[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"If you really wrote imaging software you should understand how weak most of the accusations are."

If you can spare seven minutes of your life, check this out and see whether you consider the author's presentation "weak" or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY

[TigersEye]

{{{Crickets chirping}}}

[Wayne07]

I find it very weak because he didn't go through the steps that many sites, including Nation Review, have outlined where you can get similar layered results as were seen in the PDF from the white house.

National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding

Youtube Demo of how layers are created by adobe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcWQw2AAIho

[Mr. K]

Don’t bother with ‘shoop’ - he is being a DELIBERATE moron (one who willingly accepts the stupid, when it supports a desired point of view)

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

He hears perfectly good (and correct) imaging facts and dismesses them as ‘weak’ (a fact is not strong or weak it is a fact)

He still swallows the “OCR” idiotic argument - the lamest attempt of them all.

The OCR argument was first put forth by an idiot who made a youtube showing how he used Obama;s BC to make OCR- except, when he ‘processed’ the image it showed the green paper UNDER the OCR removed text. -ooopsie ~!! How would the OCR software know what was UNDER some printing? (in other words, he was LYING)