Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
"Serious" Birthers? Name them. And tell us how we may discern a "serious" Birther from the ones who seem to be grabbing all the headlines by virtue of their nutty claims.

None of your Birther "experts" knew anything about PDF structure or optimization, or incorporated it into their claims, until their critics laughed at them and showed them how it worked. All your supposed handwaving about the PDF is irrelevant, since it has no legal significance anymore. And there is no technical validity to it. Every bit of "digital forgery" evidence is explained by the ordinary nature of PDF data, of which you and your pseudo-experts are entirely ignorant. This is why no court in the land has accepted them as experts, through dozens of Birther lawsuits.

Those are the facts. And nothing you say has put a dent in them.
Click to expand...

"Critics" laughed at them? Who? You still haven't named one.
 
Umpteen experts on the web, two here alone have shown the birthers positions to be baseless and in the technical arean you and the birther apologists have been shown to know nothing about how digital documentation works, nor legal process.

Robert when are you going to produce an indepth examination of

Joe Arapio's birth certificate

Mitt Romeny's birth certificate

The still living past presidents of the USA
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
So, Scanners do have x-ray vision????

JayUtah said:
Clearly you didn't read the post. Try again, student.
Click to expand...

Oh, I did read it, teach, But to understand it one would have to turn one's brain into a pretzel. Scanners only read what they see. Any other supposition is just that. If a scanner does indeed have x-ray vision, prove it. Replicate it.
 
Again Robert you fail to grasp how digital documentation works and the nature of copies however thye areproduced.

You have not stated anywhere in this thread anything that you understand a word that has been written by the two people who actually do know about digital documentaion and how it works, all you do is respond with hand waving, you are not a convincing debater.

now where is your demand for

Joe Arapos birth certificate to be examined
Mitt Romenys
and all the still living past presidents of the USA.
 
JayUtah said:
The stark reality of what it would take to exactly reproduce the Obama PDF in optimized form is why the Birthers get laughed out of court when the real experts show up. Real experts like me can show that (a) optimization produces a multitude of objects, which the Birthers have mistaken for "layers"; (b) the nature of any one layer is completely consistent with PDF optimization; (c) the overall distribution of image data among the objects is entirely consistent with PDF optimization; and (d) there is no forgery claim yet made on the basis of the digital image that cannot be better explained by ordinary PDF optimization.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that no one has been able to replicate it.
 
All you have demonstrated here is you do not understand the technical advice given here mr Prey.
 
Last edited:
KDLarsen said:
Say Robert, no snide remarks on how Hawaii has once again certified that Barack Obama was born there? I mean, it only goes and render your trollingargument even more pointless.
Click to expand...


Hawaii has never verified the COLB as an exact copy of the original.
 
Robert Prey said:
Hawaii has never verified the COLB as an exact copy of the original.
Click to expand...

That would be the signature of the official on the COLB and the verification of the registrar that the BC on display is accurate. This how legal certification works in pretty much every state on the planet - the state official checks the official record, satisfies him or herself that the information is accurate and signs off on it. I would use the proper legal terms, but you'd accuse me of "technobabble" or "legalese" due to a lack of understanding.
 
And if you are so worried about the birthplace of candidates for political office why are you not providing evidence of any concern about other candidates birth certificates?

And all the still living past Presidents.
 
The Mara Zebest Challenge

"Here's a challenge to anyone who would like to defend the list of excuses or to supplement any additional excuses. It is advised (before doing so) to carefully read the report, examining the provided figure of object code for the nine layers found in Obama's PDF (with important properties highlighted). Then run tests to see if any of the described suppositions proposed in the above bulleted list (or any new excuses being considered) can produce object code exactly as seen in the capture (without manipulation). The final result must include eight 1-bit Image Mask true layers (with FlateDecode, as seen in the figure), and one 8-bit ColorSpace layer (with DCTDecode, as seen for this last layer). Oh, and as an added bonus, the 1-bit layers (all eight of them) need to have colors displayed that are not within a pure (grayscale color value) range of black.

When these displayed attributes from Obama's PDF anomalies are reproduced via scanning and optimization settings, please publish the winning recipe settings for all to verify. And don't forget to include a refry from Preview as the last step. If you cannot document the winning recipe, then supposition does not count, and therefore you have nothing -- which falls into the category of misinformation, misunderstanding, misrepresenting, and misdirecting.

Obama's PDF object code properties cannot be reproduced without manufacturing and manipulating layers. Any layers produced through optimizing will result in a single 1-bit layer. Repeat: just one 1-bit layer -- not eight. In the case of adaptive compression, the color on the 1-bit layer will reflect a black color value -- not off-white, not greenish-black, not greenish-gray (as displayed in Obama's PDF file)."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...orgery_proof_in_the_layers.html#ixzz26ufLkGza
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
An alteration is an alteration. Not a copy of the original. And if one aspect of a document is altered, it is reasonable to suspect the entire document.
Click to expand...

But every copy is different from the original. there is always something altered, just by the action of copying. Speck of dust, scratch on the glass plate, not copying embossed marks (if present on the original), distrortions of safety features, doesn't matter. There is always something different.
That means that every and all originals are suspect after they have been copied? Because that is what you are saying.
 
Robert Prey said:
<snipped tripe from birther site re the PDF>
Click to expand...

Robert, instead of focussing on what is a side issue and addressing the issue of the verification of the information contained therein by the issuing authority?

Because at the end of the day, that is the only issue that matters.
 
Robert Prey said:
"Here's a challenge to anyone who would like to defend the list of excuses or to supplement any additional excuses. It is advised (before doing so) to carefully read the report, examining the provided figure of object code for the nine layers found in Obama's PDF (with important properties highlighted). Then run tests to see if any of the described suppositions proposed in the above bulleted list (or any new excuses being considered) can produce object code exactly as seen in the capture (without manipulation). The final result must include eight 1-bit Image Mask true layers (with FlateDecode, as seen in the figure), and one 8-bit ColorSpace layer (with DCTDecode, as seen for this last layer). Oh, and as an added bonus, the 1-bit layers (all eight of them) need to have colors displayed that are not within a pure (grayscale color value) range of black.

When these displayed attributes from Obama's PDF anomalies are reproduced via scanning and optimization settings, please publish the winning recipe settings for all to verify. And don't forget to include a refry from Preview as the last step. If you cannot document the winning recipe, then supposition does not count, and therefore you have nothing -- which falls into the category of misinformation, misunderstanding, misrepresenting, and misdirecting.

Obama's PDF object code properties cannot be reproduced without manufacturing and manipulating layers. Any layers produced through optimizing will result in a single 1-bit layer. Repeat: just one 1-bit layer -- not eight. In the case of adaptive compression, the color on the 1-bit layer will reflect a black color value -- not off-white, not greenish-black, not greenish-gray (as displayed in Obama's PDF file)."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...orgery_proof_in_the_layers.html#ixzz26ufLkGza
Click to expand...
These screenshot crops come from page 5 of Zebest's latest report found here.

In this image you can see where she points out a bunch of "layers".
picture.php


However when we blow up and crop the layer/group list to the right...
picture.php

...we can see there is one, and only one, layer. Nine groups, one layer.

If she can't even get this right, how can anyone believe she got any of it right?
 
BazBear said:
These screenshot crops come from page 5 of Zebest's latest report found here.

In this image you can see where she points out a bunch of "layers".
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=810&pictureid=6625[/qimg]

However when we blow up and crop the layer/group list to the right...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=810&pictureid=6626[/qimg]
...we can see there is one, and only one, layer. Nine groups, one layer.

If she can't even get this right, how can anyone believe she got any of it right?
Click to expand...

If I may channel Robert Prey for a moment, "But the groups are sub-layers! They're the same thing! Distinction without a difference!"

:boxedin:
 
If one were to switch off or delete 'Layer 1', presumably everything listed in that table will also disappear?
 
Robert Prey said:
An alteration is an alteration. Not a copy of the original. And if one aspect of a document is altered, it is reasonable to suspect the entire document.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. "Alteration" endemic to copying does not raise reasonable suspicion. You're grasping at straws.

Robert Prey said:
Except for the fact that no one has been able to replicate it.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered.

Robert Prey said:
Hawaii has never verified the COLB as an exact copy of the original.
Click to expand...

Made-up Birther requirement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom