Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Robert Prey]

Obviously not. He probably just Googled "PDF AND layers" and just copypasted the one paragraph that seemed to say what he wanted to say, without really understanding any of it.

The printable objects in the Obama PDF are transparency groups. These associate content with a clipping mask. Here's what the Adobe PDF language reference has to say about them.

"Note: The concept of a transparency group is independent of existing notions of “group” or “layer” in applications such as Adobe Illustrator. Those groupings reflect logical relationships among objects that are meaningful when editing those objects, but they are not part of the imaging model."
(Adobe Systems. PDF Reference: Adobe portable document format version 1.4. 3d ed., Addison-Wesley: 2001, p. 411, emphasis added)​

It is expressly against Adobe's design intent to conflate transparency objects in PDF files with logical layers in their creative products. Yet this is exactly what Mara Zebest did.

Layered content in PDF documents is implemented by Acrobat Professional using a PieceInfo entry in an object of type /Page. "Applications can use this dictionary as a place to store any private data they wish in connection with that page or form. Such private data can convey information meaningful to the application that produces it (such as information on object grouping for a graphics editor or the layer information used by Adobe Photoshop), but is typically ignored by general-purpose PDF viewer applications" (Ibid., p. 581, emphasis added).

Adobe here tells us what to look for in PDFs that retain any sort of information about logical layers from their original editors and creators. Zebest's expectation is uninformed.

How many PagePiece entries are there in the Obama PDF's single /Page object? Robert, can you answer that? Hm, I can.

"a single page of the PDF file can contain different layers with different content."

What is it about this straight forward statement that you do not understand, Jay?

 

[Robert Prey]

Meaningless handwaving. Your "experts" pointed to straightforward PDF objects and tried to call them "layers." They are simply wrong -- very, very wrong. People who call themselves experts don't get to be that wrong. It's a fundamental error in interpreting PDF information. It's like someone pretending to be an expert microbiologist pointing to a microscope and calling it a "telescope."

Tell that to the people at Adobe.

 

[Robert Prey]

in other words, the information that barack obama was born in hawaii has been certified as correct by the state of hawaii. According to the full faith and credit clause of the us constitution this certification is definitive legal proof that he is a natural-born citizen of the usa, and hence eligible for election to the office of president.

Remind me what the basis of your argument was?

Dave

fraud.

 

[A'isha]

Tell that to the people at Adobe.

Jay doesn't have to tell them. The people at Adobe already know your "experts" are wrong, Robert.

 

[TjW]

"Aid and comfort" -- remember that audio/video clip of O and Dmitry Medvedev where O whispers to tell PUtin that as soon as he is re-elected he'l be more accommodating to Russian interests? Aid and comfort from one crypto- Marxist to another.

No. Giving aid and comfort would require an overt act. Talk of accommodating foreign states with whom we are not at war -- even if you, personally, don't like them-- is not treason, it is diplomacy.

 

[Robert Prey]

A layer is an object,and objects are the backbone of pdfs, so in all pdfs you will see layers, and that is to be expected because layers are objects.

Excellent. Now try explain that to Jay.

 

[Rich_C]

fraud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

 

[abaddon]

"a single page of the PDF file can contain different layers with different content."

What is it about this straight forward statement that you do not understand, Jay?

For starters, bob, "can" not must.

Secondly, you clearly do not understand PDF structure.

You have dropped into an ocean of knowledge here, armed only with ignorance, and the knowing sharks of education are getting peckish.

 

[twinstead]

I find it humorous that again, instead of debating the real issues, the conspiracy theorist has managed to bog down the debate in endless discussion of minutiae.

It's all about keeping the debate going, isn't it Prey? I could care less about PDF structure. Obama's birth certificate has been verified legally in a way accepted by those who matter. You and your tiny birther cult simply don't matter.

 

[R.A.F.]

The information Hawaii may be on file, but that does not make it true, nor do we really know if that info is from an actual Birth Certificate or merely from a Declaration of Birth.

Obama IS president....and he will be re-elected....so everything you say is for NOTHING.


Do you understand?

 

[abaddon]

I find it humorous that again, instead of debating the real issues, the conspiracy theorist has managed to bog down the debate in endless discussion of minutiae.

It's all about keeping the debate going, isn't it Prey? I could care less about PDF structure. Obama's birth certificate has been verified legally in a way accepted by those who matter. You and your tiny birther cult simply don't matter.

Bob's biggest blunder is trying that tack when there are people in the room who know and understand the minutiae. He has applied his own lack of knowledge with a broad brush to everyone else.

 

[JayUtah]

What is it about this straight forward statement that you do not understand, Jay?

I understand every bit of it, as I demonstrated. What I do not accept is your interpretation of it to mean it has any bearing on the Obama PDF.

When you're ready to address the points I raised, let me know. Otherwise kindly redirect your personal obsession toward less disturbing ends.

 

[JayUtah]

“Unless and until...

You quote Klayman as if his opinion matters. He lost. By all means, keep using a tabloid as your primary source. It just makes my responses easier to write.

 

[JayUtah]

Tell that to the people at Adobe.

I don't need to. They explicitly repudiated Zebest's error before the fact in their standard reference on the Portable Document Format. You err in believing that your uninformed interpretation of a help file changes the facts.

When you're ready to discuss those facts, rather that simply handwave and obsess over trying to "prove Jay wrong at all costs," let me know.

 

[JayUtah]

Excellent. Now try explain that to Jay.

Interesting that you simply latch onto any old statement that seems to confirm your pre-existing beliefs, while ignoring a factually correct and detailed explanation of the underlying technology.

Dcdrac can confirm, if he wishes, that he and I discussed this post privately and that your attempt to recruit him as an ally to your interpretation is not likely to succeed.

 

[abaddon]

“Unless and until Mr. Obama’s original birth record, on file with the Department of Health in Hawaii, is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative body or official, it cannot legally be considered to have probative value. In other words … it cannot stand alone without further corroboration, as required by an ‘administrative body or official,” -- Larry Klayman

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/obama-lawyer-warned-against-certifying-eligibility/?cat_orig=us

WND? Really?

Check out the REAL document for obama's real name.

 

[000063]

Oh, but it does matter. Information is one thing and may have been added or substituted at a later date, but the State has refused to confirm that the BC copy is really a copy of the original. Now why would the state refuse to make such a confirmation? The answer is too obvious.

"information." Yes. exact copy, no.

Legally, an official copy has the same standing as the original.

I like how you just move the goalposts. You said Hawaii refused to stand behind it, and when told, again, that they have multiple times, you begin wittering on about an "exact copy". I'm betting that's about to be proven wrong as well.

Baloney. All you've presented are "objects are not layers" techno-babble, but no proof of anything.

He's posted quite a bit more than that, which you've only been able to a)hand-wave as "technobabble" without any evidence, or b)counter with "evidence" from websites which don't actually prove your case. Like you do in #7541, in fact.

And, of course, you refuse to explain why this level of scrutiny was not necessary for any other president, ever. Just the first black guy.

 

[Arus808]

Did someone mention Larry Klayman? The Worst Lawyer in the World (TM) who just got another smackdown?

http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/im...seq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV

 

[000063]

Don't assume your interpretation of the Adobe help files is correct, or that just because an Adobe document uses the words "layer" and "PDF" in the same paragraph, it means what you say it means. "Layered content" is a conceptual description, not an analogue to the physical layers in some Adobe native-format documents.

And yes, part of my professional life is indeed explaining things to Adobe. As I said, I used to teach the people who now work for them, and I'm on speaking terms with the founder of the company. What is it you do for a living again? What is your personal expertise on this subject?


[complex explanation follows]

"Baloney" in 5...4...

One has to wonder what kind of evidence you'd accept that it's genuine, given that the poster can't physically steal the original from the state. What, exactly, do you expect ?

Almost as if he has an unreachable standard of evidence.

Because while Robert concedes that Hawaii has certified the information to the extent required by law (and then some), he now argues that Hawaii officials are lying. He demands that they open up access to their archives so that other people (whom he refuses to name or qualify) can inspect the original paper document. He argues that the present unwillingness to do so constitutes a suspicious concealment.

So he thinks they've proven the BC is real to any legal standard, yet still wants them to prove the document is real.

“Unless and until Mr. Obama’s original birth record, on file with the Department of Health in Hawaii, is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative body or official, it cannot legally be considered to have probative value. In other words … it cannot stand alone without further corroboration, as required by an ‘administrative body or official,” -- Larry Klayman

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/obama-lawyer-warned-against-certifying-eligibility/?cat_orig=us

What other authority exists to pass judgement? Hawaii says its real.

Why can't you answer in your own words?

Why does Larry not name those bodies or officials either?

And what happened to the preceding paragraph?

Klayman said the only Hawaii statute allowing birth certificates “to be non-legally binding” is the law regarding “late” or “altered” certificates, which states: “The probative value of a ‘late’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.”

So he's saying it's not valid because it's been altered, but he can't actually prove it's been altered?

Oh, and more lunacy from Klug.

He did, however, verify that “the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.”

Mr. Onaka undeniably failed to verify that the image posted at whitehouse.gov “is a true and accurate representation of the original record.”​

Same thing you do. Onaka says the copy is legit, and Klug says that he didn't address the one at whitehouse.gov, when he never bothered to ask. His case is based almost entirely on half-truths and assumptions. He's making bricks without clay, or even an oven.

 

[000063]

The information Hawaii may be on file, but that does not make it true, nor do we really know if that info is from an actual Birth Certificate or merely from a Declaration of Birth.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Double Down. Upon being proven wrong, sophists often dig in instead of concede. Since it's been proven that Hawaii has claimed, multiple times, that their records match the released BCs, Prey switches to claiming that the records themselves might be corrupt. It is extremely unlikely that Prey will actually present any evidence, ever, for this claim.

"a single page of the PDF file can contain different layers with different content."

What is it about this straight forward statement that you do not understand, Jay?

So you're just going to repeat your earlier claim, with a loaded question implying that Jay doesn't understand. It's faster just to type 'baloney' or 'technobabble'.

Tell that to the people at Adobe.

Which, as Jay and others have asserted, you have misinterpreted.

Excellent. Now try explain that to Jay.

The only reason you are even so gung-ho about this line of reasoning is that it's all you've got. Anything more technical, and you have to start crying luncheon meat because you don't understand it.

Jay has manifestly more knowledge of the technical aspects than you. You think that the BC is fake. You believe that the power of the President would allow him to conceal this. Except Obama doesn't have the power of the President before he's actually the President.

Bob's biggest blunder is trying that tack when there are people in the room who know and understand the minutiae. He has applied his own lack of knowledge with a broad brush to everyone else.

Good ol' projection.