"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.