Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
No, they are not. Conceptually they are very different. In the PDF design rationale, they are very, very different. PDF files are just containers for lists of objects. For the purposes of clipping (which eases the task of rendering in a viewport), objects may be grouped by proximity. Typically, however, an object group contains only one object -- one of the PDF primitives.

In the simplest possible PDF describing a scanned document, the single object represented would be a pixel map, and it may be accompanied by a clipping mask to hint to the renderer the maximum extent of the object in document coordinates.

But PDFs rarely occur in their simplest possible form. When "optimized," certain operations are performed on the pixel map. In many cases these operations result in complex objects such as transformed primitives. Or in other cases, scanned text can be replaced by a PDF text object, an associated font object, and -- as always -- a clipping mask that hints to the renderer whether this object is visible in the current viewport.

If, for example, a text object is not inside the viewport, the clipping mask will alert the renderer to this fact, and the renderer will not bother loading the font, computing the normal text extents, etc. This saves rendering time.

In contrast, a layer in Adobe creative terms almost always extends to the full canvas and is, itself, a container for any number of application-specific primitives. In Photoshop the primitives are almost always pixel maps, but may include text objects and paths. The layer itself is an untyped element, as opposed to PDF object groups which are typed. And in Photoshop, adjustment layers can simply apply a programmatic modification to the accumulated image. PDF objects and object groups cannot modify other object groups, except to obscure them in the bottom-up rendering order. In Illustrator the layer contains paths, but may also contain encapsulated pixel maps. Again, Illustrator layers are untyped.

Because of that typing difference, Adobe creative products cannot directly convert their layers (or even their primitives) one-to-one to PDF objects or object groups. And in fact many Adobe users complain about the inconsistent data type conversions that occur among Adobe products when exporting as PDF.



No. Illustrator very plainly distinguishes between object layers and groups.

You told us specifically that if we opened the PDF in Illustrator, we would see several Layers. In fact that is not the case, and it illustrates that you yourself didn't do what you admonished us to do. You were bluffing.

We get one Layer. And if we expand that Layer, we get several object groups, which are Illustrator's half-hearted attempt to render a PDF primitive in a way that Illustrator can manipulate. PDF object groups are not native to Illustrator, and Illustrator can do very little with them. Yes, you can show and hide them, just as with any Illustrator primitive. But that's about it.

The bottom line is that you told us the facts were one thing, but they turned out to be a different thing altogether and your critics were the first to tell you this. Now you're desperately trying to play word games to cover your gaffe.



That proposition has been tried in the court of public opinion, and you lost. And in fact now you're quite obviously playing word games. You got caught fibbing about what Illustrator would do with that file, and now you're trying to backpedal away from it by waving your hands and declaring object groups and layers to be the same thing in PDF terms.

I wonder when you're going to stop putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head for the purposes of easing your rebuttals. Does what I actually say scare you that much?
Click to expand...


I congratulate you as the only alleged computer "expert" on the planet who could only find one layer in the Obama PDF.
 
Robert Prey said:
I've been using adobe products longer than that.
Click to expand...
By what you have posted, no you haven't.

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
Click to expand...


:rolleyes::jaw-dropp FAIL FAIL FAIL.. We are talking about ILLUSTRATOR!

This is how we know that you barely touch any Adobe Programs. YOU CAN'T EVEN tell the DIFFERENCE between Photoshop and Illustrator!


Illustrator! the program that BIRTHERS have claimed that was used.
 
layers2.jpg



What's in the red circle that the arrows are pointing to, Robert?
 
Robert Prey said:
I congratulate you as the only alleged computer "expert" on the planet who could only find one layer in the Obama PDF.
Click to expand...

No, others posted screen shots of their experience. You lied.

Not only did you lie, you once again failed to respond significantly to anything I said. I gave you a detailed description of the important differences between the data structures you're conflating, and you ignored every single word of it. So much for wanting to talk about the details of the analysis. All you did was call names. Childish.
 
Last edited:
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...


ALL PDF's OPENED in ADOBE ILLUSTRATOR CREATES LAYERS! Every document I've scanned straight to PDF has opened in Illustrator with layers.

Before showing us your "expertise" put up or shut-up. Scan the cover of your favorite magazine to PDF and open that resulting PDF in Illustrator. Be sure to video tape and post to Youtube.
 
Mojo said:
Doesn't answer the question. You were asked where Obama wrote that he was born in Kenya. That was written by someone else (as has already been established in this thread).
Click to expand...

I am interested in Roberts argument. If he believes Obama is responsible for sales blurb about him, it will have direct consequences to his arguments in the JFK thread when it reopens.
 
Robert Prey said:
Of course, someone has stepped up to say it was just a mistake.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the person who wrote the BIO did:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/05/17/literary_agent_says_1991_booklet_was_a_mistake.html

You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.
Click to expand...
 
Robert Prey said:
Which brings to mind one of the many questions ducked by Jay Utah, namely,
if it were proved beyond any doubt that the COLB document was a fake and a lie, but the State of Hawaii continued to proclaim that it is genuine, does that mean that the the fake is not a fake and the lie is not a lie despite proof to the contrary?????
Click to expand...

Inquiring minds want to know!!!!


Seeing as how thats not the case what's the point????
 
Robert Prey said:
Which brings to mind one of the many questions ducked by Jay Utah...
Click to expand...

Sheesh, obsess much?

if it were proved...
Click to expand...

No legal standing for such a challenge, on the basis of full faith and credit.

As to the merits of the accusation, as considered independently of whether they would have any legal effect on Barack Obama's candidacy, several dozen courts have heard the evidence for forgery and laughed it out of court. It's an argument that cannot even prevail even when there is no cross-examination.

So to sum up: There is no legal standing to challenge Obama's candidacy on the basis of an allegedly forged birth certificate. There is no credible evidence that Obama's birth certificate has been forged. You can stomp and whine about the "many questions" you seem to think I've avoided, but rather than be led around by your evasion and distraction, I've cut to the only two questions that matter to the Birthers' claims. And I've answered them repeatedly for you.
 
Robert Prey said:
What does the red arrow point to, Ant Pogo????

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6532[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The name of the Layers dialog box. And exactly one layer is displayed. When you open that layer to see what it contains, it contains several PDF objects. Exactly what we've been telling you. Illustrator reports that the number of layers in the document is 1. One. Uno.

You lied.
 
Robert Prey said:
I congratulate you as the only alleged computer "expert" on the planet who could only find one layer in the Obama PDF.
Click to expand...

Utter bovine fecal matter.

Do you realise that PDF is an interpreted language?

Do you realise what the consequences are?

Bet you don't.

Bet you, as usual, have no clue.
 
Robert Prey said:
Which brings to mind one of the many questions ducked by Jay Utah, namely,
if it were proved beyond any doubt that the COLB document was a fake and a lie, but the State of Hawaii continued to proclaim that it is genuine, does that mean that the the fake is not a fake and the lie is not a lie despite proof to the contrary?????
Click to expand...


One question mark at a time, please.
 
JayUtah said:
Robert had no dog in the Birther fight until his JFK thread was closed for cleaning. We're watching him trying to Google his way up to speed on it. But the answer is likely that he has no real plan. The Birther debate just lets him rail against the "deep thinkers" on some other topic.
Click to expand...
Bingo. A real birther has a certain pattern to their arguments, and Rob is coming off as someone who is searching for different topics to throw out there to fight and troll the people, which is the reason I ignored him.

Edit: Wow I can't believe RP pointed to a single layer as a "gotcha" when it just cemented that he obviously knows less than a first semester digital art student.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom