AND A 
Posted on 05/23/2012 12:55:05 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
After downloading the file from whitehouse.gov and importing it into Adobe Illustrator, one need only to release the clipping mask in order to see two pieces of vital statistics coding not present on the original Ms. Guthrie photographed. A clipping mask that hides information is in and of itself a clear sign of document tampering, but we'll save that for another day.
Since it is impossible to scan a document and have additional information show up on the computer file that was not on the original, one must conclude that the electronic file Obama released has been tampered with and that the computer file might be the parent of the certified paper copy instead of the other way around. It also opens the possibility that yet another electronic file constructed on computer is the parent of both the certified copy Ms. Guthrie photographed and the electronic file posted on whitehouse.gov. Regardless of the exact cause of this anomaly, one this is for certain: The certified copy of Obama's birth certificate photographed by Ms. Guthrie cannot be the parent of the electronic scan posted for download at whitehouse.gov.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
I’m trying to help you not make conservatives look like idiots, so just calm down.
You don't believe Obama is the son of the kenyan and the white teenager from Kansas? This sounds like a fun new birther twist. What's your angle? He is really the child of...?
The national media is giving this issue the UFO treatment...keep laughing at the people who report this...and hope it will go away.
Why are we letting them alinsky us? We need to point out that rather than answer these logical questions, they mock the questioner. Don’t let them win! These are fair questions.
What was stupid about the National Review explanation? They are just presenting a fact: the PDF creation process creates layers and visual artifacts similar to the ones that birthers point to as evidence of forgery.
Why would National Review defend the validity of the certificate if they didn't believe it was real? They clearly don't like Obama and want to get rid of him.
Yeah, right the National RINOview, mouthpiece of the GOP-e, wants to get rid of 0bama. LOL
You can divest yourself of your ignorance on Adobe Illustrator anytime you want to.
If you believe the certificate is fake, do you think that the Governor of Hawaii and Director of Health and State Registrar are all in on it?
AND A
Bookmarked for morning coffee.
So you are making my point about birthers being delusional conspiracy theorists. National Review doesn't want to get rid of Obama? Suuure. All their writers are covering up for Obama - Mark Levin, Victor Davis Hanson, Frank Gaffney, Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell. Mark Steyn. Those guys are all RINOs..
and you are doing a great job, 0BOT IDIOT!
Apologies to you, sir. The image I posted referenced your nic, and I failed to include you on the “to” line of my comment.
... and just who, specifically, is on the hook legally for this? Who has been held to account?
I use Adobe Creative Suite every day. A PDF is a document format, a file type. It can have layers. It can have vectors. It can be a flattened uneditable document. It can be RGB, it can be CMYK, it can be grayscale, etcetera etcetera. Attempting to ascertain or condemn the accuracy of any content of a PDF by means of the manner in which the file was saved is meaningless. A PDF, again, is merely a document file type, one of many. It is not automatically a scan of anything and it is not “fake” or a “forgery” if it isn’t. It’s not automatically authentic or valid if is a scan. This whole thing is a fool’s errand. It is what it is, independent of the factuality of any representation it may appear to make.
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.