Indeed. As I responded earlier, the Birthers are relegated to the same pixel-wise "anomaly" hunting that we see from people who claim there are alien ruins on Mars and Nazi bases on the Moon. "See these eight pixels? If I wiggle the Photoshop sliders, they turn into what's obviously and alien proboscis!"
That's true desperation.
Oh, right -- the "Inept Forger" theory. I see kids making fake IDs with greater proficiency than the Birthers' imaginary forger has employed. Hence the devolution into "Oh, the forger must have been secretly trying to blow the whistle." Neither the Inept Forger or the Disloyal Forger theory makes a lick of sense. It does, however, explain the stumbling, groping, frantic process the Birthers have employed in changing their speculation to cover up obvious holes in their theory.
What a shocker! You can turn objects on an off and make parts of the composite image appear and disappear!
I.e., a portion of the background copied to a smaller image object during optimization so that when all objects are rendered with their associated bitmasks, the result is a reasonably seamless optimized image.
Nope. The rocket scientists at WND are looking at one object in an optimized (i.e., post-processed) PDF, not a raw image obtained by a scanner. The notion that what they see in one or two objects is exactly what the scanner (or a human eyeball) would see by looking at the paper source is just frankly astoundingly ignorant. I couldn't ask for a more clueless theory than what I just read. Of course none of WND's wide-eyed, slack-jawed readers will know anything about this, so it's easy for them to just make crap up.
This is what happens when your case is based on what you read in the tabloids. Who do they claim forged the birth certificate? Bigfoot? Bat Boy? The love child of Elvis and a space alien?
