Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Tinfoil Hater]

I feel Obama did a disservice to the country letting this current issue go unresolved for so long that upwards of 40% of the populace began to doubt his citizenship, doesn't give you the right to lump me in with them in an attempt to label me a kook. .

If you think Obama is not American born and that his birth certificate is a fake, yes, you ARE a kook.


Oh that's rich, you write "I feel Obama did a disservice to the country letting this current issue go unresolved for so long "

The ones who fabricated this lunacy and made it an issue were Birther nutjobs.
The birthers are the ones who started this farce- they claimed he was foreign born- without any proof or evidence to back their claim.
Birthers are the ones that insist the birth certificate is fake, again, without proof.
Obama doesn't need to prove anything to the Birthers.
I think Obama made a mistake re-releasing the birth certificate- he should have dealt with Birthers by ignoring them-just as the government just ignores 9/11 Truther nutcases.

And of course even when he released his birth certificate, Birthers called it a fake before they saw it.
Sane people can't win with conspiracy nuts- conspiracy loons have already drawn a conclusion, one that is based in ignorance and paranoia- and in the case of the Birthers, pure rascism.

 

[Taarkin]

Well it might surprise you to learn that most so-called birthers weren't doubting that Obama was born in the US.

Really?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Amusing article at Huffington post; Pres Obama's birth certificate as seen through the eyes of a Birther:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/birthers-still-have-quest_n_854591.html

 

[Foolmewunz]

Excuse me. Are you trying to lump me in with people who believe in the Apollo Hoax, Chemtrails, Bilderburg, Operation Northwoods, 911 or FEMA Deathcamp conspiracies? When have I EVER expressed ANY support for such nonsense, on ANY forum I have ever posted on? Just because I disagreed with the assertion that Hawaii wasn't violating the law when it decided not to issue long form birth certificates, and just because I feel Obama did a disservice to the country letting this current issue go unresolved for so long that upwards of 40% of the populace began to doubt his citizenship, doesn't give you the right to lump me in with them in an attempt to label me a kook. Just because you don't believe Clinton raped anyone doesn't make me a kook. Yes, I do believe in some things you dismiss out of hand. But unlike those conspiracies you just listed, when my assertions are debated it is the other side who runs from the facts. Over and over. As the threads on those topics clearly prove ... over and over.

No, BAC. Once again, you fail to read clearly. I believe you will find something in this silliness to hold onto (as you have for the past four days) because you will clutch at any straw to discredit the ebil Democratics. You, I qualified as agenda-driven. It was a separate category, separated by a full stop(or "period"). That denotes a separate thought in standard English usage. Were you not aware of that?

 

[Joey McGee]

The Daily Show April 28th, hilarious stuff. First half is on the birthers. You'll need a U.S. IP

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-april-28-2011-william-cohan

 

[Saggy]

The White House document was tampered with. I base my conclusion on the following - I'll describe precisely what I did ...

I opened in Photoshop a default doc D which was 5x7 RGB resolution 72 pixels/in.

I opened the WH document and clipped a section of the crosshatched background and moved it to my doc D

I printed D on on my printer

I in Photoshop erased the crosshatching in D and typed Hi There in black 30 pt type in the area that had had the crosshatching.

I turned over my print of the crosshatching and printed the Hi There image on top of the crosshatching.

I scanned the resulting page with my HP Photosmart scanner and saved the pdf image.

I opened the pdf file in Photoshop and zoomed the image. There is NO white border around the type. It doesn't look anything like the WH document with its pure black characters (the doc D characters have lots of mottled color pixels amidst the black) and the pure white border (there is no border on the doc D image).

 

[A'isha]

The White House document was tampered with. I base my conclusion on the following - I'll describe precisely what I did ...

Why did the Hawaii Department of Health website link to the White
House page containing the "tampered with" document, do you think?

Is this "tampered with" document so convincing a forgery that it's somehow managed to fool the people who have the original on file to compare it to?

 

[Saggy]

Why did the Hawaii Department of Health website link to the White
House page containing the "tampered with" document, do you think?

Is this "tampered with" document so convincing a forgery that it's somehow managed to fool the people who have the original on file to compare it to?

Well, I don't know. Maybe the doc was just 'enhanced'. Or maybe my experiment is flawed somehow. But, if you follow the steps that are supposed to have produced the WH document, using my equipment, the resulting doc does not look like the WH posted doc.

 

[A'isha]

Or maybe my experiment is flawed somehow.

There are a number of flaws in it. Starting with the fact that you aren't using the same software, and probably not the same scanner, that was used to create the White House PDF.

And in any case, it's rather irrelevant, since the Hawaii DOH is pretty much pointing to the PDF and vouching for it. Whatever has been done to the document didn't change any of the information contained in the original that was copied (and the copy scanned to make the PDF).

Either that or the entire Hawaii DOH is in on the "tampering".

 

[Saggy]

There are a number of flaws in it. Starting with the fact that you aren't using the same software, and probably not the same scanner, that was used to create the White House PDF.

And in any case, it's rather irrelevant, since the Hawaii DOH is pretty much pointing to the PDF and vouching for it. Whatever has been done to the document didn't change any of the information contained in the original that was copied (and the copy scanned to make the PDF).

Either that or the entire Hawaii DOH is in on the "tampering".

As is the standard practice with a Randi inverted skeptic, your ultimate appeal is to authority, and not just any authority, but the state ! LOL. The state never lies. Thanks heavens for that !

But even with your complete conviction that the state never lies, wouldn't you like to understand how the WH posted document was produced? Are you completely devoid of curiosity about anything, once the state has spoken?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Well, I don't know. Maybe the doc was just 'enhanced'. Or maybe my experiment is flawed somehow. But, if you follow the steps that are supposed to have produced the WH document, using my equipment, the resulting doc does not look like the WH posted doc.

If your equipment, including software, is not exactly that which was used to produce the PDF in question, then your experiment is quite obviously flawed.

And even then, in all honesty, basing your experiment on what some people here speculate might have been the process by which the PDF was created isn't going to prove the PDF to be a fake. It will merely prove that their hypothesized process is not likely to be the actual process. I suspect that's quite enough for birthers, though, since their goal is not truth, but perpetuation of doubt.

--- Edit ---

Why did the Hawaii Department of Health website link to the White
House page containing the "tampered with" document, do you think?

Is this "tampered with" document so convincing a forgery that it's somehow managed to fool the people who have the original on file to compare it to?

Well, I don't know. Maybe the doc was just 'enhanced'. Or maybe my experiment is flawed somehow.

And in any case, it's rather irrelevant, since the Hawaii DOH is pretty much pointing to the PDF and vouching for it. Whatever has been done to the document didn't change any of the information contained in the original that was copied (and the copy scanned to make the PDF).

Either that or the entire Hawaii DOH is in on the "tampering".

As is the standard practice with a Randi inverted skeptic, your ultimate appeal is to authority, and not just any authority, but the state ! LOL. The state never lies. Thanks heavens for that !

That's quite a sudden change in attitude there, Saggy. First you humbly accept that your experiment may be lacking because the state of Hawaii seemingly accepts the validity of the PDF, then you energetically imply that the state of Hawaii is lying. Are you feeling OK?

 

[A'isha]

As is the standard practice with a Randi inverted skeptic, your ultimate appeal is to authority, and not just any authority, but the state ! LOL. The state never lies. Thanks heavens for that !

If you think the state lied, find some evidence for it. The long form released is consistent with every single statement and previous document released, even back when McCain-supporting Republicans ran things, so you'll additionally have to explain why state officials of both political parties have told the same lies for four years now.

Until you do that, I'm skeptical of the crackpot theory that the state might be lying.

But even with your complete conviction that the state never lies, wouldn't you like to understand how the WH posted document was produced? Are you completely devoid of curiosity about anything, once the state has spoken?

We already do understand how it was produced.

Even the loons at World Net Daily know how it was produced (though they still couldn't resist slapping on a totally misleading headline that's at odds with the body of the article).

 

[Saggy]

Even the loons at World Net Daily know how it was produced (though they still couldn't resist slapping on a totally misleading headline that's at odds with the body of the article).

From that page ...

"A contributor to the conservative Web forum FreeRepublic.com who goes by the moniker Cartan, explained that the Obama birth certificate was compressed with a software program that 'takes the scanned image, and then tries to separate the foreground text from the background into different layers (or objects), which are then compressed independently, using different compression algorithms.'"

You believe that?

 

[A'isha]

From that page ...

"A contributor to the conservative Web forum FreeRepublic.com who goes by the moniker Cartan, explained that the Obama birth certificate was compressed with a software program that 'takes the scanned image, and then tries to separate the foreground text from the background into different layers (or objects), which are then compressed independently, using different compression algorithms.'"

You believe that?

It's not a matter of "belief". It's a well-documented, commonly-used process for creating PDFs.

The MRC compression technology allows locating the colour background and deleting it or compressing to a high degree. This leaves text and pictures against a white background contributing to smaller file size.

 

[varwoche]

So, the obvious questions are, how in hell did the WH produce the document it posted on its web site, and why is the AP posted document, which appears to be a scan of a physical document, different?

Think about it Saggy -- this may be just the tip of an iceberg. After all, the document was produced by Obama. Why the hell should we trust anything that comes from this slippery ******/commie/sleeper agent? Not to mention, he has the arms of government at his disposal -- CIA, FBI, NSA and no doubt others that peons like you and I have never heard of. And for crying out loud, when we try to view this elusive "birth certificate" we do so over the frikkin internet, which is controlled by commie conspirators like google. I mean really, some brave patriot needs to go to Hawaii and demand the original document under force of the 2nd amendment. (Hawaii? What sort of bs state is that? Out in the middle of an ocean, populated by natives, Japs and Flips. C'mon, let's get real here.)

 

[Saggy]

It's not a matter of "belief". It's a well-documented, commonly-used process for creating PDFs.

This does not document what we see in the WH version. It doesn't explain the white borders. It does document something that might produce white borders, I'd be surprised, but it might. So, if we're skeptical, we'd want to reproduce the effect we see. Do you understand, that is what skepticism is, you must be skeptical of everything, not just spoon benders. And, if possible, test it yourself.

And, I did try to reproduce it, I scanned text on a colored background, created a pdf document, and didn't see the white borders. Now, that's what's known as an actual physical experiment. This is real data. It contradicts what we see in the WH document. It contradicts the explanation that the white borders are created by pdf compression. Is it definitive? I don't know. But you dismiss it entirely because it doesn't confirm your already held belief. That is the opposite of skepticism.

But stepping back just a minute .... if you look at the WH document you'll see what appears to be a black and white scan imposed over a green crosshatched pattern. This suggests that the bc was in a book or binder, and that the bc which was smaller than the page it was printed on, and hence smaller than the scanner image plate, was placed on the plate and scanned. You could do it on your own copier/scanner. BUT IT WOULD NOT PRODUCE THE SHARP EDGES OF THE SCANNED DOCUMENT YOU SEE ON THE WH VERSION.

So, for an instant, and contrary to everything you know and believe, contrary to your very nature even, for one instant try to be skeptical of something the government tells you. If you do this you might find yourself wondering how in hell they produced that inset image with its sharp borders.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

The White House document was tampered with. I base my conclusion on the following - I'll describe precisely what I did ...

I opened in Photoshop a default doc D which was 5x7 RGB resolution 72 pixels/in.

I opened the WH document and clipped a section of the crosshatched background and moved it to my doc D

I printed D on on my printer

I in Photoshop erased the crosshatching in D and typed Hi There in black 30 pt type in the area that had had the crosshatching.

I turned over my print of the crosshatching and printed the Hi There image on top of the crosshatching.

I scanned the resulting page with my HP Photosmart scanner and saved the pdf image.

I opened the pdf file in Photoshop and zoomed the image. There is NO white border around the type. It doesn't look anything like the WH document with its pure black characters (the doc D characters have lots of mottled color pixels amidst the black) and the pure white border (there is no border on the doc D image).

All you have is a flawed theory, and you don't have enough evidence to conclude there was any tampering.

 

[A'isha]

So, for an instant, and contrary to everything you know and believe, contrary to your very nature even, for one instant try to be skeptical of something the government tells you. If you do this you might find yourself wondering how in hell they produced that inset image with its sharp borders.

Yes, Saggy, you've totally found the smoking gun, missed by even document experts and World Net Daily, that blows the Government Conspiracy wide open.

It can't be that you're not using the right software or processes to do your "experiments", oh no.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

As is the standard practice with a Randi inverted skeptic, your ultimate appeal is to authority, and not just any authority, but the state ! LOL. The state never lies. Thanks heavens for that !

But even with your complete conviction that the state never lies, wouldn't you like to understand how the WH posted document was produced? Are you completely devoid of curiosity about anything, once the state has spoken?

If you can prove the document is fake, go for it. But conspiracy nuts start off with a conclusion there was a conspiracy (in this case a fake birth certificate) before doing any research. Tinfoil hatters like Birthers try and find anything to support that conclusion, and ignore or dismiss anything that contradticts their preheld beliefs.
I''m curious to ask the Biirthers what's the weather like in Crazytown?

 

[Saggy]

Yes, Saggy, you've totally found the smoking gun, missed by even document experts and World Net Daily, that blows the Government Conspiracy wide open.

It can't be that you're not using the right software or processes to do your "experiments", oh no.

[qimg]http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/its_a_conspiracy.jpg[/qimg]

Why reduce everything to insult and idocy?

If you can't explain the sharp borders on the inset, and I can't, then there is reason to doubt the government's version.

If you can't explain the white borders around the characters there is reason to doubt the government's version.

Not only that, we should be able to reproduce both these effects, since we have printers and scanners. I can't.

To answer reasonable doubt with insult is ...... typical of the randi inverted skeptic.

And, weren't you certain that someone other than David Sinclair was the doc? Don't you ever learn ?