Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Robert Prey]

But what about an ink-jet printout versus a color photocopy?

Color gamuts and color-space conversions are part of what we learn as computer scientists and the explanation for why color rendition varies from instance to instance.

Sorry, but the world refuses to dumb itself down to conform to your simplistic expectations.

Then prove it. And just try to come up with green safety paper with the inherent background design as opposed to a baby blue background with no design. Do it. Prove it. For all the pooh-poohers, here is the AP copy:

And here is the WH PDF:

 

[Robert Prey]

Have you ever actually used Illustrator? Don't tell other people what you think I know. On this point you're simply factually false.

Anyone can easily prove that the layers betrayed by Illustrator show intelligent manipulation of image and data, such as one layer entirely the background, another mostly printed text, another dates, another signatures, registrar stamps, etc., virtually impossible to replicate with any compression program, analogous to six monkeys randomly typing the entire works of Shakespeare by accident. Anyone can obtain a free copy of Illustrator through adobe for a 30 day trial, obtain the Obama PDF version still floating around the net, load it in Illustrator and open up the layers pallet, and click the expand arrow. Then click and un-click the button on the left of each layer to reveal what is on each layer. Yes, I've done it, and I would recommend that anyone who hasn't should. Don't accept what any self-proclaimed "expert" claims is dogma.

 

[Mojo]

Then prove it. And just try to come up with green safety paper with the inherent background design as opposed to a baby blue background with no design. Do it. Prove it. For all the pooh-poohers, here is the AP copy:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6613[/qimg]

And here is the WH PDF:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6614[/qimg]

Are you claiming that the difference in colour means that one of them is faked?

 

[Robert Prey]

Begging the long-debunked Birther's argument is now simply desperation on your point. Your argument has been empirically refuted.

Here's another nice little challenge for you and your fellow "expert" Abaddon:

Will you affirm that that the Obama PDF is in fact genuine and do it with proof? No. You will not, because as you have already admitted by your silence on the question, you just don't know. Admit it, and we can go from there. Jay Utah and Abaddon are just like defendant attorneys in a murder case. They know very well their client is guilty, so their only course is to attack the evidence and the expert witnesses of the prosecution. Attack, attack, attack. And when all else fails, pound the table. But as to evidence for their side, they have none.

 

[Robert Prey]

As I have mentioned here, I have done EXACTLY the same with my own birth certificate and created similar results to what you get with Obama's Birth Certificate.

NO. I don't think so. What you have is random pieces of information -- computer generated confetti. And multiple layers of nonsense.

 

[Robert Prey]

Are you claiming that the difference in colour means that one of them is faked?

No. I'm claiming both are faked.

 

[Mojo]

Will you affirm that that the Obama PDF is in fact genuine and do it with proof? No. You will not, because as you have already admitted by your silence on the question, you just don't know.

What we know is that the information in it has been verified by the appropriate authority (Hawaii) as genuine. End of story, according to the Constitution that you pretend to respect.

 

[Robert Prey]

What we know is that the information in it has been verified by the appropriate authority (Hawaii) as genuine. End of story, according to the Constitution that you pretend to respect.

End of story only if you want to bury your head in sand.

 

[Mojo]

No. I'm claiming both are faked.

Either two organisations have independently produced faked documents containing exactly the same information in exactly the same format, or the differing colours are a result of something in the processes by which they reproduced the original document.

What would William of Ockham do?

 

[Mojo]

End of story only if you want to bury your head in sand.

Are you advocating violating the Constution of the United States of America?

ETA:

I's say it's anti-American to violate the Constitution. That's what's anti-American.

 

[abaddon]

Because it is one layer, until you click the expand tab. Obviously.

And see a list of objects Robert, not layers.

Anomalies. A whole bunch of them.

Are you changing your claim to be that the Whitehouse did it, and not Hawaii?

Previously answered. It is one layer till you click the expand arrow.

And see a list of objects Robert, not layers.

How many times must this be explained to you?

You still have not come to grips with PDF being interpreted by illustrator.

Then prove it. And just try to come up with green safety paper with the inherent background design as opposed to a baby blue background with no design. Do it. Prove it. For all the pooh-poohers, here is the AP copy:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6613[/qimg]

And here is the WH PDF:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6614[/qimg]

Those are jpeg files Robert. If you can find the AP and WH pdf files, and I happen to be bored, I might take a look, but I am pretty sure I know what the answer will be.

Anyone can easily prove that the layers betrayed by Illustrator show intelligent manipulation of image and data, such as one layer entirely the background, another mostly printed text, another dates, another signatures, registrar stamps, etc., virtually impossible to replicate with any compression program, analogous to six monkeys randomly typing the entire works of Shakespeare by accident. Anyone can obtain a free copy of Illustrator through adobe for a 30 day trial, obtain the Obama PDF version still floating around the net, load it in Illustrator and open up the layers pallet, and click the expand arrow. Then click and un-click the button on the left of each layer to reveal what is on each layer. Yes, I've done it, and I would recommend that anyone who hasn't should. Don't accept what any self-proclaimed "expert" claims is dogma.

Anyone who uses it in a professional capacity buys it, Robert.
Layers, objects, there is a difference. That you don't know that is no reason anyone else should throw their expertise out the window.

Are you claiming that the difference in colour means that one of them is faked?

He posted two jpegs of unknown provenance. They are not pdf files. I could fake one up in pink. In fact, here you go.

Here's another nice little challenge for you and your fellow "expert" Abaddon:

Will you affirm that that the Obama PDF is in fact genuine and do it with proof?

Robert, I don't care if Obama was born in Timbuktoo. I am not American, nor live in America.

That said, you have entirely missed the point of your own red herring contention. The point is that there is nothing within the PDF to indicate any fraud.

No. You will not, because as you have already admitted by your silence on the question, you just don't know. Admit it, and we can go from there.

Not my problem. Your problem. Once again, there is nothing suspicious within the PDF.

Jay Utah and Abaddon are just like defendant attorneys in a murder case. They know very well their client is guilty, so their only course is to attack the evidence and the expert witnesses of the prosecution. Attack, attack, attack. And when all else fails, pound the table. But as to evidence for their side, they have none.

Slurs noted.

 

[Mojo]

Attack, attack, attack. And when all else fails, pound the table. But as to evidence for their side, they have none.

 

[KDLarsen]

You have to give Robert credit, he's managed to keep it going for 45 pages so far and still haven't acknowledged anything that other posters were arguing.

It's almost as if he doesn't want to

 

[Dcdrac]

So once again RP shows hes knows nothing about how Adobe software works nor how legal processes work.

RP when are you demanding Mitt Romneys birth Certificate and also Joe Arapio' s be verified?

 

[Moss]

So what Robert actually claims but fails to say is that one copy was on safety paper and one on blank paper? Sounds really reasonable to me. Thanks Robert.

 

[JayUtah]

Previously answered. It is one layer till you click the expand arrow.

And what does the number say after you expand the layer?

We all know the answer. Do you?

 

[JayUtah]

Will you affirm that that the Obama PDF is in fact genuine and do it with proof?

Here we go again. Shifting the burden of proof.

No. You will not, because as you have already admitted by your silence on the question, you just don't know.

No, I refused again to fall for your silly baiting to change the burden of proof when you couldn't make any headway. And in desperation you're once again trying to pin on me the answer that fits your predetermined line of argument. I didn't answer your question because it's painfully obvious what you're trying to do with it. You don't get to pretend I gave the answer you want. You have to deal with the fact that no one is falling for your silly rhetorical shenanigans. They're demanding actual proof and actual argument, which you cannot provide.

Admit it, and we can go from there.

Begging the question. How about instead of you trying to change the rules and move the goalposts in the middle of the argument, you deal with the argument you've been losing for 40+ pages?

Jay Utah and Abaddon are just like defendant attorneys in a murder case. They know very well their client is guilty...

Hilarious! You have absolutely no material response for anything Abaddon and I have said, so you have to pretend (once again) that we all secretly agree with you. How desperate is that?

How about this: because we actually know what we're talking about, we know your arguments are nonsense. And we're showing them for the nonsense they are. And you have no answer for it.

...so their only course is to attack refute the evidence and the non-expert witnesses of the prosecution. Attack, attack, attack Refute.

FTFY.

You accepted the burden to prove the birth certificate was a forgery. But you can't do it. Every argument you bring against it very quickly boils down to obvious ignorance and misconception. And this is why your pseudo-experts have zero weight in court. They don't know what they're talking about.

And when all else fails, pound the table.

I see table-pounding only from you. From me and Abaddon I see carefully prepared, dispassionate discussions of the basic concepts you allude to. You're the one apparently coming apart at the seams.

But as to evidence for their side, they have none.

Shifting the burden of proof. We've answered your claims thoroughly. It's simply over your head. Too bad.

 

[JayUtah]

End of story only if you want to bury your head in sand.

Resisting being led around by the nose by people who patently don't know what they're talking about is not "burying one's head in the sand." Your arguments are non-expert and partisan. They have no factual basis, no legal basis, and no logical basis.

I've given you the equivalent of a couple college-level lectures in the relevant computer science, and everyone has noticed how you try desperately not to have to be responsible to answer it. If you really want to pretend that everyone but you is sticking their heads in the sand, go right ahead.

 

[JayUtah]

NO. I don't think so. What you have is random pieces of information -- computer generated confetti. And multiple layers of nonsense.

Sheer denial. I've done the same thing. You have multiple people who have demonstrated -- not just theorized, but demonstrated -- that your expectations are wrong and that the Obama PDF is fully consistent with an optimized PDF scan.

Your only answer is, "No, I don't think so." Whose head is in the sand now?

 

[JayUtah]

Anyone can easily prove that the layers...

Only one layer, Robert.

...show intelligent manipulation of image and data

Pure supposition. We get comparable results through automated processes.

Further, your "expert" says it was composed in Photoshop. You can coerce Photoshop into exporting a PDF that has multiple objects in it (but no layers).

virtually impossible to replicate with any compression program, analogous to six monkeys randomly typing the entire works of Shakespeare by accident.

More supposition. I asked you several questions intended to discover your understanding of the factors that apply to PDF optimization. You declined to answer any of them.

Then click and un-click the button on the left of each layer object to reveal what is on each layer object. Yes, I've done it, and I would recommend that anyone who hasn't should.

FTFY.

The rest of us didn't have to download the 30-day free trial of Illustrator, because we own it and have used it and several other major Adobe products for years now. We're very familiar with how they work, and the difference between layers and objects.

Of course anyone does do this will see something Robet desperately doesn't want to have to answer: The fact that that "1 Layer" never goes away, no matter how much you click and click and click. One layer, with 9 objects. Produced by optimization, just as I, Abaddon, and countless others have done. And created by the importation process, necessary for translating PDF data into the illustrator data model.

Don't accept what any self-proclaimed "expert" claims is dogma.

You mean like the people who use Illustrator to inspect PDF files, instead of the Adobe product specifically designed for that task? You mean the people who claimed there should be only one pixel map in the image, and then had to recant when the entire graphics design industry laughed at them? You mean the people who couldn't even make a credible case in court even when the opposing counsel stayed home that day?

Or maybe you should trust the people who can spontaneously discuss the technology in detail, who have demonstrated the procedures they talk about, and who managed to befuddle their ignorant critics into single-word evasive answers.