Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[abaddon]

<serious snippage>

Good info, but srsly, I was trying to keep it simple.

 

[EventHorizon]

Good info, but srsly, I was trying to keep it simple.

That was Jay putting the 'E' in 'JREF'.



See folks, threads like this can be useful for something.

 

[abaddon]

That was Jay putting the 'E' in 'JREF'.



See folks, threads like this can be useful for something.

Well, when i was doing that, all Japanese licences had to be in Kanji, and I had no clue what was writing. We had to hire an intrepeter and a lawyer, just to figure out that it wasn't a declaration of war.

 

[JayUtah]

A document object contains one or more page objects.
A page object contains one or more layer objects.
A layer object contains one or more graphic objects.

Eh, sort of.

A PDF must contain exactly one /Catalog. In the trailer, the /Catalog object reference must be given as the /Root dictionary entry.

A /Catalog contains an ordered array of object references to /Page objects, identified by the /Pages dictionary entry.

A /Page object contains a back reference to its enclosing catalog object, a description of the extent of physical and logical media (e.g., for bleeds), a /Contents object that may contain page-global streams such as initial graphics state, and a /Resources object that expresses a list of procedure sets to be applied, in order, to their subordinate objects, in order.

A graphic object could be an image, text, a font or pretty much anything you can put in a PDF.

Romney's PDF consists of a single /Page and a single /ProcSet referring to a single /XObject /Image encoded in telefacsimile. It is rendered using /PDF (for the initial page graphics state), and /ImageB decoders for grayscale images.

Obama's PDF consists of a single /Page and a single /ProcSet invoking /PDF, /ImageC and /ImageB renderers, and having 9 subordinate pixel-map or bitmap objects.

Its a hierarchy of objects. But they are all treated as objects, just with different properties.

At the file level there are a few control data structures and a flat list of objects -- "flat" meaning that there is no hierarchy visible in the lexical structure of the file. Hierarchy enforced by the PDF standard is as I've described above.

Optional-content grouping emerged in PDF 1.6 and was further refined in 1.7, but has no bearing on Obama's PDF (version 1.3) which provides only the hierarchy I describe in my previous post. Objects of type /OC can express a finer-grained logical relationship among objects, but they are still typically only hints to viewing, such as "Do I expand this object too if the user zooms in?" or the aggregation of visibility control (cf. op. cit., 6 ed. pp. 364ff).

This is still not analogous to content-producer layers or groupings because /OC and /OCG structures are not mutually exclusive; an object can be in more than one optional-content grouping. Or it can be in none. In Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. an object is in exactly one layer. Even if the document has only one layer and all the objects are in in, the Layer is a first-class data structure in all their formats. PDF optional-content groupings are just that: optional. If no groupings appear, there are simply no groupings implied, except for the practicality of rendering. You can think of it as a "default layer," but it's more accurate to think of it as "no layers -- everything in one big pile."

Acrobat 4 allowed one to paste an object into a PDF and retained it as a separate layer. Acrobat 6 onwards merged your paste into an existing layer.

Acrobat 9 does the same. You must first create an empty layer and then paste content into it. That layering of content is not interpretable or visible in other program such as Illustrator or evince. Whether by /PieceInfo or by /OC, the interpretation of layered content remains highly inconsistent. Hence Adobe's advice to flatten the file if you experience rendering difficulty.

I am sure other developers would criticise my structures for similar reasons.

And vice versa. One may opt to have clean exportation code, for example, that produces baroque PDF hierarchies rather than complex code to produce optimal PDFs.

Illustrator, haha, all hell is out for breakfast.

Adobe goes to great lengths to posture its creative products as a integrated suite. As a matter of fact, however, the Illustrator team has always been sort of a law unto themselves. The fact that you can create a new /OCG in Acrobat, paste content into it, and have it fail to be recognized as a layer in Illustrator is, sadly, par for the course.

 

[JayUtah]

It always kills me that the people who are most adamant about "defending the Constitution" mostly seem to have very little knowledge of its content.

Indeed they seem to treat it like a software EULA: scroll to the bottom without reading and click "Accept."

I've found that most people who are adamant about "defending the Constitution" are really advocating throwing out the Constitution because they believe one or more parties to it have misbehaved egregiously, and the advocates believe only they (or some other radical agent) can fix it. They seem to forget that the Constitution establishes the rules and procedures by which its parties can keep each other in check. The Constitution presumes that its parties will misbehave if they can figure out a way to. It needs no defense; it is the defense.

 

[Robert Prey]

Indeed, but he is a Birther and he is clearly not Caucasian, so I'll revise my statement to read that the vast majority of Birthers are Caucasian. And of course Robert used that to dodge all the other evidentiary points. Care to respond to the overall charge of racism with something other than quips, Robert?

A man of your alleged education has to sink to playing the race card???Shame.

 

[JayUtah]

Good info, but srsly, I was trying to keep it simple.

Fair enough, and I was trying to be complete. No matter how you slice it, the Obama PDF doesn't have any layers. Or anything like layers. Nor does any software report or imply that it does. Mara Zebest mistook ordinary objects as layers because she didn't know what she was looking at or talking about.

 

[JayUtah]

A man of your alleged education has to sink to playing the race card???Shame.

At least you admit you're trying to shame people away from challenging you. I'll ask again: would you care to respond to the overall charge?

 

[abaddon]

Eh, sort of.

A PDF must contain exactly one /Catalog. In the trailer, the /Catalog object reference must be given as the /Root dictionary entry.

A /Catalog contains an ordered array of object references to /Page objects, identified by the /Pages dictionary entry.

Damn, I missed the catalog. Yeah, backwards.

A /Page object contains a back reference to its enclosing catalog object, a description of the extent of physical and logical media (e.g., for bleeds), a /Contents object that may contain page-global streams such as initial graphics state, and a /Resources object that expresses a list of procedure sets to be applied, in order, to their subordinate objects, in order.

All true. I was attempting a laymans explanation.

Romney's PDF consists of a single /Page and a single /ProcSet referring to a single /XObject /Image encoded in telefacsimile. It is rendered using /PDF (for the initial page graphics state), and /ImageB decoders for grayscale images.

Honestly, knowing the claims are bunk straight out of the box, why spend the time?

Obama's PDF consists of a single /Page and a single /ProcSet invoking /PDF, /ImageC and /ImageB renderers, and having 9 subordinate pixel-map or bitmap objects.

I must be honest here. I did not not spend the time to analyse the PDF as the arguments from the truther side are trivially wrong. That said, if someone wants it, sure. But we know what the result will be. Denial.

At the file level there are a few control data structures and a flat list of objects -- "flat" meaning that there is no hierarchy visible in the lexical structure of the file. Hierarchy enforced by the PDF standard is as I've described above.

No.

Optional-content grouping emerged in PDF 1.6 and was further refined in 1.7, but has no bearing on Obama's PDF (version 1.3) which provides only the hierarchy I describe in my previous post. Objects of type /OC can express a finer-grained logical relationship among objects, but they are still typically only hints to viewing, such as "Do I expand this object too if the user zooms in?" or the aggregation of visibility control (cf. op. cit., 6 ed. pp. 364ff).

An important point. At 1.3 level, many language features were not implemented

This is still not analogous to content-producer layers or groupings because /OC and /OCG structures are not mutually exclusive; an object can be in more than one optional-content grouping. Or it can be in none. In Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. an object is in exactly one layer. Even if the document has only one layer and all the objects are in in, the Layer is a first-class data structure in all their formats. PDF optional-content groupings are just that: optional. If no groupings appear, there are simply no groupings implied, except for the practicality of rendering. You can think of it as a "default layer," but it's more accurate to think of it as "no layers -- everything in one big pile."

In a nutshell, anyone who generates PDF on the fly has free reign.

Acrobat 9 does the same. You must first create an empty layer and then paste content into it. That layering of content is not interpretable or visible in other program such as Illustrator or evince. Whether by /PieceInfo or by /OC, the interpretation of layered content remains highly inconsistent. Hence Adobe's advice to flatten the file if you experience rendering difficulty.

Indeed. Grr.

And vice versa. One may opt to have clean exportation code, for example, that produces baroque PDF hierarchies rather than complex code to produce optimal PDFs.

In my case, optimisation was not the issue.

Adobe goes to great lengths to posture its creative products as a integrated suite. As a matter of fact, however, the Illustrator team has always been sort of a law unto themselves. The fact that you can create a new /OCG in Acrobat, paste content into it, and have it fail to be recognized as a layer in Illustrator is, sadly, par for the course.

IMHO, Adobe lost it's way just a little bit.

 

[JayUtah]

I can understand your frustration when there is even one person who doesn't buy into your baloney.

Once again you're unable to respond to the points raised. If you don't want a technical argument, don't start one.

 

[Straw Man]

I can understand your frustration when there is even one person who doesn't buy into your baloney.

I'm sure you know it all too well.

 

[Dcdrac]

RP you have failed to prove anything

You have failed to answer any questions

You have failed to provide an evidence whatsoever tha you understand how PDF technology works.

You have fialed to show you understand how the US constutition and legal system works

You and your position are a multiple failures

 

[JayUtah]

Honestly, knowing the claims are bunk straight out of the box, why spend the time?

Because now a whole lot more people know about how PDF files work, and won't fall for Robert Prey's absurdly desperate handwaving. The Birthers want everyone to stay dumb and be content with mined quotes and sound bites that they alone interpret for the masses. Yes, anyone who knows anything about PDF files sees through the utter nonsense that is Mara Zebest's similarly frantic handwaving. I'm increasing the number of people who know anything about PDF files. That's not a bad thing.

An important point. At 1.3 level, many language features were not implemented.

True, including everything that Prey is vaguely alluding to in terms of Adobe help pages. He demands that we take a "straightforward" (i.e., simplistic) look at his context-free excerpt. He has no clue just how irrelevant it all is. He'll never accept it, but others here will be able to if they put their minds to it.

In a nutshell, anyone who generates PDF on the fly has free reign.

A lot of the convolution in the syntax derives from the limitations on the underlying transports, such as Microsoft OLE, which may not be rewindable, etc.

In my case, optimisation was not the issue.

We just wanted something that would look good on the typesetter.

IMHO, Adobe lost it's way just a little bit.

(ahem, Flash, ahem)

 

[JayUtah]

Well, when i was doing that, all Japanese licences had to be in Kanji, and I had no clue what was writing. We had to hire an intrepeter and a lawyer, just to figure out that it wasn't a declaration of war.

Reminds me of some equipment we were designing to integrate with a structural framework at the Fraunhofer in Germany. They sent us engineering drawings with callouts and annotations in German, and we fancifully translated some of them to read "Place Victim Here" and the like. Our subordinates were amused. Our clients, less so.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Robert. Forget the PDF! It is a side-show, a Red herring. It is being used by you as a diversion.
WHat else do you have?

 

[JayUtah]

Robert. Forget the PDF! It is a side-show, a Red herring. It is being used by you as a diversion.

That's charitable.

Ostensibly the Birther claim is, "Barack Obama is not eligible as President." But that's only the pretext. The Birthers are conspiracy theorists, so that question devolves into, "Obama forged his birth certificate and Hawaii fraudulently certified the forgery." There's your conspiracy: the Powers That Be have oppressed us, so they say. No factual basis for that, and no legal basis either. But keep in mind the conspiracist subtexts: (1) attack the Powers That Be, and (2) assert one's pre-eminence and dominance.

Hence, even though the PDF has absolutely no bearing on Obama's certified eligibility (i.e., that form of the document isn't anywhere close to the evidentiary chain the FEC used), the question is still pursued. The Powers That Be forged (gasp!) something that they released to the public! Horror! They're "pure evil!" (Robert's own words). Hence (1) is satisfied, but has no bearing on the pretext. It doesn't matter whether the PDF is an outright fabrication; Obama is still eligible according to law. The Birthers can't help but pollute their claims with attacks against Obama that don't relate to the Constitution or ineligibility; they simply express their hatred and distrust.

And the Birther "experts" were so clever to have discovered this, so (2) becomes important. So important, in fact, that the discussion now devolves even further: "We must prove JayUtah wrong at all costs, about anything, even if it's unrelated to the topic at hand." Again, it's about (2) asserting one's pre-eminence and dominance.

Conspiracism exists as a crutch for some people to pretend to be competent -- even eminent -- in some field, often as compensation for some other perceived failure in life. When the fantasy construct begins to crumble, they don't correct their thinking. They simply withdraw further. The arguments continue to devolve into forms that do little more than undermine the critic by any means possible, no matter how desperate or irrelevant.

True, this has absolutely nothing to do with the structure and content of PDF files. But in this case we can show that the Birther claims fail on all attempted levels: factual, legal, historical, and technical.

 

[Straw Man]

I'll ask again, what is the legal basis for allegations of fraud against the State of Hawaii?

 

[JayUtah]

...your answer to it in so many of about a thousand plus words of techno-babble was and is --

well ah, it really doesn't mean what it says.

Once again, putting words in other people's mouths. My response is actually

It doesn't mean what you say it means.

Note the important difference. You simply beg the question that what you understand by these statements is correct and applicable to the problem. All you can do is hammer on one sentence over and over again, and beg people to hear it the way you do. In contrast, I take the time to explain the underlying factors in sufficient detail, give examples that illustrate those factors, and engage other posters who ask me questions.

The end result is that I can explain why your quoted text doesn't mean what you insist it must. You can't explain anything. You can only insult people who don't agree that your way of looking at something is the only possible way.

You say, "Believe me!"
I say, "Believe this."

When you understand the difference, you'll understand why you lose in the credibility polls -- every time.

 

[Ladewig]

This parrot is dead.

It is not pining for the fjords.

It is passed on.

It has ceased to be.

This is a dead parrot.

 

[RandFan]

This parrot is dead.

It is not pining for the fjords.

It is passed on.

It has ceased to be.

This is a dead parrot.

People should know when they are conquered. --Quintus