Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Aepervius]

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img69/1407/nearb.jpg[/qimg]

There is definitely some cultural sub text I am not understanding here ?

 

[Straw Man]

There is definitely some cultural sub text I am not understanding here ?

Blazing Saddles.

 

[abaddon]

I'm waiting for you to explain this sign, Robert.

Lets add another question, Robert. The picture shown by Straw Man was taken on 24/2/2010 with an Olympus C100 camera whose setting were Exposure 125 F stop 4 ISO 100 Focal length 5.6.
ETA Also the Photograph was processed from the camera with Adobe Photoshop Elements 7.0 for windows.

How is it that I know this?


(To others, I know the obvious caveat)

 

[Mojo]

There is definitely some cultural sub text I am not understanding here ?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071230/quotes?qt=qt0371656

 

[abaddon]

Does anyone else remember the "List of things IDW doesn't understand"?

 

[JayUtah]

Fallacious reasoning. An Appeal to Authority...

No, Robert. We're not going to spend pages and pages once again going over your completely ridiculous and self-serving personal definition of authority. Let's skip to the end: your argument is that everyone you think is an authority, regardless of qualification, has to be practically worshiped, while anyone who opposes your belief, no matter how well informed and experienced, is simply a "fallacious appeal to authority." Do I have that right?

Nonetheless, if Zebest is not an expert then why would she be named as tech advisor for Adobe Books?

Because, as graphic artist, she knows how to use the tools. That doesn't mean she knows how they work under the hood. How many painters who went to art school can speak knowledgeably about the industrial chemical processes that produced their pigments? Hence how many of them can answer authenticity questions that have to with the technology of paint?

Your "proof by book jacket" has been tried before and it failed. It certainly didn't stand up in court. In case there's any doubt, we've examined Zebest's "expertise" directly as evidenced in her writings and have given rebuttals that you frantically try to write off as beneath your attention.

The idea is, don't fall into that Jay Utah line of fallacious reasoning. But deal with the Evidence.

I'll direct your attention to the title of the thread, which is about Barack Obama's birth certificate, not "Make JayUtah look bad at all costs." Your true agenda is showing.

We've dealt with the evidence. Your "evidence" is a bunch of non-experts laboriously claiming they don't understand what's happening in a digital computer file that has absolutely no bearing on Barack Obama's eligibility to President. To humor you, we've address the factual claims, even though you have no legal theory on which to hang them. And our lengthy, expert analysis of your factual claims leaves you mumbling single-word dismissals in response and handwaving about how your critics are serving up the Kool-Aid.

Have I got this about right?

 

[Hans]

Yep on all point Jay

Robert why don't you start a "I hate Jay' thread? lol


-----------------------------------------

Robert is the reason you won't accept the State of Hawaii statements because they are being made by non-white people?

 

[JayUtah]

You are late to the party...

You explicitly refused to read the thread we've all been participating in for months before your arrival, which included a lot of the material you've tried to resurrect as you Googled your way into trolling the Birther debate.

Hypocrisy much?

...and need to get up to speed on the debunking of the debunkers:

Straw man. You've been presented with a complete challenge to your claims right here, including original research, and you have simply written it off as something you don't need to pay attention to. And everyone can see what you're doing.

I know you're desperately trying to force your opponents to adhere to some other person's point of view, for which you have a predetermined response, but I'm happy to keep you floundering. Most everybody here knows more about this than you and has studied it in greater depth than you.

 

[Robert Prey]

When you answer his questions.

You implied pixels could have more than one color, trying to patch a hole in the Birther theory. Show us the basis for this.

You implied that all scanners faithfully reproduce all colors, but you won't examine a certain color to answer the question of how it would reproduce photographically.

The fact that you're dodging his questions rather than answering them suggests to me that you do indeed know the answers to them but you're afraid to say them because by doing so you'd be admitting you lost your point. Now be a good debater and accept the refutation.

All of the above premises are false. Predictably.

 

[Straw Man]

All of the above premises are false. Predictably.

Show us your work then.

You can't. Predictably.

 

[Robert Prey]

Mara Zebest's training is in graphic arts. Not computer science or the forensic authentication of documents. That makes her adept at using Photoshop, but not an expert in the underlying scientific principles. This is why no court accepts her as an expert on the subject matter pertaining to the authenticity of Obama's PDF.

She went to art school. I went to computer science and engineering school and taught there, including the programmers who work on Adobe products. I know the founder of Adobe and have demonstrated my expertise here.

?

In that case, perhaps you could point out some scholarly, learned, peer review article confirming your cacamamy theory that scanners have x-ray vision. Anybody else buy that malarky? If so, I have a prime piece of ocean front real estate I'd like to sell you on the planet Mars.

 

[Robert Prey]

Use the full definition or not at all:
Unless you can actually present documentation that would demonstrate that the State of Hawaii's records are in error there is no reason not to accept the validity of the record, and accept that President Obama is a natural born citizen over the age of 35 and thus eligible to hold the office to which he was elected.

Very easy to do if allowed to view the original birth certificate, if there really is one. Impossible without it.

 

[JayUtah]

In that case, perhaps you could point out some scholarly, learned, peer review article...

Asked and answered. You didn't respond to anything I actually said.

...confirming your cacamamy theory that scanners have x-ray vision.

Not my claim. You're trying to put words in my mouth again. Just because your nutty tabloid authors can only explain what they see in terms of "x-ray scanners" doesn't mean that's the answer. Try again, student.

Anybody else buy that malarky? If so, I have a prime piece of ocean front real estate I'd like to sell you on the planet Mars.

Rhetoric noted, instead of discussion of the evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

Very easy to do if allowed to view the original birth certificate, if there really is one. Impossible without it.

Made-up Birther rules. Obama's eligibility is a matter of legally ruled-upon fact and has been so certified beyond the requirements any other President has had to endure.

There is no legal basis for your challenge.
There is no factual basis for your challenge.
There is no moral or constitutional basis for your challenge.

 

[JayUtah]

All of the above premises are false. Predictably.

Dodge.

You got caught expressing your ignorance of basic computer science.
You got caught making a claim that can be empirically disproven.

And you have no answer but flailing your arms wildly.

As I explained, a pixel is defined as having unique and atomic photometric properties. And it is to that atomic notion of a pixel that you referred. You didn't know that, and you put your foot in your mouth.

Pantone 877, as you well know from your frantic Googling, has geometrically-dependent photometric properties that cannot be captured by a scanner nor reproduced on a CYMK printer. If there are colors you can't scan and print, then your claim that what you scan and what you print are what was original there is full of hogwash.

You're simply not honest enough to admit when you've been proven wrong.

 

[Robert Prey]

This is why real scientists with real education and real, pertinent professional expertise are accepted in court, and artists who write books on how to make pretty Photoshop pictures are not.

And in just what court case are you referring to in relation to computer expert Mara Zebest?????

 

[Robert Prey]

Asked and answered. You didn't respond to anything I actually said.



Not my claim. You're trying to put words in my mouth again. Just because your nutty tabloid authors can only explain what they see in terms of "x-ray scanners" doesn't mean that's the answer. Try again, student.



Rhetoric noted, instead of discussion of the evidence.

Then if it's not a scanner with x-ray vision, then perhaps a scanner with ESP? Call it what you want, but a scanner can only copy what it sees. That's Common Sense, 101, Professor. But whatever you call it, surely you could point to at least one, learned, scholarly, peer reviewed article that scanners can see behind the objects they copy. Waiting.

 

[JayUtah]

Then if it's not a scanner with x-ray vision, then perhaps a scanner with ESP? Call it what you want, but a scanner can only copy what it sees. That's Common Sense, 101, Professor. But whatever you call it, surely you could point to at least one, learned, scholarly, peer reviewed article that scanners can see behind the objects they copy. Waiting.

Asked and answered.

 

[JayUtah]

And in just what court case are you referring to in relation to computer expert Mara Zebest?????

Haha, you want a list of all the court cases Mara Zebest has not been an expert in? Wow, you're the champion of demanding proof for the negative case. We already cited the one where she refused to submit to voir dire, and you told us flat-out you didn't need to read that link. So be a good debater and go back and read the parts of this thread that you've neglected before demanding that others produce more evidence for you to ignore.

And how about you do what I asked you to do when you first brought up Zebest, and cite me any case in which she was rule to be a subject-matter expert. That would be the affirmative case, which naturally has the burden of proof.

 

[Border Reiver]

Very easy to do if allowed to view the original birth certificate, if there really is one. Impossible without it.

Hawaii's already done it - verified it, certified it - and your President has posted a reproduction of it online.

At this stage of the game you've lost any and all hope of credibility, as you are now alleging a 5 decade long fraud, given the FACT that the birth announcements in the newspapers were generated from information provided them by the Department of Health and you still have to provide some form of evidence that the BC is not accurate. Since you and the collection of yahoos have not done so and cannot do so, I would posit you've got nothing more than hate and vitriol - I pity you.