Obama birth certificate to turn into election year issue?

[Taco John]

I've pretty well ignored this whole thing, but this is looking like it's not going away any time soon.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by Taco John

It raises questions that "HAHAHAHAHA" doesn't even begin to answer.

The whole HAHA crowd is as stupid/insignificant as the tinfoil hatters who believe every theory.

Ad homeninem attacks mean nothing, and are not valid in the face of real evidence. Those who simply say HAHAHAHAH with no further input are 1)ignorant of computers 2)havent looked at the document 3)trolling....or 4)???

People like that clearly do not seek the truth. If it is so clearly laughable, explain why...use your words....

I mean has anyone with a working knowledge of photoshop/adobe/images come forward to defend this document or do we just have the JAJAJAJAJAAJAJAAJAJ crowd with some emoticons tossed in??

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I think that the recent revelations that 9/11 was funded by the Saudi Royal family confirm my belief that there was an inside component to the disaster that day. I think we've been penetrated deeper than we're comfortable to admit. I've always thought the evidence points to an inside component - I don't know what that means exactly, who could guess. But we know that it was funded by deep deep pockets.

But that has nothing to do with this thread. The point I was making in this thread is that a lot more people who ignored this story will now start paying attention. And it appears that some of those people might be senators...

You do realize that Arapio is under federal investigation and is more likely to end up in the pen?

Second the "lead" invesgator works for wnd and wrote a book? no there isnt anything fishy with the posse

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

You do realize that Arapio is under federal investigation and is more likely to end up in the pen?

Second the "lead" invesgator works for wnd and wrote a book? no there isnt anything fishy with the posse

you do realize that ad homenim attacks are the simplest basic logical failure that a 1st year freshman learns not to make?

[AustinChief]

Oh lord. And yet again we have people without enough technical expertise commenting on things outside their knowledge. I am seeing this more and more lately. People in my field are labeling themselves "experts" and in fact are completely clueless.

There is NOTHING here that proves the document is a fraud. Of course, it VERY EASILY could also be fake. There is NO document out there that I can't create a fake digital image of.

The "proof" in the videos is just plain laughable. To start with, he needs to open the file in Acrobat itself first and see what elements are defined. Photoshop will "translate" a pdf when importing it and you have already introduced new data at that point, thereby invalidating everything you do from then on. I can explain this further if anyone cares, but the basic gist is that the document may be fake or it may be real... without a paper copy to validate, no one can say for certain... but this "proof" that it's fake is not at all valid.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Oh lord. And yet again we have people without enough technical expertise commenting on things outside their knowledge. I am seeing this more and more lately. People in my field are labeling themselves "experts" and in fact are completely clueless.

There is NOTHING here that proves the document is a fraud. Of course, it VERY EASILY could also be fake. There is NO document out there that I can't create a fake digital image of.

The "proof" in the videos is just plain laughable. To start with, he needs to open the file in Acrobat itself first and see what elements are defined. Photoshop will "translate" a pdf when importing it and you have already introduced new data at that point, thereby invalidating everything you do from then on. I can explain this further if anyone cares, but the basic gist is that the document may be fake or it may be real... without a paper copy to validate, no one can say for certain... but this "proof" that it's fake is not at all valid.

Austin, i believe they did open it in illustrator for one thing (not photoshop)..(1st error of thought)..but for another thing, I have a ton of experience with image files...assuming you do, how do you explain the layers being as they are and the date stamp being a single image, unmerged as well as the green background?

What is your explanation for this, have you opened and looked at the file ?

I also disagree with your premise that the paper copy is needed to determine if there was 'shopping' involved. You could use a control document. You are also quite wrong on that point.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

You do realize that Arapio is under federal investigation and is more likely to end up in the pen?

No, I don't realize any of that and don't see what relevance it has to the evidence in question. I'm not interested in the politics surrounding this.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

I mean has anyone with a working knowledge of photoshop/adobe/images come forward to defend this document or do we just have the JAJAJAJAJAAJAJAAJAJ crowd with some emoticons tossed in??

I have far more than a working knowledge, hell my first major project written in C (WAY back in 1991) was an image editor/viewer. I won't necessarily defend the PDF file but I will say that the "evidence" presented to discredit it is not at all accurate and (at least based on the youtube videos) I can explain away the so called "anomalies".

Let's examine the process just a bit.

The paper doc is scanned. Now this alone presents a ton of questions...what settings, what software, what image format? Now was it scanned directly as a PDF or did it the image then get converted or printed as a PDF? This is where I stop... because there are more than enough variables for me to be able to reproduce the same results with a legit doc. The problem with the YouTube videos are that they fail to follow the CORRECT procedure which is to TRY to recreate the doc itself... not to create one differently, then point out what is different and claim FRAUD.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

you do realize that ad homenim attacks are the simplest basic logical failure that a 1st year freshman learns not to make?

I missed that class. These people have zero credibility and it is more likely that what they showed was a fake and doctored to fool the stupid conspiracy people

http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-lin...s-credibility/

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

The paper doc is scanned. Now this alone presents a ton of questions...what settings, what software, what image format? Now was it scanned directly as a PDF or did it the image then get converted or printed as a PDF? This is where I stop...

ok but can you with ANY SETTING replicate the outcome that they got? those exact layers with the date stamp layer seperate and the background perfectly seperate?

I understand there are a lot of variables, but look at the end result here.....

Why would they release something that led to more questions than answers? Dont you think that in and of itself is stupid? Why dont they release the algorithm they used to scan and archive it?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Austin, i believe they did open it in illustrator for one thing (not photoshop)..(1st error of thought)..but for another thing, I have a ton of experience with image files...assuming you do, how do you explain the layers being as they are and the date stamp being a single image, unmerged as well as the green background?

What is your explanation for this, have you opened and looked at the file ?

I also disagree with your premise that the paper copy is needed to determine if there was 'shopping' involved. You could use a control document. You are also quite wrong on that point.

Illustrator, Photoshop... either way both translate the file.. so my point is the same.

I not only have a ton of experience with image files but I actually have written software that encodes them.. so I know them on a very very low level as well. The layers can pop up based on the settings used to scan and encode the doc. That is a major problem when dealing with PDFs. I have seen far squirrelier things get grabbed and made into it's own layer for what appears to me no reason at all. Happens all the time when encoding an image as a PDF.

You are correct, if someone watermarked a giant smiley face or did some such.. you could tell it was "shopped"... but in this case the video doesn't prove anything.

I have not opened the file itself, I am just going off the videos. There is nothing in the videos that I couldn't recreate with a legit file and poor judgement on software and settings, and that alone disproves their premise.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I missed that class. These people have zero credibility and it is more likely that what they showed was a fake and doctored to fool the stupid conspiracy people

http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-lin...s-credibility/

Im sorry but an op-ed article oing ad-homenim attacks isnt worth piss...

Have you looked at the document? I'm really only interested in the document itself..and the facts...

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I have not opened the file itself, I am just going off the videos. There is nothing in the videos that I couldn't recreate with a legit file and poor judgement on software and settings, and that alone disproves their premise.

well perhaps you can take a look at the actual file?

maybe some others who are more versed as well....it would be helpful

I mean, why would they use such 'poor judgment' on the settings? That seems...unlikely. Especially since they know that everyone will be examining this file forever.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

ok but can you with ANY SETTING replicate the outcome that they got? those exact layers with the date stamp layer seperate and the background perfectly seperate?

I understand there are a lot of variables, but look at the end result here.....

Why would they release something that led to more questions than answers? Dont you think that in and of itself is stupid? Why dont they release the algorithm they used to scan and archive it?

Given enough attempts... ABSOLUTELY. It depends on the scanner, the software the settings... but yes I am 100% certain there is a combination that would give the exact same result. Of course I can also get you any other result you'd like within reason.

I agree that releasing it as a PDF was stupid without offering a RAW file like a TIFF or whatever the scanner's native raw format is. AGAIN, I do not and can not vouch for the doc... but I can say for a FACT that I could reproduce the results with a genuine doc.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

but I can say for a FACT that I could reproduce the results with a genuine doc.

Also, if you think you can replicate it, why dont you do a test run? Replicate it and then tell us what settings you used...if it is so easy as you describe.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

I mean, why would they use such 'poor judgment' on the settings? That seems...unlikely. Especially since they know that everyone will be examining this file forever.

Well I doubt it was scanned by someone who cared or knew enough to make certain these issues wouldn't arise.

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Also, if you think you can replicate it, why dont you do a test run? Replicate it and then tell us what settings you used...if it is so easy as you describe.

There is no point in me trying due to massive holes in my knowledge of the software and machine(s) used. Even if I ignore that and just use what is available to me... I don't have the crazy green paper. I'll take a look at the file if you want.. but I doubt it proves much either way.