Posted on 05/04/2011 10:01:56 AM PDT by BigFinn
Which is these is most like a PDF:
(1) An graphic file (myfile.tiff or myfile.jpg)
(2) A Microsoft Word document (myfile.doc)
The answer is 2--a Microsoft Word document. Hence the name Portable Document Format.
The only reason people think of them as different is most people have software on their desktop to open, edit, and save Word files, while they don't have the software to open, edit, and save PDF files. But with the right software, a PDF can be opened, edited, and saved just like a Word file.
A PDF graphic file? Think about what you just said in the context of a Microsoft Word file. A Word graphic file? There is no such thing. What there is is a Word file that has a graphic file embedded into it. And if you open that Word document you can access the actual graphic contained inside the word file.
In the same way, there is no such thing as a Portable Document Format (PDF) graphic file. What you have is a PDF format file that [b]contains[/b] a graphic image--it's a wrapper around the graphic. Just like the Word file is a wrapper around the graphic.
I imagine what this company does is it opens up the PDF, looks for any image files embedded inside the PDF, OCRs the embedded image file, then adds the text found on the embedded image as actual (invisible) text to the PDF. Same process as you might do with a Word file to allow you to "search" on the graphic image inside a word file. But think abou it: why would you ever want to do this process with a Word file?
As far as the Adobe process you quoted, the result of that is going to be a PDF that contains (1) an image file--a single image file, and (2) text--not comptuer gibberish--actual text.
I am not convinced of anything that is forged.
But no doubt you CAN convince yourself - if you care to - that the short form COLB (forged or not) did not list a Dr. and, as such, most certainly didn’t list Dr. West.
Follow?
It doesn't, of course. But did you read the part of my post where it says the OCR option is "enabled by default"? "By default" means it's the factory setting, and you have to turn it off manually. Leaving it on even when it's not needed just doesn't mean anything.
I never brought up the Dr. issue, you did. I never gave it a single thought.
Did the Department of Hawaii accept an application for a Certificate of Live Birth from a parent/s? Answer: Yes, see §338-5 Compulsory registration of births, “by one of the parents.”
Could a parent/s use an address in Hawaii as the place of birth when completing the application for a Certificate of Live Birth? Answer: Answer: Yes, see §338-5 Compulsory registration of births, “by one of the parents.”
Was it possible for a parent or other applicant for a Certificate of Live Birth to falsely report a place of birth in Hawaii which actually occurred outside the state of Hawaii? Yes, see: §338-43 Perjury. “Any applicant or any person who gives or offers any false testimony, oral or written, under oath, in support or respect of any application for a certificate under section 338-41, shall be deemed guilty of perjury and shall be punishable accordingly.” The existence of a statute making the “any false testimony, oral or written, under oath, in support or respect of any application for a certificate” demonstrates there was opportunity for a parent/s to falsify the place of birth in a Certificate of Live Birth.
Have any applicants submitted an application for a Hawaiian birth certificate using a false Hawaiian place of birth when the actual place of birth was outside Hawaii or outside of the United States. Yes, see the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth issued to Sun Yat-Sen, who was born in China and served as the President of the Republic of China.
Is the Hawaii Department of Health required to issue a Certificate of Live Birth whenever the parent/s submitted a false place of birth in the application and no investigaton has been undertaken to discover the perjury? Yes, see the above Hawaii Department of Health statutes.
Is it therefore true “the State of Hawaii directs the Department of Health to report them as being in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, even when the births occur anywhere else in the world,” despite the place of birth in the application being false and fraudulent? Yes, see all of the above.
Dr. West never clearly claimed he delivered Obama, he just said “Stanley had a baby” and that was from someone who supposed heard him say that. I am waiting to for the hospital to show she was actually there on that day. Hospital is quiet.
“the State of Hawaii directs the Department of Health to report them as being in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, even when the births occur anywhere else in the world,”
You supported this with NOTHING. There is in evidence, no directive to do so.
That they might fill in Honolulu Oahu Hawaii IF THE PARENT SAYS SO - is an entirely different issue than the DOH being “directed” to fill in Honolulu.
So why chose to lie about it?
>Never ascribe to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence.
And yet; incompetence, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from malice.
>>”Maybe I am just missing something here, but why even use OCR?”
>
>Any office that takes in multiple letters and docs a day, scans them in with some form of OCR so they’re searchable.
And yet this document was not “taken in” but “put out.”
Furthermore, there is no reason to make it searchable because all the [printed] text is that of a standard form (and OCR doesn’t do that well against handwriting, especially when it’s “untrained” on the writer).
Then how do you account for the cloned characters I posted up thread?
If hussein says the sun is shining, grab your umbrella....
It’s not “conspiracy” to disbelieve ANYTHING coming from these facists in the White House....
Okay, that's a really lame argument. A graphic is just as much a "document" as a text file. Any distinction there has nothing to do with what PDF stands for. More to the point, they are both equally "like" a PDF--depending on what kind of PDF it is.
In the same way, there is no such thing as a Portable Document Format (PDF) graphic file. What you have is a PDF format file that [b]contains[/b] a graphic image--it's a wrapper around the graphic. Just like the Word file is a wrapper around the graphic.
Not really. You're implying that the text in a PDF file is somehow more "real" or "native" than the graphics in it, like text in Word is more native than an embedded graphic. That's wrong. Originally derived from PostScript, PDF is more like computer code that can describe anything on a page--text, graphics, layout, fonts, and so on. It doesn't favor text over graphics. It's just code that enables an interpreter to re-create the page.
I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. You get a piece of paper--a contract, a magazine page, a birth certificate--and you scan it. If you save it as PDF, you get a PDF file with code that describes the graphic. If you have OCR turned on, it also extracts the text so you can search it; if not, you just get a PDF file of the graphic, aka a PDF graphic file.
And I don't get your reference to "computer gibberish." Did I say you got computer gibberish?
I have approached this situation from the Devils Advocate position. Trying to duplicate the docs characteristics. Making plausible assumptions. All ridiculously charitable when considering other facts, granted.
That said, I would not be surprised if the White House had OCR programs similar to what the Post Office uses, or the Federal Reserve, which process millions of handwritten docs and checks.
Somebody scanned it at some point. I don't know whether that was in Hawaii or in Washington--I suspect the latter.
there is no reason to make it searchable because all the [printed] text is that of a standard form
Like I said above, the OCR option is turned on by default. Nobody had to decide to make it searchable, that's just the way their system was already set up.
How do I account for the fact that the scans of identical elements on a page came out looking identical? I don't try to, beyond pointing out that they're identical elements on a page.
But let me ask you: your use of the word "cloned" implies that they're identical because they're copied and pasted. (If that's not your argument, forgive me--I've seen that argument elsewhere.) If so, how do you account for the fact that the "A" in "Hawaii" and "Department" are the same, but the "A" in "Health" is different? Or that some of the boxes are identical but not all of them? Are you seriously arguing that the forger copied and pasted three A's from one source and the fourth A from a different one? Does that really seem plausible to you?
None of this makes sense to a rational person. But at some point you have to accept that it IS walking like a duck.
This morning I took the AP version, and converted it to a bitmap, then examined it. I can't find a single duplicated character on the entire page. You'd expect the corresponding boxes from the WH version to show the same abnormalities. But they do not.
There simply is no other explanation. They are cloned on the WH version.
If this premiss were correct, ALL characters would match, like characters.
But they do not for this simple reason. Each time a document is reproduced it changes. Line weight spreads, smaller characters are filled in, lighter information disappears, etc. This is particularly true in older docs when photography was used to archive. What we are left with is a document where each letter, checkbox, and number has a unique appearance.
And the pixels in signatures would be the same size. :)
The Obots can’t get away from that.
Also the higher contrast signature portions could have happened by optimization. This part of the argument the skeptics have a foot to stand on, though a weak one because no one has reproduced it yet. Or it could have happened by placing/importing a bitmap image.
It's game over though because of the cloned characters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.