Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[mike3]

@ the denial in here.

Can you give a serious rebuttal? NO program other than that gives a layer... What Does That Mean???

You aren't finding any big thing here, because if the PDF itself were comprised of layers it would show it in all Adobe and Open Source programs that can read PDF. The fact that it only shows up in Illustrator is telling, it means it is a result of the way that program vectorizes files.

Can you answer this point? Why only in one program and no other?

 

[timhau]

It's not funny, I'm not laughing at you

Well, some of us disagree.

 

[Arus808]

Jackson and Jefferson are irrelevant to the discussion, as they were both American citizens at the adoption of the Constitution, and were thus grandfathered in as eligible for the Presidency, irrespective of whether they were considered "natural-born citizens." I'd also like to point out that claiming that their parents were "immigrants" is somewhat misleading; they were all British subjects prior to 1776, just as the parents of the other early Presidents were.

Jefferson, however, became a naturalized citizen of France, while he lived there for the 3 years he was an ambassador (replacing Ben Franklin). After the adoption of the Constitution.

 

[332nd]

@ the denial in here.

So... You think that thesmokinggun wasn't making fun of you despite the fact that the writer pretty much said he was?

 

[J-Funk]

When the text is moved it appears to be “ripped” from the background leaving white areas in the exact shape of the moved text. If the background was really a different layer wouldn’t the colour of the background remain unchanged when you move the text?

 

[Joey McGee]

Well, some of us disagree.

I admit I laugh and laugh and laugh but at the end of the day when it's all over, then I am sad that this is reality.

 

[Mojo]

All media in this post is hosted on my servers. This post content comes from my personal blog.


Click through to see this post on ATS.

Seriously, you’ll crap your pants.

The people who doctored the image of Obama’s birth cert were stupid enough not to merge the image layers of their forgery before converting it into a pdf document. (technically they are clipping masks, which are slightly different than layers).

Hence, there are image layers that can be pulled out of the document when it is imported into Adobe Illustrator.

ElMondoHummus beat you to it by over six hours:

Ahhh, joy. I just saw a birther on another forum who said the long-form was forged because - get this - when he opens the .pdf in Adobe Illustrator (why that and not Acrobat I can't answer), he gets separate layers.

Separate layers. This is the reason he disbelieves it.

And when it was pointed out that, on an import, when Illustrator doesn't recognize a font, it does an outline trace and creates a layer for each different thing it detects, what do you all think he did? Hint: The answer doesn't include the words "acknowldged" or "admitted".

Is that why you needed to start a new thread for it?

 

[Mojo]

Back up to post 3182 genius.

And put down the shovel. You didn't really need to start a new thread with your "evidence", did you?

Post 3182 is the reason he needed to start a new thread.

 

[icerat]

Now I know that Adobe creates artifacts like this by itself when you scan, but I think in this case the artifacts were actually deliberately included to sucker in the birthers so that Obama doesn't have to answer the real question and provide proof he wasn't adopted by his indonesian step-father!

(and thus lost his citizenship, for those not following the conspiracies)

 

[fullflavormenthol]

But how does it getting "pirated" make it harder? Wouldn't that make it easier to V the claim since it makes the software more available (such as, to the poor, including ones who might want to really learn something) for experimentation? It seems like a paradox.

It doesn't. I guess what my point was is that many people pirate the software without having the training or basic knowledge in file formats or how those formats handle things. I think it comes from my experience with Ghost Hunter groups at my undergrad university who would make rookie mistakes with photography and call the results "interesting". When I tried to correct them they had no clue what I was talking about because they lacked the basic knowledge to start with. Same thing here. I am not going to say that I never pirated some software in my younger college days, but I will say that I had some training. I will also say that if one is going to learn software, especially computer graphics software, that tutorials alone are not sufficient to actually understand the underlining concepts and function of such software. Not every artist must be a computer expert, but a foundational knowledge in the function of file formats and how a specific program interacts with those formats is necessary.

Can you answer this point? Why only in one program and no other?

Sure. There are two basic types of image formats when you break things down. Raster (bitmap for example) and vector (like Illustrator). Raster is a pixel format, which means the image file is a set number of pixels from the start. If you expand a raster file (like a jpeg or bitmap) it becomes all pixelated the larger it gets. What you are seeing is the fact that the file is a set number of pixels, and those squares are limited at the time of the files creation. Vector on the other hand is line art, which means that theoretically one could expand the view of the file and never see any deterioration in the quality of the image. Now if you take a PDF scan and run it into a vector program like Adobe Illustrator it will attempt to translate most of the file into vector art...or to put it this way it will translate the image into lines even without your permission. This is because Illustrator assumes these liberties because the start file is a native PDF format (it will ask if a jpeg or other native raster format). The result is that the file will be rendered into a series of image groups, which one can select below the layer 1 tab and manipulate. Hence because of the way Adobe Illustrator handles a PDF a person can select text and move it around. The white section of the scan is basically just the artifacts that are left over when a person scans an image into a computer. The fact is that it takes a high quality scan (higher than most personal scanners) or a high quality SLR digital camera to be able to effectively capture the date. Although the end result of such a capture would always be left with pixelization because of the way in which computers capture data. Beyond vector art, which really isn't able to be used to capture live images now, we still work with pixels. Programs like Illustrator attempt to compensate for this when they can, but the end result will always be an imperfect capture of the image.

The honest truth is that even if I were to expand Star Wars: Ep II to 500x I would find pixelization on the parts filmed with a digital movie camera. The technology will always have limitations.

So the white pixels around the black lettering is to be expected in a scan of a document into a standard scanner. The scanner works by shinning light in the surface of the document, and it will always leave artifacts. This is another level the birther "experts" are picking up on, but they are expecting near perfect results from an imperfect format.

 

[Zep]

I won't say I was the first or the only, but here's at least one prediction of this thread from yesterday:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7124459&postcount=5

 

[DC]

so they make perfect looking signatures and stamps, but somehow those tallented fakers have forgotten to merge the layers?

or could it maybe be that while scanning it, the programm made different layers?
which would also explain why that green pattern is missing under those stamps etc...

 

[Zep]

Please rearrange the following words into a well-known phrase or saying: Stirrer, faeces.

 

[abaddon]

All media in this post is hosted on my servers. This post content comes from my personal blog.


Click through to see this post on ATS.

Seriously, you’ll crap your pants.

The people who doctored the image of Obama’s birth cert were stupid enough not to merge the image layers of their forgery before converting it into a pdf document. (technically they are clipping masks, which are slightly different than layers).

Hence, there are image layers that can be pulled out of the document when it is imported into Adobe Illustrator.

Here’s the layer that contains the stamps:
[qimg]http://www.fascistsoup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/obamafake-371x480.png[/qimg]

Oh dear, clearly, you do not understand adobe software.

This means that the stamps, the lettering, and the background are all separate entities within the image that were layered together digitally.

Provenance. Something you do not understand. What was the precise process applied to this scan? You don't know, do you?

It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY this officially released document is an original scanned image of Obama’s birth cert. An original pdf of a scanned image would have only one layer – the scanned image itself. And certainly there would be no ‘stamp’ layers.

Other than those created by the adobe software. Was OCR applied? What were the scanner settings? How many times was the scan interpreted and by what software? You don't know that either.

I have verified the ATS author’s claims.

How?

Here is an image I created myself by moving the layers in the official document:
[qimg]http://www.fascistsoup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/obamaforgery.jpg[/qimg]

Yay. Further corruption of the original scan caused by your inept use of any slider you could find in your pirate copy of the software.

Here is my altered version of that pdf.

What? you really think another version of your corrupt data will help your case?

Alex Jones actually opens up Adobe Illustrator and points out the same things I just did in this post:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g30VCl_cgk

Yeah, sure, AJ is an acknowledged Adobe expert. And crappy jootoob videos are the pinnacle of forensic evidence. Sure they are.

A few more points of note from

www.thesmokinggun.com…

• If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document’s safety paper be so seamless?

Are they? Or is it evidence of the birthers tampering with the evidence to suit their agenda?

• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?

Quite common in this country for the date accepted to be the actual date of registration which is often several days after the actual birth. Do you really think the registrar is in the starters blocks in every delivery room? Are you that naive?

• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?

They are smudges. What is the significance of the smudges on my monitor?
OMG!!! They form an image of Mother Theresa!!! Oh, not really once I wipe off that bit of salsa.

• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.

Gee, that was inconsiderate of him to die at 81. Dammit, the dude is DEAD. You may as well complain that Napolean is unavailable to explain his actions.
Go have a seance, why not?

• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?

Official documents often get extraneous marks, what's your problem?

• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?

What do you think and why? You have no clue what their purpose is, so you insinuate there is something suspicious about them.

• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: It is spelled “Ukulele.”

Sweet baby Jebus, "may"? What evidence have you that it is forged?
"desperate"? Evidence for said desperation?

Your post is evidence for the gullible, being led by the conspiracy theorists, being led by the snake oil salesmen.

And I am not American, nor live in America, nor care about the president du jour. It is just amusing to see fools at their daily toil.

 

[Juniversal]

I won't say I was the first or the only, but here's at least one prediction of this thread from yesterday:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7124459&postcount=5

Like clockwork...

 

[abaddon]

@ the denial in here.

at the fact you don't understand Adobe software.

 

[Anders Lindman]

All media in this post is hosted on my servers. This post content comes from my personal blog.


Click through to see this post on ATS.

Oh! Here is an image from that thread: http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e7f8b71993f4.png

The document is curved on the left side, yet the background is flat! Zoom in on the picture and measure the background pattern repetitions. They are equally sized even where the document is supposed to be curved. Looks suspicious at least.

 

[JAStewart]

So this is more gross incompetence from those engaged in the largest conspiracy in the world.

Hot damn, NWO complacency is so freakin' convenient.

 

[Zep]

Oh! Here is an image from that thread: http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e7f8b71993f4.png

The document is curved on the left side, yet the background is flat! Zoom in on the picture and measure the background pattern repetitions. They are equally sized even where the document is supposed to be curved. Looks suspicious at least.

So... reckon it was done by aliens? Lizard-people? Don't be shy - what's your guess?

 

[abaddon]

The White House web site says so.

They are the ones who released a document with clipping masks in it.

Still willing to parade your ignorance of how graphics software works, I see.