Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


You've already drawn a conclusion without sufficent evidence.

You are essentially concluding the document is tampered with-and asserting that others must now prove that it isn't.
Research doesn't work that way.
You need to provide ample evidence, which you have not done.
 
Last edited:
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.

No, your personal inability to understand PDF optimization is not sufficient reason to speculate on a years-long conspiracy involving both political parties across multiple levels of government.

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

I told you already what causes that. The characters were cut from the background, leaving white spaces, so the letters in the PDF are basically black characters on a white background, not black characters on a colored background.

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

That's because you're using both the wrong method and the wrong software. It's not "scanning" that does this.

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

I haven't answered reasonable doubt with insult. You don't have a reasonable doubt.

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

No, I at first thought it was definitely West based on the newspaper article with the family friend. But the explicit link to him as the delivering physician was made by the reporter; the family friend only said West knew the birth happened at the time it happened. Since then I've been quite clear that I thought Dr. West was likely to have been the physician, but it was also possible he was not (turns out he wasn't).

Here's me on April 26th:

It was possibly Dr. Rodney T. West, though it could have been another physician.

And back on the 14th, I even corrected someone who cited my original statement about Dr. West.

To be precise, Dr. West is very likely to have been the delivering obstetrician. At the very least, he was in active practice delivering babies at the right hospital at the time of Obama's birth, and certainly knew about the birth at the time it happened.

So, yes, unlike you, I have indeed learned.
 
Last edited:
No, your personal inability to understand PDF optimization is not sufficient reason to speculate on a years-long conspiracy involving both political parties across multiple levels of government.



I told you already what causes that. The characters were cut from the background, leaving white spaces, so the letters in the PDF are basically black characters on a white background, not black characters on a colored background.



That's because you're using both the wrong method and the wrong software. It's not "scanning" that does this.



I haven't answered reasonable doubt with insult. You don't have a reasonable doubt.



No, I at first thought it was definitely West based on the newspaper article with the family friend. But the explicit link to him as the delivering physician was made by the reporter; the family friend only said West knew the birth happened at the time it happened. Since then I've been quite clear that I thought Dr. West was likely to have been the physician, but it was also possible he was not (turns out he wasn't).

Here's me on April 26th:



And back on the 14th, I even corrected someone who cited my original statement about Dr. West.



So, yes, unlike you, I have indeed learned.

No, your personal inability to understand PDF optimization

I TRIED IT. IT DIDN"T PRODUCE THE BORDER. WAKE UP.

No, I at first thought it was definitely West based on the newspaper article with the family friend.

Hahahahahahaha ....... I 'debated' you on this very issue ...... really, I'm slapping my knee on this one.
 
Last edited:
No, your personal inability to understand PDF optimization

I TRIED IT. IT DIDN"T PRODUCE THE BORDER. WAKE UP.

No, no, no. When trying to convince someone that your amateur experiments using the wrong software and processes prove that the government faked something, the proper terminology is "WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!"
 
AGAIN, what is the point of this border/layer crap when any forger would just get a blank doc and write on it?


VVV do yourself a favor and read the thread. The one you started..
 
Last edited:
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).
I recomend watching this video. He covers this fairly thoroughly and recreates the results in the AP black and white document (and you actually linked to one of his videos earlier in this thread).

After the conversion it very much looks like the white house document sans the text and background color (but the documents are different colors and printed on different paper so that's to be expected). Skip 5 minutes into the video to get to the software editing portion.

 
So, what's the tally for randman now? A creationist, a truther, and a birther?

Did I leave anything out?
Lets see; he refuses to accept the reality of evolution and AGW; believes in 911 twoofer nonsense; thinks "Obama and the dems" are trying to corporatise everything (bad) while still being evil socialists yet wants restrictions on corporate oil drilling removed and then claims high gasoline prices are deliberate Democratic policy...............

He's a goldbug and suffers from xianity, believes Obama must be hiding something about his birth, because of the millions of dollars he hasn't spent.

He also dislikes the scientific method, because it fails to support his opinions but pontificates on subjects of which he has no knowledge and then lies when his ignorance is exposed.

All rather off-topic, but demonstrating why nothing he says should be trusted without substantial corroboration.
 
[de-lurk]

What I fine most amazing is all this trouble over a web based document that is one generation removed from the actual documents created by the Hawaii DOH, and later received at the White House. A scanned PDF wasn't what was delivered, but an actual *gasp!* paper version. Two paper copies I believe.

Granted, it's been presented for all the world to see by creating an electronic version, but really all this fuss about layers and scanning and artifacts and resolutions is genuinely absolutely meaningless. There is not even a digital signature embedded in the PDF, nor is it a protected document. It's for informational/display purposes only!

Seems to me that those who continue to invest so much energy into attempting to prove this PDF as being a faked need... to... well, do something that, were I to suggest it, might get me infracted...

[re-lurk, these sort of threads kinda scare me :jaw-dropp ]
 
Last edited:
Someone from Africa would consider themselves African. Why is that hard to understand?

Also as has been asked earlier and several times. Why would they bother with all this photoshop and ocument manipulation when they could just get a blank document and fill it in?
 
What is at the core of this continuing debate? Do some people think that the long-form bc is a forgery? What information does anyone think is being falsified or concealed? Does anyone think Stanley Ann Dunham was not Obama's mother? If so, who was? By what evidence? Or that Dunham was not born in Kansas? If so, where? Or that Barack Obama was not his father? If so, who was? Or that Dunham's parents participated in an elaborate fraud? If so, why? Or that 18-year-old white pregnant Dunham traveled from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961 just in time to give birth to her first child alone in rural third-world conditions, and returned immediately to the U.S., without leaving any travel or immigration records anywhere? What's going on here? At some point the birthers have an obligation to state what they believe is true if they are going to claim that everything we know is false.
 
What is at the core of this continuing debate? Do some people think that the long-form bc is a forgery? What information does anyone think is being falsified or concealed? Does anyone think Stanley Ann Dunham was not Obama's mother? If so, who was? By what evidence? Or that Dunham was not born in Kansas? If so, where? Or that Barack Obama was not his father? If so, who was? Or that Dunham's parents participated in an elaborate fraud? If so, why? Or that 18-year-old white pregnant Dunham traveled from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961 just in time to give birth to her first child alone in rural third-world conditions, and returned immediately to the U.S., without leaving any travel or immigration records anywhere? What's going on here? At some point the birthers have an obligation to state what they believe is true if they are going to claim that everything we know is false.





The core of this issue is that right wingers who despise Obama want him out of power, and will do anything, spread any lie, spin any rumor, and fabricate any story that will enable them to question his legitimacy. Racism is a big motivating factor.

The idiots harping on Obama using a teleprompter during speeches (ALL politicians use a teleprompter when giving speeches on tv) don't think black men can be articulate.
 
Last edited:
Granted, it's been presented for all the world to see by creating an electronic version, but really all this fuss about layers and scanning and artifacts and resolutions is genuinely absolutely meaningless. There is not even a digital signature embedded in the PDF, nor is it a protected document. It's for informational/display purposes only!
That's a good point. The PDF communicates the necessary information, was released (and certified) by Hawaii and subsequently released to the public by the whitehouse. In the end it simply doesn't matter if there are compression artifacts or the quality isn't the best. What matters is Hawaii says it's the real deal and the necessary information is there (which it is).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom