Replies

I guess I can just give up and let the nutjobs run FreeRepublic and promote demonstrably false nonsense as much as they want.

I find this statement to be the most revealing element of who you are.

I follow the COLB fraud threads. You have been shot down on every one of them. You do not offer facts, but claims and testaments.

I have also done photoshop work for fun and have been involved with computers from punch cards and the only real computer language Fortran (college). Even when I was in Junior high I would log into the Westinghouse computer with punch tape. There was no CRT then.

Many of us have been around from the beginning of the "real" computer age and don't need to fall back on the fallacy of authority that you claim. We can download the White House image and go to work. We follow what others have found. We also slap ourselves in the head when others find things we missed as obvious. One item that came to mind was the chromatic aberration pointed out by Mr. Denninger. I should have caught that. My college minor specialized in the physics of light. Hey, I was even a geeky amateur astronomer with a Celestron Reflector and a K1000 camera. You know I even had one of them funny prism devices to record the shifts.

What I have found is that there is no large conspiracy. There is a small group in the HDOH including the new Governor who have created a new "COLB" from at least three different existing COLBs. The "PDF" COLB was a fraud as was the previous one. Do you remember that one? They got away with it during certification. They threw it under the bus when things heated up.

Millions of dollars have been spent (in many ways) to conceal this. There is no denial that Obama's law firm in Washington is using campaign funds to prevent any legal challenge. There is also no denial that the lawyers in this firm were the highest ranking members of the DNC. Think about it. I believe you already knew that.

My question for you is simple. Without a gossamer of evidence you pretend to parade out testimonials. When others point it out, you attack with vicious ad hominem venom. Why are you really here on these threads?

I follow the COLB fraud threads. You have been shot down on every one of them. You do not offer facts, but claims and testaments.

I have specifically mentioned FOUR factual claims in this thread that are easy to verify, that contradict what is being claimed. Refute them if you can.

When you factually refute my factual claims, instead of falsely claiming that I have been shot down in every thread, then we'll talk.

Many of us have been around from the beginning of the "real" computer age and don't need to fall back on the fallacy of authority that you claim.

On the contrary, I've gone out of my way to AVOID relying on personal credentials.

What I have found is that there is no large conspiracy. There is a small group in the HDOH including the new Governor who have created a new "COLB" from at least three different existing COLBs. The "PDF" COLB was a fraud as was the previous one. Do you remember that one? They got away with it during certification. They threw it under the bus when things heated up.

It is certainly a plausible theory that a small group in the HDOH has created a forgery. If you can produce hard evidence to prove it, I would be very, very interested. So would a lot of other people.

There is no denial that Obama's law firm in Washington is using campaign funds to prevent any legal challenge.

Who's denying it? That is perfectly correct.

There is also no denial that the lawyers in this firm were the highest ranking members of the DNC.

I have no information on their background, but I'll take your word for it.

My question for you is simple. Without a gossamer of evidence you pretend to parade out testimonials.

I have no idea what you mean by testimonials. A testimonial is generally the testimony of a third party as to someone else's expertise. When have I ever paraded out a testimonial?

When others point it out, you attack with vicious ad hominem venom.

I pointed out that I was subjected to a vicious ad hominem attack. My MILDER questioning of the attacker's credentials was in response to that. Do you deny that? Please answer, yes or no.

Why are you really here on these threads?

Perhaps you won't mind if I point out that you follow up baselessly accusing me of ad hominem attacks by making one of your own.

You made the claim:

"I follow the COLB fraud threads. You have been shot down on every one of them. You do not offer facts, but claims and testaments."

I challenged you to factually refute the claims I made earlier in this thread. You declined to do so.

Let's be a bit more specific.

The first of the four claims I made that I identified as easily testable was:

Blow the document up to a really high resolution. You can do this just in your web browser. Get the smallest pixels BIG.

Then look, and you will see that the leftmost portions of the typewritten letters dip downward.

Below is indisputable proof of my factual claim.

In the first of my testable claims, then, the author of this piece is incorrect, and I am correct.

It is also a fail for your contention that I do not present factual arguments.

So far, the score of irrefutably proven items is Douglas Vogt 0, PA Engineer 0, Jeff Winston 1.

I would appreciate an apology for your false personal attack.

You made the claim:

"I follow the COLB fraud threads. You have been shot down on every one of them. You do not offer facts, but claims and testaments."

I challenged you to factually refute the claims I made earlier in this thread. You declined to do so.

The second of the four claims I made that I identified as easily testable has to do with the layers.

Are the layers necessarily proof of human creation, or are they more likely (as I claim) artifacts of a machine process?

I will present two reasons for my belief.

First, the one I mentioned at the time:

...look up “National Review Online obama birth certificate layers” in google. That will lead you to the article on National Review in which their reporter investigated the layers and found that he could easily duplicate the same thing.

That article is here. Someone has brought up a valid point: that the layers in the National Review Online document do not contain identically the same kinds of items as those in the Obama document. And this is quite true.

However, NRO has clearly demonstrated that scanning and optimizing a PDF file can and does produce layers.

In order for the layers to be identical, we would need the identical document, the identical equipment scanned on, the identical software used to optimize and process to PDF, and the identical settings (which can often range from 0 to 100 on multiple items) in order to produce more or less identical results.

If you know as much about computers as you claim to, then you know that this statement is absolutely true.

So has Nathan Goulding over at NRO PROVEN that the Obama document layers were created by machine? No, but he's proven that such creation is definitely a possible explanation.

In so doing, he has demonstrated that the layers phenomenon, at this point, is NOT proof of fraud.

I will now present my second reason for my belief.

In order to believe the layers-fraud theory, you have to believe that the layers in the PDF file are the layers as manipulated by the forger.

It would not make sense for the layers in the PDF to be something other than what the forger forged, because then we would have to have some other process (computer software) that processed the original forgery document into what we see now, and kept the original layers intact while substantially altering them.

Such a belief incorporates the machine-alteration idea that the forgery theory is trying to refute!

So it is therefore ESSENTIAL to the belief that the layers are evidence of fraud, that you also believe the layers were created by a person, not altered by a machine, but AS ORIGINALLY CREATED BY THE FORGER.

Explain then the existence of the much HIGHER-resolution version of the document released by the Associated Press on the same day as the PDF file, a small portion of which is displayed below.

This HIGHER-RESOLUTION document shows almost none of the things complained about in the PDF. White halo? Not present. Some letters black-pixel, some in grayscale? Not present.

In fact, the document is FAR different from the PDF, and it's all at a MUCH higher resolution.

So in order to believe the layer-fraud theory, you must believe that a forger SEPARATELY went through a ton of work to create some sort of forgery in the green PDF file, and also, SEPARATELY, did the same kind of forgery work on a second document at a much higher resolution.

But why do that? Surely anybody with half a brain would only do the high-resolution forgery.

Well, maybe he did the PDF forgery first, and then decided he needed a higher-resolution version.

Okay, well, anybody with half a brain at that point would have used the high-resolution version to create a high-resolution green-background document.

As someone else put it in this thread (more or less), do you really believe that the most powerful man in the world can't find anybody better than a plain idiot for a forger?

At the very least, I've proven that the layers-fraud theory is NOT, at this point, proof of fraud.

Actually, that's putting it mildly, but we'll leave it at that.

Even so, for the thing we can clearly examine, that still makes it: Douglas Vogt 0, PA Engineer 0, Jeff Winston 2.

I would appreciate an apology for your false personal attack.

I will also be waiting for you to defend your apparent belief in the layers-fraud theory, even with the existence of a much higher resolution document that shows the same thing.

You made the claim:

"I follow the COLB fraud threads. You have been shot down on every one of them. You do not offer facts, but claims and testaments."

I challenged you to factually refute the claims I made earlier in this thread. You declined to do so.

The third of the four claims I made that I identified as easily testable has to do with Denninger's claim that kerning is present in the Obama document, and that this proves forgery.

Denninger states that two letters intruding upon each other's space in an indication of "kerning," and that this PROVES the document is forged, as such technology was not available in 1961.

He gives as his example the letters "a" and "p" in "Kapiolani," pointing out that they intrude upon each other's space.

I stated that Denninger was incorrect, and that this is evident in Edith Pauline Coats' birth certificate, which is a "known good" certificate from this era.

Below is the visual proof of my statement.

For the things we can clearly examine, that makes it: Douglas Vogt 0, PA Engineer 0, Jeff Winston 3.

I would appreciate an apology for your false personal attack.