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.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I think this MRC argument was discussed here in an earlier thread with links to it. It wasn't fool-proof if I recall.

Then there's this....so:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...athan-goulding


That's still not scanning into Illustrator though. It's converted and optimized afterwards. I am going to try it though, as I don't know of anyone that uses it this way in my profession.

No I have never scanned directly into Illustrator. I have into Acrobat or Photoshop.. but that really doesn't matter... the point is that certain desktop or more importantly copier/scanners DO use MRC and that explains it. Period. I tried to explain this WAY WAY back in the thread without getting too technical but that is the "technical" explanation. I just googled it and someone used a Xerox (I KNEW they used MRC by default!) on an image to scan a pdf then brought that pdf into Illustrator and BAM.. layers.

I am not saying the doc is legit, but I have yet to see anything that comes close to proving it isn't.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Hell, I didn't want to get into this... but ok. I don't doubt your knowledge of Photoshop, but I'm guessing you don't do much on the low-level programming side of images. Remember I mentioned earlier that many many scanners use something similar to OCR by default... I basically said it's like OCR in that it picks out elements and puts them into layers. Well, to get more technical, that is called MRC or Mixed Raster Content. If you take a document and scan it into Acrobat or Illustrator then hit "Optimize Scan" you get the EXACT same "links", "layers", etc etc If you use a different scanner software that uses an MRC algorithm by default, you will get the exact same thing.

There are plenty of scanner software programs that DO apply MRC by default. I don't know FOR CERTAIN if any scanner/copier with the software built in currently uses MRC by default but it is very possible. I know the old Xerox copiers used to use it but that has been awhile so who knows right now.

Sorry, but a Photoshop or Illustrator "expert" just doesn't have anything close to the necessary knowledge base to be an "expert" on this subject. The "experts" to consult on this are people who are experts with Adobe Acrobat and I mean TRUE experts not some guy who has used it a lot... but someone who understand the very inner workings. Or someone who has spent considerable time encoding/decoding image files programatically.

BTW, nothing is being "vectorized" the guy who said that is an idiot and used the wrong term.. he WAS basically correct though. The RASTER image is broken up into MORE raster images to allow for more efficient compression. Those rasters then show up as layers or links when you import into Photoshop or Illustrator.

I can get you links to MRC if you want to study up on it. I can also show you where it has been implemented for a VERY long time in all sorts of different Scanner/PDF capture systems.

I'm not claiming to be an expert. I just work with the software, I don't program it. I've never bought into this story and always assumed Obama to be born in Hawaii. The only reason I took interest in this is because, first, I was amazed at the way the story was being covered in the original you tube, and second, because the evidence they are referencing created doubt in me where there previously wasn't any - I've never heard of a scanner that will separate things into layers automatically. I know there are process that you can do within photoshop to do that, but for what reason anybody would want to do this before releasing a document like this to public, I don't know.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Donger

Meh. I've been busy recently. The copy of the long form certificate is sufficient.

This is silly.

The claim is that the copy has been "altered" because so called "experts" have no clue what they are talking about. The main point is that when opened in Illustrator it has "layers" which I have tried to explain but apparently no one wants to listen to the boring reality.

Of course, I think the White House is playing games by not allowing a proper third party to examine the actual document and TRULY lay this to rest. As I stated before, I could recreate the doc that we have and change the information and give you a file that would also not be able to be proven to be fake.... that's the trouble with ANY digital document.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I've never heard of a scanner that will separate things into layers automatically. I know there are process that you can do within photoshop to do that, but for what reason anybody would want to do this before releasing a document like this to public, I don't know.

I don't know every scanner out there but any scanner (ie a Xerox WorkCentre) that uses MRC will automatically creates multiple rasters that will show up as layers in Illustrator when the PDF is imported. That alone should really lay this to rest.

So once again, my thought is that if you take the original, copy it onto safety paper then stamp and sign that, then scan it to PDF using a Xerox... you will get similar if not the exact same results. And that is probably what happened if the doc is indeed legit.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

The claim is that the copy has been "altered" because so called "experts" have no clue what they are talking about. The main point is that when opened in Illustrator it has "layers" which I have tried to explain but apparently no one wants to listen to the boring reality.

Of course, I think the White House is playing games by not allowing a proper third party to examine the actual document and TRULY lay this to rest. As I stated before, I could recreate the doc that we have and change the information and give you a file that would also not be able to be proven to be fake.... that's the trouble with ANY digital document.

I don't know if the WH has access to the original.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Donger

I don't know if the WH has access to the original.

Pretty sure if they asked Hawaii to allow access.. they wouldn't get much resistance. It's just silly that they let it go on like this.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

No I have never scanned directly into Illustrator. I have into Acrobat or Photoshop.. but that really doesn't matter... the point is that certain desktop or more importantly copier/scanners DO use MRC and that explains it. Period. I tried to explain this WAY WAY back in the thread without getting too technical but that is the "technical" explanation. I just googled it and someone used a Xerox (I KNEW they used MRC by default!) on an image to scan a pdf then brought that pdf into Illustrator and BAM.. layers.

I am not saying the doc is legit, but I have yet to see anything that comes close to proving it isn't.

Scanners, at least the one's I've used, usually scan right into Photoshop.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I don't know every scanner out there but any scanner (ie a Xerox WorkCentre) that uses MRC will automatically creates multiple rasters that will show up as layers in Illustrator when the PDF is imported. That alone should really lay this to rest.

Of course, if any .pdf has layers, you can open a .pdf with all it's layers intact in Illustrator. Even if the document is created originally in Illustrator and saved as a .pdf depending on what command you use to open it.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Of course, I think the White House is playing games by not allowing a proper third party to examine the actual document and TRULY lay this to rest.

I fully agree with this. If I was Obama, I wouldn't bother either until I was sworn into my 2nd term. He has released plenty to satisfy everyone but the crazies. The crazies have dug up some little nugget they think disproves it all, he could easily sweep that nugget off the table (then the crazies will go hunt for something else, probably that the document was a forgery, and a part of a vast Hawaii government conspiracy), but since they now think they have their ah-hah smoking gun proof, they wont let it go. They will scream to the heavens, force themselves to be heard to the great annoyance of the Republican nominee...

... and a lot of independent voters who hear it will be disgusted, more likely to think a big part of the GOP has lost their minds, and more likely to vote for Obama.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Scanners, at least the one's I've used, usually scan right into Photoshop.

In a business/govt environment this is NOT at all the case... the scanners scan directly to a PDF which then goes into a network drive or more often than not gets sent to the user via email. I'd wager that this is what happens 99% of the time. In my past lives as IT Director for different corporations.. this was 100% the case.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by alnorth

... and a lot of independent voters who hear it will be disgusted, more likely to think a big part of the GOP has lost their minds, and more likely to vote for Obama.

I don't think this alone would make people vote for Obama. It will be the economy, high gas prices, unemployment etc. These will make most people overlook the Birther issue.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

What can you expect from a this Mom and Pop outfit, one who is a Canadian.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...=Snopes&page=2


Rumour has it they're funded by the left, in particular Soros. Well that's what comes up in that previous thread.

I don't see what is objectionable about that link. Without poring through that massive entry and the nitty-gritty details, it seems like they did the best they could with the information available, said part of the e-mail chain was true, part was false, and part they were not sure about, and they cited 7 books at the end plus other cites within the article.

Its not like they stamped it with a big red false and moved on.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I don't think this alone would make people vote for Obama. It will be the economy, high gas prices, unemployment etc. These will make most people overlook the Birther issue.

True, but this certainly falls firmly under the "it definitely doesn't help the GOP" column.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by alnorth

I don't see what is objectionable about that link. Without poring through that massive entry and the nitty-gritty details, it seems like they did the best they could with the information available, said part of the e-mail chain was true, part was false, and part they were not sure about, and they cited 7 books at the end plus other cites within the article.

Its not like they stamped it with a big red false and moved on.

That's not the point. They failed to debunk that quote. Best information they had? Well they failed to note it was from an interview which has often been included where I've seen that quote before. They still missed it. So it shows they are not fool proof which some seem to think. As far as not stamping it with a "big red false" you can see that some still rely on it as if it had.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by alnorth

True, but this certainly falls firmly under the "it definitely doesn't help the GOP" column.

I think people are sick of the finger pointing on bad or suspicious behavior by both sides. From Paul is in cahoots with Romney what not.