Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[tsig]

The State of Hawaii has as much credibility as The Warren Commission.

Then why would you want to see the original?

 

[tsig]

I'm a pretty big fan of Obama. I'm not exactly in sync on economic issues with Obama but I think the guy is flat out one of the most well spoken, charismatic, courageous individuals that I have had the pleasure to experience in my life. ETA: I also think that Obama has been extremely good on foreign policy with some very significant accomplishments in a very difficult world.

But, if he had the capability to implement this hoax which would certainly be the most amazing hoax in the history of the world, I would wonder if my general world view that there is no supernatural is correct. The birthers envision a human being that is without parallel in the history of the world in terms of his capabilities to implement such an amazing hoax. He has convinced by the force of his personality or coercion a vast number of conspirators to assist him with the crime. And the crime is so successful that even his political enemies don't believe a word of the birther narrative. And the crime needs to take place over long stretches of time.

I wonder if the birthers have considered how truly amazing the man they believe Obama to be would be. My guess is that they haven't. They haven't thought much about how incredible the scheme they envision is and what amazing skills the primary actor in that scheme would need to have. What seems to be the case, as many have mentioned, is that they have some kind of group bias that leads to credulous acceptance of any negative information about anybody in what they perceive as not in their group. Exactly what group they identify so strongly with that it distorts their view of reality so thoroughly probably isn't always the same. At times it might be racial, but it also might be the kind of mindless partisanship that represents a significant part of the left and right factions of American politically oriented individuals and it might include a contingent of the good old American resentment of the intellectual class.

Of course, there is always the possibility that RP doesn't believe a word of his nonsense and has been leading this thread on since the beginning. I wish there was some way to figure that out in these threads, even if it was only after the fact. It seems you are faced with two improbably possibilities: 1. The person really believes his wildly improbably notions or 2. The person is willing to spend a great deal of time just screwing with people. And there is never proof as to what the real situation was.

And he did so before he was born.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

No. You are playing a pointless semantics game and it's getting old. You can call them objects if you like, or you can call them bananas. Doesn't matter. Fact is, they are commonly referred to as layers.

"The layered PDF should just be opened in Adobe Illustrator (CS4).
At this point it only shows one layer
Now in Adobe Illustrator activate the menu in the layer window (top right corner) and click on "Release To Layers (Sequence)"
This will "create" layers from the layered PDF."

Peter Horsbøll Møller
Pitney Bowes Business Insight - MapInfo
(source: MapInfo-L)

http://mapinfotools.com/index.php?o...-illustrator&catid=48:tips-n-tricks&Itemid=61

 

[Robert Prey]

Sheesh, obsess much?



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.

No. You've just ducked it again. I'm not asking you about "legalisms" but only a question as to what is "truth"???? Is truth truth, or is truth what some authority says it is??? It's a simple question, which for some reason you cannot answer.

 

[JayUtah]

No. You are playing a pointless semantics game and it's getting old.

No, I'm explaining in pretty explicit detail the difference between PDF's idea of an object or object group, and Adobe creative products' idea of a layer, and why they are not equivalent concepts, and exactly how and why it is wrong to try to equate them. You haven't even tried to address the substance of my explanations. And that is wise, because you're simply wrong.

You're desperate to blur the difference because your "experts" conflated them. Why? Because they're not PDF experts. They have experience only in one creative product or another and just wrongly assume that concept is identical.

Fact is, they are commonly referred to as layers.

Nonsense. Adobe Illustrator even correctly calls them object groups.

This will "create" layers from the layered PDF."

I.e., it will create a new set of Illustrator layers from the PDF object groups. This is an Illustrator-only operation, not endemic to PDFs. If an explicit operation must be undertaken to convert from one data structure to another, they are not equivalent or identical data structures. I can edge-detect a pixel map and derive a path from it. I can also rasterize a path and get a pixel map from it. The fact that algorithms exist to convert from one representation to another does not mean the representations are identical. You've found a procedure to convert between the representations. That frankly admits that they aren't the same thing already.

You're really grasping at straws now. Instead of Googling frantically for context-free snippets that you think save your bacon, you should try getting actual knowledge and experience.

 

[JayUtah]

No. You've just ducked it again. I'm not asking you about "legalisms" but only a question as to what is "truth"???? Is truth truth, or is truth what some authority says it is??? It's a simple question, which for some reason you cannot answer.

Yes, you're asking about legalism. You're trying to argue that if the birth certificate is a forgery, then Hawaii's certification of it should be invalidated or somehow given less weight. That is purely a Constitutional question, and it has been answered. You want the alleged forgery of the birth certificate to still have some relevance to the election. It does not, because the Framers of the Constitution realized there would be silly politicized debates like this, and thus made it a condition of being a united State that you don't get to question the certifications of other States. Since you don't have legal standing to challenge the birth certificate, you don't get to continue picking away at the President because of it. So grow up and move on to something else.

And yes, I answered your question regarding the more abstract truth. I've answered it many times. I'll do it again, because it appears you're dense.

The evidence alleging a forged birth certificate has been presented in court after court -- dozens of them. Not once has it passed muster. It can't even pass muster when presented unchallenged. Every Birther law suit based on the allegation of forgery has been defeated. Every single one, on the basis of the total lack of credibility in that evidence.

The reasons why it fails to be convincing have also been belabored, by me and others, in this thread, previously -- which you simply told us you didn't need to read. So no, you don't get to make the accusation of "dodging" when you're essentially trying to repeat the previous 140 pages of discussion, only with you at the wheel. You claims were covered months ago, in depth. The fact that you're just now Googling your way into them means absolutely nothing.

Your evidence fails to convince because it's the uninformed opinions, conjecture, and assumption made by people with inappropriate or nonexistent expertise. That ineptitude is quickly laid bare, and people can see the nonsense for what it is. Ignorant opinion is replaced by informed opinion. Conjecture is replaced by documented narratives. Assumption is replaced by fact. And at that point the Birther argument evaporates.

You have no legal basis. You have no factual basis.

 

[TjW]

Your evidence fails to convince because it's the uninformed opinions, conjecture, and assumption made by people with inappropriate or nonexistent expertise. That ineptitude is quickly laid bare, and people can see the nonsense for what it is. Ignorant opinion is replaced by informed opinion. Conjecture is replaced by documented narratives. Assumption is replaced by fact. And at that point the Birther argument evaporates.

You have no legal basis. You have no factual basis.

In point of fact, Robert, all your basis are belong to us.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, I'm explaining in pretty explicit detail the difference between PDF's idea of an object or object group, and Adobe creative products' idea of a layer, and why they are not equivalent concepts, and exactly how and why it is wrong to try to equate them. You haven't even tried to address the substance of my explanations. And that is wise, because you're simply wrong.

You're desperate to blur the difference because your "experts" conflated them. Why? Because they're not PDF experts. They have experience only in one creative product or another and just wrongly assume that concept is identical.



Nonsense. Adobe Illustrator even correctly calls them object groups.



I.e., it will create a new set of Illustrator layers from the PDF object groups. This is an Illustrator-only operation, not endemic to PDFs. If an explicit operation must be undertaken to convert from one data structure to another, they are not equivalent or identical data structures. I can edge-detect a pixel map and derive a path from it. I can also rasterize a path and get a pixel map from it. The fact that algorithms exist to convert from one representation to another does not mean the representations are identical. You've found a procedure to convert between the representations. That frankly admits that they aren't the same thing already.

You're really grasping at straws now. Instead of Googling frantically for context-free snippets that you think save your bacon, you should try getting actual knowledge and experience.

Call them groups, images, or call them bananas. It's still a pointless semantics word game. Experts on both sides of the birther issue call them layers.

 

[Dcdrac]

Once again Mr Prey youhave demonstrated you know nothing about what you are talking about whereas a person who does know is targetted by you as a means do divert attention from your complete lack of knowledge

 

[JayUtah]

Call them groups, images, or call them bananas. It's still a pointless semantics word game.

No, it's not. And if what you say were true, you could respond to my substantive explanations of the material differences. But you can't. You can only repeat your belief in increasing more pleading tones. Everyone can see this. The court of public opinion is laughing at you.

Your "experts" argue that "layers" appear in the PDF because it was created using tools that employ layers. They were wrong. The PDF contains only objects and object groups -- like any other PDF. Their misuse of the nomenclature and their misunderstanding of the underlying concepts, which I've explained, means they don't know what they're talking about and that their opinion is unfounded regarding the file's authenticity -- if that even had any bearing on the Birthers' central claim.

As I said, you're desperately trying to legitimize this conflation because you've already stepped in it along with your "experts." But you have zero technical understanding and you lied about what we would see when we used an Adobe tool to examine the PDF. Your belief is provably wrong.

Experts on both sides of the birther issue call them layers.

There are no experts on your side of the Birther issue. This is why you lose all your court cases.

 

[abaddon]

Call them groups, images, or call them bananas. It's still a pointless semantics word game. Experts on both sides of the birther issue call them layers.

Call them what you like.

You have yet to respond to the fact that it is an interpreted language, and what the consequences of that fact are.

Do you not know?

 

[000063]

...
Of course, someone has stepped up to say it was just a mistake.
...

I don't suppose you're planning to present evidence to the contrary.

So you're too invested to admit that they're right. Ok.

Note how he doesn't actually say whether they're lying or not. He just says they're not credible.

I congratulate you as the only alleged computer "expert" on the planet who could only find one layer in the Obama PDF.

Dismissing a lengthy, complex post with a breezy one-liner that doesn't actually respond to it. Right out of the playbook.

In point of fact, Robert, all your basis are belong to us.

Well done.

Call them groups, images, or call them bananas. It's still a pointless semantics word game. Experts on both sides of the birther issue call them layers.

And there's that breezy one-liner again, this time combined with the patented "smart-sounding term" ("semantics") handwave.

 

[abaddon]

Call them groups, images, or call them bananas. It's still a pointless semantics word game. Experts on both sides of the birther issue call them layers.

Still waiting, Bob. What is the impact of PDF being an intrepreted language?

 

[A'isha]

In point of fact, Robert, all your basis are belong to us.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, it's not. And if what you say were true, you could respond to my substantive explanations of the material differences. But you can't. You can only repeat your belief in increasing more pleading tones. Everyone can see this. The court of public opinion is laughing at you.

Your "experts" argue that "layers" appear in the PDF because it was created using tools that employ layers. They were wrong. The PDF contains only objects and object groups -- like any other PDF. Their misuse of the nomenclature and their misunderstanding of the underlying concepts, which I've explained, means they don't know what they're talking about and that their opinion is unfounded regarding the file's authenticity -- if that even had any bearing on the Birthers' central claim.

As I said, you're desperately trying to legitimize this conflation because you've already stepped in it along with your "experts." But you have zero technical understanding and you lied about what we would see when we used an Adobe tool to examine the PDF. Your belief is provably wrong.



There are no experts on your side of the Birther issue. This is why you lose all your court cases.

No experts??? Oh, I've listed several. One even passed Ant Pogo's screening. You've listed none. And surely, you don't want to point to Swing Dancer OCR theorist Goulding or the "I was mis-quoted" Tremblay?? No. So you have none. Moreover there is no point to any of your semantic techno-minutia gobbledeegook in terms of proving the COLB to be authentic, which you, yourself refuse to affirm with one hundred percent certitude. So the fact is, at the very least, you just don't know.

 

[Tomtomkent]

That would be the expert who concluded the object groups as consistant with a genuine certificate.

 

[JayUtah]

No experts??? Oh, I've listed several.

You listed several people you Googled and assumed were experts because the told you what you wanted to hear. They were all deal with in this thread months before you tried to reset it. You have no experts on your side, and the various courts have agreed heartily on this point.

One even passed Ant Pogo's screening.

But not mine. Sorry. I gave you the reasons why, but you ignored them. I even spoon-fed you his resume and asked you to comment. Silence from you.

You've listed none.

Correct. I have relied upon my own training and experience in computer science and my prior experience with Adobe file formats. I don't need to Google random quotes. You haven't been able to address a single argument I've made. You side-step them with broad, sweeping dismissals.

And surely, you don't want to point to...

Straw man. I don't base my conclusions on the testimony of other experts. I base it on my own expertise and training, and my own past experience programming PDF emitters. I base it further on my own experiments with existing software packages that may have been employed. My conclusion is not based on any of the people you name, so say whatever you want about them. It only makes you look that much more desperate and evasive.

Moreover there is no point to any of your semantic techno-minutia gobbledeegook in terms of proving the COLB to be authentic...

Translation: I don't understand the technical details of any of these arguments so I'm going to wave my hands and pretend they don't matter.

And once again, claims of forgery have the burden of proof. The Birthers accept that. You accepted that in this thread. But now you cannot meet it, so you're trying to shift it.

....which you, yourself refuse to affirm with one hundred percent certitude.

I refused to answer that question. Don't assume an answer for me. Your silly ploy to change the burden of proof was seen for what it was and ignored.

So the fact is, at the very least, you just don't know.

Putting words in my mouth again. You're so predictable. Now address the arguments I actually made, not the ones you wish I had made.

 

[R.A.F.]

Off topic. The question is, is the COLB authentic or a forgery. If you say it is authentic, then prove it.

So you realize you don't have any evidence for fraud...why else would you attempt to shift the burden of proof away from yourself?

Unfortunately for you, your "dodge" is obvious.


Why can't you prove it is fake?

 

[Robert Prey]

So you realize you don't have any evidence for fraud...why else would you attempt to shift the burden of proof away from yourself?

Unfortunately for you, your "dodge" is obvious.


Why can't you prove it is fake?

You claim it's authentic. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[abaddon]

Off topic. The question is, is the COLB authentic or a forgery. If you say it is authentic, then prove it. But as to your threat, no, I cannot do that to myself.

Very well.

Read and digest this.
When you have understood the PLRM, you may move on to this.

Only when you have a demonstrated understanding of both may you venture an opinion in any way.

Otherwise your opinion is without value.