This guy took a cue from the test that the National Review did, and basically replicated a so-called "tampered" document with a real birth certificate. He got the same effects that we see Obama's long form PDF.
He has step by step instructions on to create the effect yourself using any test document. The graphical inconsistencies are a byproduct of the scanning process. You can download a trial of the Adobe apps and try it on your own birth certificate.
Yawn. Except for the reality that Bambam’s document never had OCR done on it. That was proven in one of those videos you poo pooed. Had you bothered to watch that one you’d know had OCR been done on BamBam’s the signature would have actually looked LESS fake than it does! LOL.
And yes we’re back to the signatures which is waaaay more proof of forgery than OCR and layers. You don’t scan a signature and end up with solid fill - lol.
Try again.
Oh yeah and P.S. I’m still waiting for those forensic experts who have examined and AUTHENTICATED the ORIGINAL 1961 documents in the Hawaiian vault! LINK?
Why are you posting links to a youtube video posted by some german kid that makes videos of meerkas? C’mon, you can do better than that, can’t you? How does that prove the authenticity of the birth certificate?
A commenter named “harvardoffint” accepts the German guy “Nyatnagarl” claims but makes interesting arguments saying that a digital document passed through OCR is useless as legal evidence, at least in the UK, because the layers can be corrupted and may not be distinguishable from “genuine” software created layers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcWQw2AAIho
Comments by “harvardoffint” 05-23-11:
“Assuming that some OCR software was used on this document before release, why would they do that? OCR alters the document. It also creates a method of easy manipulation. The premise of this argument is that, the document WAS altered but not necessarily forged even though it was altered in such a way that forgery would be easier and untraceable.
“UK law disallows OCRed documents to prove authenticity for this very reason (Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 31B Paragraph 34).USA doesnt?
“It just makes no sense to OCR a document that you are submitting to prove authenticity. Law understands and proceduralizes this. OCR is useful to help search large volumes of documents for specific text, but it alters the document so that authenticity can not be verified. OCRing this document is pointless. This administration has to be knowledgeable of such obvious things. I wish Obama would stop stoking the fire so we can just all get past this.
“Just release the original so we can move on
The argument of the video here is the document was indeed altered and in such a way that manual manipulation of the of the document could easily have taken place and is indistinguishable from auto-cosmetic correction. But, there is no proof the manipulation wasn’t automatic and just for cosmetic effect, so we should all just assume this document presented for authenticity, which we all agree was altered, was only altered for cosmetic effect and automatically cuz the party submitting it says so.
“Whether it was OCR’ed or ‘Optimized Scanned’, it’s an unnecessary alteration. The only thing that is shown is that an actual alteration was done. This neither proves nor disproves ‘tampering’. It proves that alteration/tampering DID occur. It is unknown whether the tampering was automatic, or whether a forger used this and tampered such as orangegold1 did. It still begs the question of why the released file was altered/optimized if submitted for authenticity.
“Nyatnagarl, assuming the document was processed as you describe can you admit:
1. An original is indeed altered by the optimize scanning process
2. Furthermore you are unable to tell if the tampering/alteration of this document was automatic and only for cosmetic effect or whether the substance was materially altered manually.
3. Considering that the document was submitted only to prove its authenticity, there is no utility or good reason to have either OCR-ed or ‘Optimize Scanned’ it.
4. By submitting it to an “Optimize Scan” process, you do open the door for making manual alterations to the material substance of the document that could appear identically to how the automatic alterations are made.
5. The release of this processed/altered document for proving the authenticity of the document not being manufactured, really doesn’t do that, so questioning the authenticity of an original complete document is still at least reasonable.”
I watched your video. It doesn't seem to demonstrate any of the anomalies that have been noted in Bogus BC II.
What he does demonstrate is that if you bring a pdf into Illustrator and optimize it (funny how now of this happened on the correspondence pdf released the same day by the WH, but anyway) you get layers. And some of those layers contain things that were not on the printed form. So he can remove an 'X' from a check box, or an ink stamped date. Trouble is, he doesn't demonstrate removing part of an ink stamped date which is what you can see on Bogus BC II. He handwaves his way through saying that different shades of black wind up in different layers but never shows an example. There is no comparison of the way signatures are treated. And HE NEVER SHOWS AN EXAMPLE WITH DIFFERENT SIZED PIXELS. Also he doesn't tell us where we can look at his pdf. The guy is a SMOKE BLOWER.
And so are you, I think. Since it's so easy to have this happen, why don't you find us a pdf that purports to be a single scan of a single document posted to the internet before April of this years that shows multiple pixelation. (Not from the Google Books, please.)
ML/NJ