Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Mudcat]

No one outside of Hawaii Dept. of Health has seen the original. That's the point.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't it ('it' being Obama's original Birth Certificate) seen by people outside the Hawaii Department of Health as well?

 

[abaddon]

So the PDF is consistent with the Printed Copies which are Certified by Hawaii.

Yup.

therefore the layers or groups withing the PDF when opened in Illustrator don't matter at all and neither do the printed copies.

Yup. The pdf may contain as many layers, objects and double sided, left handed thribbles as it likes. Hell, through in a kitchen sink or three. It still doesn't matter. It still matches the paper copy.

If you think the original is a fraud then your beef is with Hawaii so why harp on about the PDF?

I think the intent is to show tha PDF has been altered and does not match the paper copy by means of examining the internal structure of the PDF. IOW, the original was scanned and subsequently altered, and now Hawaii is lying about it being a true copy.

And so, a technical discussion ensued, and the proponent was rapidly out of his depth. It does not surprise me, as not THAT many are versed in the internals off PDF. I wouldn't attempt to hold forth on the technicalities of brain surgery, or carpentry, as I would be rapidly out of MY depth.

Now Illustrator actually is one of the tools in MY toolbox.

Using Illustrator to examine PDF structure is akin to attempting carpentry with a dentists drill, or brain surgery with a spoon. Maybe with fava beans and a nice chianti.

 

[Straw Man]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't it ('it' being Obama's original Birth Certificate) seen by people outside the Hawaii Department of Health as well?

I believe that the birthers want to go in and see the original original kept by Hawaii themselves, and seem to think that the law should not apply to them.

 

[abaddon]

It is techno-babble because the simple truth is those alleged objects reside on something commonly referred to as Layers.

Nope, no layers in PDF 1.3. None, nada bupkiss.

 

[abaddon]

Name one.

Abaddon.
JayUtah.

Right here in front of you dismantling your argument.

And before you ask, both of us have posted our real identities and verifiable credentials.

 

[JayUtah]

IOW, the original was scanned and subsequently altered, and now Hawaii is lying about it being a true copy.

Hawaii's trustworthiness did not come into question until the Birthers had to cover up their embarrassing PDF gaffe.

I spent half an hour or so fiddling with just one control in the PDF exporter and optimizer in Acrobat. I got a wide variety of PDFs, varying both in number of contained objects and in the decision what to include in the object. Optimization, as I mentioned before, typically takes the form of replacing with new pixelmap and bitmap objects areas in the original scanned image that can be represented more efficiently in PDF data structures.

One of these methods replaces areas of black and near-black in the source image with true black in the form of single-bit "mask" images. One artifact of this process is that the optimized objects have a hard, stark edge to them. If one is unfamiliar with PDF optimization, one might mistake this for a digital edit. In any case the quantization of color or gray-scale data to single-bit representation will produce subtle changes in the perceived shape of the quantized data.

In any case, the overall strategy of "replace this portion of the image with a new object that is visually indistinguishable yet smaller" results in "simple" PDFs with as many as 11 separate objects -- all analogous to the objects in the optimized Obama PDF.

My original 300-dpi 24-bpp scan of a magazine-sized page, when saved as an unoptimized PDF, occupied 10.9 MB. Even the least intrusive optimization produce 3 objects and shrank the file to 1 MB. Aggressive optimization produced a 92 KB PDF file containing 11 objects.

No layers. PDF 1.3 has no concept of grouped or layered content.

But it's wise to optimize if you're producing a PDF that's going to be served up by your company services to a hungry general public. One simple operation reduces the bandwidth requirement by at least a factor of 10, and up to a factor of 100. And it produces those multiple objects that so befuddle Birther "experts."

Using Illustrator to examine PDF structure is akin to attempting carpentry with a dentists drill, or brain surgery with a spoon. Maybe with fava beans and a nice chianti.

Gross, but accurate. To believe that one is examining a PDF when one has imported it into Illustrator is tantamount to believing you can speak Japanese because your television gives you English subtitles.

Again I say, if someone is purporting to conduct a professional forensic examination into the validity of a PDF file, or to look inside it for clues to forgery, and he begins the investigation by "opening" the file in Adobe Illustrator, then he as immediately there and then forfeited any claim to relevant expertise.

 

[JayUtah]

Bob, Mr. Newcomer's allegations re the .pdf of the BC are irrelevant. Has he examined the original?

No. He based his opinion of the Obama PDF on the opinions drawn by two of the other pseudo-experts on Prey's list, one of whom has recanted and the other has been disqualified.

His claim to fame is having exposed the so-called Killian documents, and he is a legitimate expert in the field of digital typography. However, he is not an expert in the digital storage of documents, nor on the peculiar typographic mechanisms the PDF language uses. And since he formed his opinion, and caused it to be published in a tabloid, without having examined the actual materials, his value and credibility as an expert on the Obama PDF question is debatable.

If you aren't willing to listen to people who actually know something about the topic at hand, then why raise the points?

Because conspiracy theorists merely want to pretend that the technical arguments are on their side. They don't want to actually have the technical debate. If I had a dime for every time a conspiracy theorist begged that the discussion should be dumbed down to their level...

 

[davefoc]

...


PDF objects are not layers. They're not "commonly called" layers. They aren't organized into layers. They aren't treated as layers. They have no properties analogous to layers in the Adobe creative products. Zebest committed a simple novice error and has been trying to tap-dance around it ever since by silly word games.

...

The bolded statement conflicts with my non-expert understanding. My understanding is that a PDF object can contain various kinds of graphic information that is a subset of the overall graphic information for the image. Software that renders the image combines the information from the objects to render the image produced by the PDF viewer.

That seems at least somewhat analogous to the layers in Adobe creative products where the image information for an image can be stored in different layers and the information in those layers is combined to make a single image.

This is not to say that the concept of a Photoshop layer and a PDF object are exactly the same. The purpose of creating an image with layers in Photoshop is principally to allow different aspects of the image to be worked on without disrupting other aspects of the image. The purpose of objects in PDF files are varied but are entirely related to the rendering of an image and have nothing to do with assisting a user with the creation of an image. It may also be true, that Photoshop layers always represent an area that is the same size as the overall image. PDF objects can represent areas that are just a section of a page. Both Photoshop layers and PDF object can contain vector and bitmap data. PDF objects can contain font information. I don't know if Photoshop layers or files can contain font information.

The purpose of the above is to refine my understanding of PDF objects. I am not well informed on any of the topics and it is likely that some aspect of what I said above is wrong.

 

[BazBear]

Your techno-babble is not a challenge. It is techno-babble.

I find it very telling that I (and other laypeople who have posted on this thread) seem to be able to follow Jay and Abaddon's explainations quite easily, while you with all your claimed experience with Adobe products seem to find their posts incomprehensible.

 

[abaddon]

The bolded statement conflicts with my non-expert understanding. My understanding is that a PDF object can contain various kinds of graphic information that is a subset of the overall graphic information for the image. Software that renders the image combines the information from the objects to render the image produced by the PDF viewer.

Broadly true, still does not require layers. You could have designed it to utilise layers, but Adobe didn't

That seems at least somewhat analogous to the layers in Adobe creative products where the image information for an image can be stored in different layers and the information in those layers is combined to make a single image.

Warning: analogy on the fly, so it will be flawed.

Consider a childs toybox, with everything thrown in together. That's your PDF. One big box of objects.

Consider a second childs toybox. Inside the box are further, smaller boxes. Box 1 has all the cuddly toys, box 2 has the books, and so forth. You can take out box 1 and deal with it's contents as a separate entity. Box 2 etc are unaware of anything which happen within box 1. In fact box 1 may be entirely restructured, or even emptied. Box 2 etc neither know nor care.
Your smaller boxes are analagous to layers.
But when you close the lid, the toybox remains one big box of objects. The only difference is that it's internal structure is different.

It is not a perfect analogy. It just occurred to me as I was struck in the ear by a projectile pink fluffy pig.

This is not to say that the concept of a Photoshop layer and a PDF object are exactly the same.

Chalk and cheese.

The purpose of creating an image with layers in Photoshop is principally to allow different aspects of the image to be worked on without disrupting other aspects of the image. The purpose of objects in PDF files are varied but are entirely related to the rendering of an image and have nothing to do with assisting a user with the creation of an image.

A very important concept. What is the purpose of PDF? What is the purpose of Photoshop? These are concepts that drove the developers to build things the way they did.

It may also be true, that Photoshop layers always represent an area that is the same size as the overall image. PDF objects can represent areas that are just a section of a page.

Both Photoshop layers and PDF object can contain vector and bitmap data.

PDF displays vectors, Photoshop renders them. Important difference.

PDF objects can contain font information. I don't know if Photoshop layers or files can contain font information.

PDF, yes. Photoshop, not so much. A text layer in Photoshop is also rendered, but the layer is capable of containing the font info such that you could edit the text later. No embedding though. Also if you flatten, all font info is lost.

The purpose of the above is to refine my understanding of PDF objects. I am not well informed on any of the topics and it is likely that some aspect of what I said above is wrong.

I could be so myself. My Photoshop is a little rusty, and Adobe could easily have changed the model since last I examined it in any detail. It goes with the territory of expertise. Not only being able to admit you are wrong, but recognising when you are wrong.

Jay will prolly kick me around the room now.

 

[Ladewig]

A closet whistle-blower perhaps.

Advice: when throwing out a comment such as this one, you should follow it with "but I do not have enough evidence to prove that beyond all reasonable doubt." Then folks will become so agitated that the thread will increase for several pages.

Oh, wait. The thread has started to increase with no new information added. I guess you are better at this game than I am, RP.

 

[jadebox]

Layers, Robert, not objects.

And, to state the obvious, it doesn't matter if you call them "layers" or "objects" - they are normal things which are commonly included in PDF files created from scanned documents.

-- Roger

 

[JayUtah]

My understanding is that a PDF object can contain various kinds of graphic information that is a subset of the overall graphic information for the image.

I can't really add much to what Abbadon has said. Layers in Photoshop are exactly pixel maps, either expressed in terms of a set of pixel values, or implied in terms of an algorithm designation. "Subset of overall graphic information" is not entirely incorrect, but it's too broad a description; it avoids the important details that Abbadon mentioned.

That seems at least somewhat analogous to the layers in Adobe creative products where the image information for an image can be stored in different layers and the information in those layers is combined to make a single image.

No. Layers in Photoshop are aliases for express or implied pixel maps. Photoshop layers are themselves displayable. Layers in InDesign and Illustrator are pure containers. They begin empty and serve only to aggregate and hierarchicalize other data.

Certain PDF Objects such as /OCG, /XObject, /Page, and /Catalog can function as containers, but they can contain only objects of a certain type. They are not general aggregators as Illustrator and InDesign layers are. Other PDF objects such as /Image or
/Text express only renderable information. They are not containers.

Part of your dilemma is that "Layer" does not mean the same thing across all Adobe products, irrespective of whether any of them is analogous to PDF objects.

You raise some good points. PDF objects are not categorically distinct from any other data structure. Just amply distinct that to say they exist in one place because they existed in another place as some other form is pretty wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

And, to state the obvious, it doesn't matter if you call them "layers" or "objects" - they are normal things which are commonly included in PDF files created from scanned documents.

Correct. It's as if none of these pseudo-experts have ever scanned a document and saved it in PDF form. The original expectation, that it should contain only one full-size, full-depth pixel map, is true only for unoptimized PDFs. If you don't optimize your scanned PDFs before transmitting them, you're doing it wrong.

Optimized PDFs invariably contain multiple objects. The pseudo-experts' initial inability to understand this was pretty comical. Now they're frantically backpedaling and saying that unless the exact loadout of PDF objects can be created, the best answer is still forgery. What a desperately failing ploy. They were egregiously and ignorantly wrong once; what makes us think they get to make the new evidentiary rules?

No, in fact I can manipulate only one of a dozen or so controls in one tool and produce widely different kinds of PDF objects. Arpaio insinuates he has exhaustively tried to reproduce the Obama PDF, but he won't describe the combinatorics of the problem. Robert won't either. They don't know how to compute the number of possibilities. They don't know how to estimate the determinism in the algorithm. They don't know anything about what they're talking about.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If you think the original is a fraud then your beef is with Hawaii so why harp on about the PDF?

So the conspirators altered a digital copy of an already-fake birth certification. It looks like this alleged conspiracy has... *puts on sunglasses* ...multiple layers.

 

[000063]

All this talk of how PDFs are created and what they contain is pointless anyway.

Even if the PDF was 'created' as Robert claims it shows the same content as the paper copies and they have been certified as containing legit info.

What Robert needs to be addressing is why, if they are fake does Hawaii say they are genuine?

Forget how the PDF was created.

Curiously, he chooses not to.

The evidence is overwhelming and many experts have been cited, though none by the other side. Obama is a fraud from from his false teeth to his fake BC. Deal with it.

You can't explain why the Republicans wouldn't be all over it. Just like I said.

Lost in the weeds of his own techno-babble.

More accurately, you walked into his cornfield, saw some big, scary things you didn't recognize, then scurried back out and bleated that there were wolves in there.

And as I pointed out, you are unwilling to even acknowledge Abaddon, and are fixated solely on hand-waving Jay.

Name a single expert of your choice who is a recognized "expert" in forensic document examination who has made a published statement regarding Obama's BC?????

Ah. So you admit you don't have any FDE experts. Thank you.

So all that is missing is a source, and varification of what the chaps expertise are beyond previous claims... odd robert would choose not to include such details.

It's a nutjob Birther site.

http://evidencevault.blogspot.co.uk/2011_09_01_archive.html

Your techno-babble is not a challenge. It is techno-babble.

Perhaps you missed it, but Jay is not the only person here who's asked you questions you won't answer.

Technobabble doesn't make sense. All you would have to do to prove Jay was posting "technobabble" is to prove his posts don't make sense. Simple, right?

Because although the information may be consistent what with Hawaii now has in hand (and we don't even know that), we don't know when or how such information was obtained. It may have been obtained weeks, months or years after the alleged birth. And the info may only be traced to a Declaration of Birth and not a Birth Certificate.

It certainly may have. However, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever pointing to that happening, the logical conclusion is that it's genuine, like almost every birth cert in the world.

Before you "gotcha!", I'd like to point out that the amount of faked BCs is something on the order of getting hit by lightning. It's more useful to fake a passport or driver's license.

 

[A'isha]

So the conspirators altered a digital copy of an already-fake birth certification. It looks like this alleged conspiracy has... *puts on sunglasses* ...multiple layers.

 

[abaddon]

I can't really add much to what Abbadon has said. Layers in Photoshop are exactly pixel maps, either expressed in terms of a set of pixel values, or implied in terms of an algorithm designation. "Subset of overall graphic information" is not entirely incorrect, but it's too broad a description; it avoids the important details that Abbadon mentioned.

I think the key word here is "render". While Pshop can interpret vector graphics, it is fundamentally unable to present them, it must perforce render them as bitmaps of some type. That is its nature, and that nature is as intended.

 

[jadebox]

The bolded statement conflicts with my non-expert understanding. My understanding is that a PDF object can contain various kinds of graphic information that is a subset of the overall graphic information for the image. Software that renders the image combines the information from the objects to render the image produced by the PDF viewer.

That seems at least somewhat analogous to the layers in Adobe creative products where the image information for an image can be stored in different layers and the information in those layers is combined to make a single image.

The basic difference is that in Photoshop, for example, a layer is a collection of objects (bitmaps, vectors, effects, metadata, etc) all residing at the same "z-offset" in the image. The z-offset specifies the order in which the layers are rendered.

In a PDF file, objects are rendered pretty much in the order that they appear in the file. There's no z-index specified for an object. The rendering program just draws each object as it is encountered when reading the file.

A Photoshop file with layers would be like a stack of the transparent cells animators use. Each cell can have a different part of the final image on it and they are stacked in the right order to get the desired result.

A PDF is more like a traditional painting where the background is painted first, then the grass and sky are painted on top of that, then clouds are painted in the sky and figures are painted over the grass.

-- Roger

 

[abaddon]

So the conspirators altered a digital copy of an already-fake birth certification. It looks like this alleged conspiracy has... *puts on sunglasses* ...multiple layers.

As the gatekeeper of the Abyss, I have a special ticket, just for you.