Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Robert Prey]

Another Smoking Gun

A Scanner with X-ray Vision

This anomaly must be zoomed in on to see. In the first subgroup there is a group of white dots located near the top of the document. These dots or splotches may have been discarded errata from an attempt to paint over or erase something in the forgery process but the forger forgot to deal with it. As with the other objects on each of the layers you can make these dots disappear by clicking on the button to the left. But the interesting (and incriminating) thing is, unlike the other images, when you make these dots disappear what is revealed is not the white or transparent background you see when the other images are deleted, but the checkered green background behind the dots. Since a scanner can only copy what it sees, this is an impossibility unless it is some new kind of scanner which has x-ray vision. Thus, additional proof of a digital creation of a forged document.

 

[Robert Prey]

Regarding the AP "certified" copy

The AP "certified" copy of the the COLB can be sourced at:

http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics...ses-long-form-of-Obama-birth-certificate.html

The WH PDF version is all over the net. There can be no excuse for not attempting to replicate the backgrounds from baby blue in the AP version to checkered green in the WH PDF version or admit there must be something very fishy going on here. Of course, excuses will be made because of the impossibility of performing such a transformation.

 

[abaddon]

Exactly. Faked. Just like O's COLB.

No, his point was that you present no evidence that these randomly-obtained images are what you say they are, or that they should be expected to be identical. You have no point unless you can prove provenance. You refuse to, and instead want to play silly word games. Therefore we drop this point.

Nuff said.

 

[abaddon]

A Scanner with X-ray Vision

This anomaly must be zoomed in on to see. In the first subgroup there is a group of white dots located near the top of the document. These dots or splotches may have been discarded errata from an attempt to paint over or erase something in the forgery process but the forger forgot to deal with it. As with the other objects on each of the layers you can make these dots disappear by clicking on the button to the left. But the interesting (and incriminating) thing is, unlike the other images, when you make these dots disappear what is revealed is not the white or transparent background you see when the other images are deleted, but the checkered green background behind the dots. Since a scanner can only copy what it sees, this is an impossibility unless it is some new kind of scanner which has x-ray vision. Thus, additional proof of a digital creation of a forged document.

A quote, unattributed, and minus a document. How convincing.

 

[tsig]

MOre nuttiness from the birthers, first a convicted felon (who took delegate votes from Obama), now a convicted Child Molester files suit:

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/va...a_bin_laden_child_molester_saddam_hussein.php

Well he did do better than Orley Taitz

 

[abaddon]

The AP "certified" copy of the the COLB can be sourced at:

http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics...ses-long-form-of-Obama-birth-certificate.html

The WH PDF version is all over the net. There can be no excuse for not attempting to replicate the backgrounds from baby blue in the AP version to checkered green in the WH PDF version or admit there must be something very fishy going on here. Of course, excuses will be made because of the impossibility of performing such a transformation.

Yes there can be excuse made. I really do not care, as stated earlier, if your president was born in Timbuktoo. If you are willing to engage me to professionally analyse these files, then it will be on a cash up front basis. Otherwise I will do so as time allows. Or inclination.

You seem to think that I owe you an analysis. No. As a professional, what I sell is what I know. You know, my expertise. That I may chose to post here in my slack time is irrelevant.

It is fun though, to expose you.

 

[Robrob]

This anomaly must be zoomed in on to see. In the first subgroup there is a group of white dots located near the top of the document. These dots or splotches may have been discarded errata from an attempt to paint over or erase something in the forgery process but the forger forgot to deal with it.

1) That scanning leaves "artifacts" is well known by normal people.

2) That "zooming in" on a document causes artifacts is well know by normal people.

3) A few "dots" or "splotches" on an insignificant part of the document are meaningless.

4) There is a reason why they use this sort of paper in official documents, it is impossible to copy without leaving artifacts (indicating it is not the original but a copy). E.g. your passport, currency, etc...

5) Ocam's Razor doesn't mean you leap from random artifacts to the existence of a forger.

6) "The forger forgot to deal with it." As always, CT require The Illuminati to be simultaneously all powerful and completely inept.

 

[abaddon]

A Scanner with X-ray Vision

This anomaly must be zoomed in on to see. In the first subgroup there is a group of white dots located near the top of the document. These dots or splotches may have been discarded errata from an attempt to paint over or erase something in the forgery process but the forger forgot to deal with it.

Security paper is designed to introduce anomalies if copied.

As with the other objects on each of the layers

There is only on layer, even if you open it in Illustrator

you can make these dots disappear by clicking on the button to the left.

Security paper.

But the interesting (and incriminating) thing is, unlike the other images, when you make these dots disappear what is revealed is not the white or transparent background you see when the other images are deleted, but the checkered green background behind the dots. Since a scanner can only copy what it sees, this is an impossibility unless it is some new kind of scanner which has x-ray vision. Thus, additional proof of a digital creation of a forged document.

Aliasing.

 

[Straw Man]

A quote, unattributed, and minus a document. How convincing.

He's been reading World Nut Daily again.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/326565/

ETA: They, like RP, just love layers.

 

[abaddon]

He's been reading World Nut Daily again.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/326565/

ETA: They, like RP, just love layers.

All done in , wait for it...Illustrator.

 

[Robrob]

He's been reading World Nut Daily again.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/326565/

ETA: They, like RP, just love layers.

Holy cow - this is his "proof?"

 

[abaddon]

Holy cow - this is his "proof?"

[qimg]http://www.wnd.com/images/2011/07/110726exhibit3.jpg[/qimg]

I know it appears like some disembodied pudenda, but yes.

 

[kookbreaker]

It's either a Klingon Battleship or something really rude.

Squint hard enough and it is Obama giving Birthers the finger.

 

[kookbreaker]

He's been reading World Nut Daily again.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/326565/

ETA: They, like RP, just love layers.

Ah, yes. WND. The ones who fell for a Photoshop so bad that that one of Obama's legs had been left in.

Oh, and they used a piece of marketing software to 'prove' someone else wrote Obama's books.

Real brain-trust, that pack. No wonder RP didn't give an attribution. Its already nonsense, now its nonsense spewed by idiots.

 

[000063]

The Obama PDF -- one PDF layer, nine sub-layers created in another program to make up that one layer. Obviously.

That's right, just keep ignoring all the contrary evidence and that not even the program in question agrees with you.

You seem to have stopped quoting Adobe, and are reduced to just saying things are "obvious", I note.

Then replicate it. Exactly.

Appeal to impossible perfection. As has been repeatedly stated, a PDF can come out with vastly different 'elements' even with the exact same document on the exact same scanner with the exact same software. There are literally millions of possible outputs, given the range of variables.

And, of course, not actually a disagreement. Jay said "consistent", you say "exactly". Naughty.

I actually agree with some of what you have posted, but you must discuss one layer at a time.

That's exactly what we have been discussing. One layer with multiple objects.

Weird how you suddenly start addressing Jay's "technobabble". And by addressing I mean "act like you understand it but try and set arbitrary limits on the discussion anyway". It's not like you don't dodge just as much when people actually do ask only one question.

 

[davefoc]

A Scanner with X-ray Vision

This anomaly must be zoomed in on to see. In the first subgroup there is a group of white dots located near the top of the document. These dots or splotches may have been discarded errata from an attempt to paint over or erase something in the forgery process but the forger forgot to deal with it. As with the other objects on each of the layers you can make these dots disappear by clicking on the button to the left. But the interesting (and incriminating) thing is, unlike the other images, when you make these dots disappear what is revealed is not the white or transparent background you see when the other images are deleted, but the checkered green background behind the dots. Since a scanner can only copy what it sees, this is an impossibility unless it is some new kind of scanner which has x-ray vision. Thus, additional proof of a digital creation of a forged document.

...
Aliasing.

Is aliasing the explanation for this? Assuming that this is the claim made related to figure 19 here: http://www.mcso.org/MultiMedia/PressRelease/MARAZEBESTREPORT.pdf there appear to be white splotches representing areas suppressed by a clipping mask (I think). When the entire image is rendered the area under the white blotches appear.

What seems to have happened is that the areas under the white blotches were represented in a different object. The claim is that this shows evidence of forgery because the image consisting of the first object doesn't have detail for the area under the "blotches" but when the image is rendered using information from the entire file the background pattern can be seen.

I may not follow the argument exactly but the idea (as I understand it) is that a complete image of the background exists in the file but the actual image has graphics in those areas that should have prevented a complete background image from being displayed in the area of the blotches.

The argument would be a good one if there was non-background image graphics displayed in areas where the file stores image data for the background as well. However, I don't think this is the case. What seems to have happened is that the software that created the pdf file detected something in areas of the background that it moved to a different object, but all that existed in the "blotch" areas was part of the background image so all that went on here is that background image data ended up stored in more than one object.

My uneducated guess is that the software detected minor color variations in the area of the blotches and which caused it to move image data from the "blotch" areas to a different object for either file size optimization purposes or perhaps to isolate what it suspected might be a text area.

Regardless of the validity of my speculation it appears that if indeed background image data was in the file for areas covered with non-background image information a strong case could be made that underlying the PDF file was some kind of digital graphics data that had been manipulated and remnants of that process were captured in the PDF file. But that doesn't seem to be the case and as I read the article I linked to above there isn't actual evidence of that. It appears that there was just a misinterpretation of the nature of the Obama COLB pdf file.

 

[Dcdrac]

is that splodge meant to mean something?

 

[Blue Mountain]

As others have pointed out, all the yammering about PDF and layers and objects is totally irrelevant. The White House could have hand-written the COLB information in purple crayon on a sheet of plywood, and if Hawaii certified that the information therein matched what they had on file, that should make it acceptable under the US constitution.

 

[Straw Man]

As others have pointed out, all the yammering about PDF and layers and objects is totally irrelevant. The White House could have hand-written the COLB information in purple crayon on a sheet of plywood, and if Hawaii certified that the information therein matched what they had on file, that should make it acceptable under the US constitution.

Very true, but hurling accusations at Hawaii doesn't get much mileage...yet.

It's far more fun to play around with the PDF in BirtherWorld.

 

[abaddon]

Is aliasing the explanation for this? Assuming that this is the claim made related to figure 19 here: http://www.mcso.org/MultiMedia/PressRelease/MARAZEBESTREPORT.pdf there appear to be white splotches representing areas suppressed by a clipping mask (I think). When the entire image is rendered the area under the white blotches appear.

Most likely, yes. Aliasing affects adjacent pixels.

What seems to have happened is that the areas under the white blotches were represented in a different object. The claim is that this shows evidence of forgery because the image consisting of the first object doesn't have detail for the area under the "blotches" but when the image is rendered using information from the entire file the background pattern can be seen.

One cannot make that assumption without knowing how the document was treated. In such cases provenance is not only everything, but the only thing.

I may not follow the argument exactly but the idea (as I understand it) is that a complete image of the background exists in the file but the actual image has graphics in those areas that should have prevented a complete background image from being displayed in the area of the blotches.

OK, pretty close. The background exists as just another object, and happens to be a bitmap. Still an object though. It's integrity will be entirely dependant of the scanner used.

The argument would be a good one if there was non-background image graphics displayed in areas where the file stores image data for the background as well. However, I don't think this is the case.

Criticising the PDF for white outs in areas where there is no text anyway seems odd to me.

What seems to have happened is that the software that created the pdf file detected something in areas of the background that it moved to a different object, but all that existed in the "blotch" areas was part of the background image so all that went on here is that background image data ended up stored in more than one object.

Yes, it is an artifact of the very process of scanning.

My uneducated guess is that the software detected minor color variations in the area of the blotches and which caused it to move image data from the "blotch" areas to a different object for either file size optimization purposes or perhaps to isolate what it suspected might be a text area.

I would hope you are a little more educated on the internals of PDF on foot of this thread.

Regardless of the validity of my speculation it appears that if indeed background image data was in the file for areas covered with non-background image information a strong case could be made that underlying the PDF file was some kind of digital graphics data that had been manipulated and remnants of that process were captured in the PDF file. But that doesn't seem to be the case and as I read the article I linked to above there isn't actual evidence of that. It appears that there was just a misinterpretation of the nature of the Obama COLB pdf file.

Close to on the money. I could nitpick, but why?