with respect to PDFs) and I see one layer and a set of properly-clipped document objects. Further, I know how to read raw PDF data. I can see what's in the file myself just by dumping the contents.

I've asked you repeatedly for a description in your own words of the difference between a layer and an object group, but you refuse to provide one. I've asked you for a description in your own words of the difference between layers in the PDF design concept and layers in the design concepts employed by Adobe authoring products, but you refuse to provide one. I've asked you for a description of the difference between clipping, masking, and content entities, but you refuse to provide one.

Your continued reluctance to talk about this, coupled with your continued reference to sources who -- like you -- habitually conflate the concepts and misapply what little expertise they have, make it abundantly clear that you're either unwilling or unable to discuss this intelligently according to the facts. You're just regurgitating what you recently Googled on the subject.

That simple fact cannot be denied.
Click to expand...

I just did, with accompanying evidence.

And contrary to your frantic handwaving, it's not a "simple fact." Just as you did with medical evidence earlier, you're trying to dumb down the concepts so that your simplistic grasp of it seems enough to support your belief, and so that you can try to paint your critics as if they were in stark denial of some obvious fact and therefore ideologically motivated.

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.
Click to expand...

Wow, you really hate me, don't you? Okay, let's vote right now on who is the most credible. I dare you. Someone besides me or Robert wanna set this up?
 
Hans said:
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
Click to expand...

Actually, we agree. I called him someone pretending to be a crank, you called him a troll. Pretty much the same thing.

Wikipedia suggests that "A crank differs from a fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a "fringe" belief."

I am willing to call birtherism as widely regarded as wrong and a fringe belief.

Also, the same page lists these points
1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.​

I would suggest that the vast majority of RP's posts in this thread fall into one or more of these categories. He might not be a crank, but every person he has quoted either is misquoted or is a crank. ETA: or both.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
What is it about "edited and modified" that you don't get???
Click to expand...

The part where you think that what he understands by this statement in any way contradicts his agreement that the PDF depicts the information the State of Hawaii released, and that they have so certified.

Further, I have challenged his opinion on the basis of the inapplicability of his stated expertise. Can you please look through the various cases on which he's served as an expert witness, and on the various professional positions he's held, and tell me which ones convey expertise appropriate to image analysis, to the forensic authentication of documents, and to the inner workings of Adobe products, Adobe file formats, and the various tools available for manipulating those formats?

I see artifacts in the PDF file entirely consistent with automated optimization. I see none that I find consistent with intentional creation or alteration using Adobe products, as Birther's claim. Tell me why that guy's opinion should sway me against my own judgment.
 
JayUtah said:
Okay, let's vote right now on who is the most credible. I dare you. Someone besides me or Robert wanna set this up?
Click to expand...
I'll vote for Jay. I don't know anything about PDFs, but I can personally verify a good chunk of Jay's knowledge on a number of unrelated engineering topics.

RP, on the other hand, has demonstrated no apparent knowledge in any domain of which I am aware in this thread (I cannot speak to other threads). Nor, AFAIK, has he condescended to state any of his credentials. But it's worse than that; he has refused to read the substantive arguments already in this thread, rejects detailed explanations without substantive discussion, makes endless appeals to unlimited conspiracism, and in fact has repeatedly contradicted himself in this thread. Frankly, his behavior combines the worst traits of a crank and a troll. There seems to be no point responding to him, since this only results in a circular pattern of denial - fringe reset - recycle.
 
Second vote for Jay.
EventHorizon said:
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?
Click to expand...

Actually, that is quite predictable.

Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Once again, Prey responds only to the single point he thinks he can twist, and dodges a challenge which should be simple for "the teacher". Weird how he's so unwilling to actually respond to questions from the "class".
 
JayUtah said:
Nope. I just opened it in CS4 Adobe Illustrator and I get one layer with a number of object groups in that layer. And when you look at the individual groups, they are fully consistent with the haphazard way optimizers create objects, and not at all consistent with the way Adobe creative users employ layers (which would have produced multiple layers, not multiple object-groups in a single layer).
Click to expand...
I just opened it in CS5.5 Illustrator (which is actually Illustrator 5.1) and got exactly the same results. One layer, several object groups in the layer.

JayUtah said:
Wow, you really hate me, don't you? Okay, let's vote right now on who is the most credible. I dare you. Someone besides me or Robert wanna set this up?
Click to expand...
I vote for Jay. He posts highly detailed, verifiable data. Robert posts… well let's just say it's not of much use.
 
I'll vote Jay too.

With him, you get coherent, sensible posts that reference verifiable data from sensible sources.

With Robert you get Baloney.
 
Vote for Jay. When Jay gets something wrong and you point it out, you get a T-shirt. :) Just get more baloney when RP gets it wrong.

Ranb
 
I vote for Jay - not because I'm following the herd but because I learn cool stuff from his posts. So far, I've learned nothing from RP's posts except that he subscribes to some wacky conspiracy theories.
 
Vote for Jay and his demonstrated expertise

Robert you are most often just silly
 
Ladewig said:
Actually, we agree. I called him someone pretending to be a crank, you called him a troll. Pretty much the same thing.

I would suggest that the vast majority of RP's posts in this thread fall into one or more of these categories. He might not be a crank, but every person he has quoted either is misquoted or is a crank. ETA: or both.
Click to expand...


Conclusion

Doesn't actually believe what he is pushing but is using it as vehicle to attack people, ie troll
 
I vote for Jay

Pretty simple really. Thanks Jay.

FWIW: I used Acrobat, Photoshop and Illustrator as a graphic production artist for nearly two decades. For 7 years I was a graphic production manager. I'm by no means an expert but I've yet to see you say something that contradicted my understanding.
 
Another vote for Jay

I have actually learnt more about PDFs from him and others on this thread than I thought was out there, about the only useful part of it other than seeing birthers trounced over and over and over again
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom