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 AustinChief

I'll take a look at the file if you want.. but I doubt it proves much either way.

Doesn't it prove at the very least that the Obama administration didn't produce a document that 100% answer the question?

So why would they bother?

Moreover , you yourself admit that in order for these results to happen, a bizarre set of settings must have been used....OR the document could have been tampered with....its not just scan to bmp or tiff or even directly to pdf without some kind of software manipulation.

What is the more simple explanation? 1) The experts in the obama administration, in trying to lift the cloud of suspicion accidentally use a bizarre combination of file scanning and archival settings which just happen to make the document's layers appear such that you cant really tell if the document was really scanned or legitimate...and cannot be easily replicated or reproduced.or 2) someone has tampered with this document

So, doesn't this just seem dumb on their part?

It seems dumb to me, but hey you seem to know more than I do....

[cdcox]

Assuming they have the real document...

The smartest move would be to post some shaky looking electronic version to throw additional chum into the birther waters to stir up the tinfoil sharks. The party flying the crazy flag the highest is always going to drive voters to the seemingly more sane party.

Let the far right get all frothy over this all over again, and then trot out the hard copy of the real document in late October.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Doesn't it prove at the very least that the Obama administration didn't produce a document that 100% answer the question?

So why would they bother?

Yes, without a doubt.

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Moreover , you yourself admit that in order for these results to happen, a bizarre set of settings must have been used....OR the document could have been tampered with....its not just scan to bmp or tiff or even directly to pdf without some kind of software manipulation.

Unfortunately, so much software does this type of manipulation by default when scanning to pdf and then opening in Illustrator or Photoshop.

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

What is the more simple explanation? 1) The experts in the obama administration, in trying to lift the cloud of suspicion accidentally use a bizarre combination of file scanning and archival settings which just happen to make the document's layers appear such that you cant really tell if the document was really scanned or legitimate...and cannot be easily replicated or reproduced.or 2) someone has tampered with this document

So, doesn't this just seem dumb on their part?

It seems dumb to me, but hey you seem to know more than I do....

There is no question in my mind that their execution was dumb... hell, it could be fake, I am just commenting that the videos I watched do not even come close to "proof" that it is fake.

That being said, there is PLENTY of room for legitimate doubt. Just as nothing about this video proves that that it is fake, nothing about the doc proves that it is legit.

[Bowser]

For all the many avenues Obama can be attacked, and this retread issue is the one that comes up.

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Yes, without a doubt.



Unfortunately, so much software does this type of manipulation by default when scanning to pdf and then opening in Illustrator or Photoshop.



There is no question in my mind that their execution was dumb... hell, it could be fake, I am just commenting that the videos I watched do not even come close to "proof" that it is fake.

That being said, there is PLENTY of room for legitimate doubt. Just as nothing about this video proves that that it is fake, nothing about the doc proves that it is legit.

Dude, so far your rebuttal of these videos sounds like "I don't want it to be true, therefore it isn't.Some wild conflagration of improbable settings and circumstance is easier for me to believe."

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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.

Actually, I've got to take this back. I don't really care about this issue EXCEPT for the politics of it and what it means for the election year. I think the evidence presented is interesting and creates doubt in people where it wasn't before, and am curious to see where this goes politically.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

Dude, so far your rebuttal of these videos sounds like "I don't want it to be true, therefore it isn't.Some wild conflagration of improbable settings and circumstance is easier for me to believe."

I'm probably not explaining it very well.. it isn't some wild crazy configuration. It is actually VERY common for software to encode a pdf with layers. It's similar to OCR but not quite. It picks out elements of the image and tries to group them. This can happen BOTH when the PDF is encoded AND when you import it in a program like Illustrator or Photoshop.

And hey, I DO WANT it to be true.. I'm no fan of Obama... but I've seen far far crazier things happen when scanning to a PDF using the default settings.

If you guys want, I can do what I did for the Ron Paul conspiracy and recreate it using a very likely/common process... but it seems like a lot of work for something that is pretty straightforward.

[ClevelandBronco]

No one scans to pdf. That's ****ing silly.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

No one scans to pdf. That's ****ing silly.

It is a standard setting on many copiers. I scan documents to pdf and email them to myself (also an option on many copiers) every week.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

No one scans to pdf. That's ****ing silly.

No one should in my opinion.. but it is the default on most corporate scanners/copiers.

[ClevelandBronco]

Let me correct myself. Nobody scans a document with these elements to pdf. That's ****ing silly.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Let me correct myself. Nobody scans a document with these elements to pdf. That's ****ing silly.

Again, not true. You can say they shouldn't... but I can recreate a plausible situation right now..

Random dude grabs original, walks to copier, loads safety paper in feeder, places original on platen, copies to the safety paper and then stamps and signs it... then replaces original with new signed one on platen, hits big button for SCAN to email (or folder)... and done, he has the pdf to forward to the White House. That's a pretty standard procedure in any office or government environment.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

I have been a critic of TJ and of 911 conspiracy nuts...and the Ron Paul tinfoil hat brigade....

I agree with taco's last sentiment... I never paid this story attention, but looking at it, it seems that this document is a fraud. Im not saying obama wasnt born in hawaii....but why the hell forge this document? I dont get it...it is unbelievable. Hopefully we can start a thread where people with some photoshop experience can post unbiased opinions. Im a registered democrat...unbiased on this issue.....this document appears forged...based solely on my knowledge of computer images.

Hopebama was a 60's lovechild, it is really rather embarrassing but nothing much else to see here. All of his records were sealed for a reason.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Random dude grabs original, walks to copier, loads safety paper in feeder, places original on platen, copies to the safety paper and then stamps and signs it... then replaces original with new signed one on platen, hits big button for SCAN to email (or folder)... and done, he has the pdf to forward to the White House. That's a pretty standard procedure in any office or government environment.

I do not believe that is what happened here. If that is the case, why would the layers be as they are in the PDF?

There is at least a step missing in your description.

after the document was scanned to pdf, it was CLEARLY altered by some sort of software (built in to the scanning utilities or 3rd party), after being scanned and prior to being posted on the website. ('optimizd, archived.....modified...etc....something happened to it)

To act like this was a simple 'scan directly to pdf and email' is not true, as I understand it.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

I do not believe that is what happened here. If that is the case, why would the layers be as they are in the PDF?

There is at least a step missing in your description.

after the document was scanned to pdf, it was CLEARLY altered by some sort of software (built in to the scanning utilities or 3rd party), after being scanned and prior to being posted on the website. ('optimizd, archived.....modified...etc....something happened to it)

To act like this was a simple 'scan directly to pdf and email' is not true, as I understand it.

Possibly, I was just offering one scenario. I don't pretend to know the built in scanning software and encoding for every scanner/copier on the market... and of course it could have been scanned with a scanner connected to a desktop machine. It could have been scanned as a TIFF or JPG and then converted to PDF... based on the scant data I have, there is no way to know.