[cynwoody]

Last year, John Woodman, a computer professional and registered Republican, wrote a book, Is Barack Obama's Birth Certificate a Fraud?, examining the evidence for forgery. He concluded that the widely cited effects were not evidence of fraud, but merely a typical result of using off-the-shelf scanning software to produce a PDF.

I downloaded the White House document and viewed it in Foxit Reader, as suggested in the article. I noticed that the 1 in the serial number seemed to pop into the image slightly late (I was using Remote Desktop into a Windows box, exaggerating any display delays). I see similar effects when I examine PDFs of documents I myself scanned. It's no big deal — it's just how the software works.

But the real point is, we don't have to rely on document analysis to refute or confirm the document. We now have Dr. Onaka's official authentication. It might not be good enough for the birthers, but it will stand up just fine in court.

[nosf40]

John Woodman was asked to make a video demonstrating steps to create a document scan that will have multiple layers of which:
One layer contains only a date and nothing else
One layer contains only a signature and nothing else.

His response was that he had no time for doing it. Yet he had time to troll Dr. Con's web site.

In addition to two layers mentioned above, Obama’s birth certificate pdf file contains another anomaly: one layer contains only security background and nothing else.

Can you provide steps to replicate creation of a document having these three characteristics?

[ILS21R]

I downloaded Obama’s birth certificate also.

It’s a forgery.

You would need to have manure for brains not to realize it.

Oh... and this John Woodman? ... LOL

The Faux Claims of John Woodman Regarding the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2867724/posts

Computer whiz...

Constitutional legal expert..

And master over the simple-minded. rotflmao

[Triple]

“But the real point is, we don’t have to rely on document analysis to refute or confirm the document. “ - CW

What are you going to believe your lying eyes (and the evidence) or a legalese statement from the HI bureaucrats?

Sounds like you put your trust in the word of government over the scientific process.

- not very rational of you