Posted on 07/20/2012 2:06:28 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
The layers have been the most damning and problematic evidence of file-manipulation, and the defenders of Obama are quick to respond with a plethora of explanations to justify the presence of layers. The excuses range from OCR (Optical Character Recognition) software to the more predominant excuse of optimization -- both of which have been debunked in my previous report for the Cold Case Posse press conference.
Many Obama defenders have conceded that OCR is not a factor and admit that OCR was never applied to the PDF file. However, arguments for optimization still persist. Optimization refers to a file-saving process in which the goal is to reduce the file size while maintaining (or optimizing) the quality of the image (as best as possible depending on the settings applied).
Those who insist on the optimization argument either do not understand what attributes need to be present for this argument to hold water -- or they are hoping the general public does not understand. It's probably a little of both. The defenders certainly count on the ignorance of the average citizen when it comes to understanding the differences in layers produced from an automated process (such as optimization) compared to a manual choice to manipulate the file. One goal of the report is to offer a deeper understanding for recognizing the two patterns of layering (and to avoid being deceived or bamboozled). The report adds additional proof along the way that the optimization excuse fails miserably and can be completely ruled out as a justification for layers.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Where is the evidence that the HI SoH (and what the hell is an SoH???) hand a floppy containing a PDF to anyone??
I agree serious questions are raised by the report.
The judge is right to acknowledge those questions as valid and serious.
I’m providing serious answers, or at least pointing the way thereto.
Gonna be REAL embarrassing for birthers if the defense produces the explanation I described.
That’s why I’m posting it: to give you guys a heads-up.
SoH = Secretary of Health
If the legal original is a late-1980s data file (processed from a now-destroyed paper or fiche form), giving the Obama’s lawyers a digital copy would have been a no-brainer, and would most likely be a duly mangled-looking mess of a PDF. Floppy, thumbdrive, CD, email, whatever. There’s no evidence there _wasn’t_ such a transfer.
OK, so I do that. Just one of many calls. You guys won’t take me seriously on the complexity & history of the technology involved, so why would my reps?
It is always good to have people question and take the other side.
I keep an open mind on this topic and when I first met Mara and we talked about the BC, I was not totally convinced.
I was not saying that the “birthers” were wrong, but that I just was not convinced.
The main thing that got me was the birth announcement in the 2 local newspapers but now I have read why it was in there and it is a very good explanation.
I don’t see the BC as a single issue/problem but as just one of the many documents that have so many questions about them.
And it is not just the documents.... it is also his younger years and who he associated with.
As far as I am concerned, you can keep asking the questions but do keep an open mind.
There’s no Secretary of Health. Hawaii has a director of health. It’s no wonder you don’t know anything else about what’s actually going on.
"This was NOT the case in this forgery. There were partial segments of the signature which looked normal but the majority of the signature was solid black which is an obvious manual edit by a very lazy person. They simply picked black as the color then tried to make the signature look like what they wanted. The line was solid black with no gradual graying of the pixels. Just in this case it is 100% fake."I understand the point Wurlitzer is making and overall... he's correct... but it's technically incorrect to refer to any of the colors in Obama's PDF file as "black"... there is black in the first 8 layers due to the fact that they are 1-bit ImageMask true layers... read the article and the report for further explanation on that point... but for the observer... the color is deceptive and no visible black exists (most text is a dark greenish color - not pure grayscale black). This is important and significant evidence to tampering on a higher level. Again... the current report explains all of this.
“Now how does anyone proceed further with this? The Congress, and the Courts simply are scared to touch it because of the scandal that will ensue.”
Why should anyone believe anything in that article? They offer no proof.
Oh, don’t get me wrong: I think he’s disqualified from “NBC status” several times over. The most glaring disqualification is right there in plain sight, admitting he’s a British subject. Several “born in Kenya” theories are viable. Certain documents are concealed, odds are because they claim foreign status. Even if legally American, his upbringing makes that a mere technicality.
I just think most of this “forgery” hysteria is gross misunderstandings of how document imaging software & legalities worked 25 years ago and how processing that data has evolved. It’s a legally & technically true copy of a document obtained thru legal loopholes per ill intent.
I think it is beyond the distaste for investigating the first black President.
I’m convinced that most of them are scared of turning over the rock of eligibility because it would create riots in the streets. They’d rather have him as President, and hope he’s defeated, than face the nightmare that would ensue from facing conclusive evidence that he is a Manchurian President.
If this were true, the Kenyan Coward™ wouldn’t keep going to extraordinary means to withhold the document from court. There’s no software or legalities frmo 25 years ago that have anything to do with the 2011 PDF.
Secretary, Director, whatever. I'm talking primarily about history of technology. Excuse the he11 out of me if I don't get a governmental title exactly right.
This is not the case here. They have stated the documents exist and none have been destroyed. Also the supposed document was copied from a book, without being removed from the book, curved edge.
Huh? The 2011 PDF’s anomalies are explained by the software and legalities from 25 years ago as I described. Even if I’m right that doesn’t mean the Obama doesn’t have other reasons to suppress documents.
[shrug] Whatever. If you don’t believe me, I don’t really care. Your loss. I’ve a headache and would rather be home now.
Hmmmm.....
I think that there might be a misunderstanding on your part?
Not sure but want to clear this up.
You are aware that the PDF document was a very recent document created after they finally released the hard copy that no one has really seen except for a DSLR photograph of it?
So this is all done with recent scanning and OCR Software etc...
Mara, get on here and explain more when you can.
Does anyone remember how long it takes from the time that you sign up here on FR to get approved?
The PDF format format was released in 1993, when the technology was still feeble but rapidly improving. But they didn't get rid of all those cool document optimization algorithms just because the computers got orders of magnitude more powerful.
If you scan a normal document to a PDF on a normal office scanner and then examine it, you will see effects quite similar to what are seen on the Obama document. In fact, even when simply viewing a multipage document you will often see the text and background paint on the screen at slightly different times.
Here's what Nathan Goulding wrote in the National Review back when the document was released and the layer controversy got started:
The PDF is composed of multiple images. That’s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they’re being called, aren’t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They’re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.What’s plausible is that somewhere along the way — from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) — these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What’s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama’s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It’s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let’s leave it at that.
They don’t know how document processing worked in the past, thus they don’t understand what they’re looking at and can only explain it as “conspiratorial”. Should this ever reach court, they risk a very embarrassing & effective legal smackdown as a result.
If the question ever gets a proper court hearing, they will introduce the true original from the Hawaii DoH. More than likely, it will not differ in any material way. At that point, the game will be up. Then the Sheriff will have claim the fraud happened not via forgery but via misrepresentation in 1961 (or maybe he'll try to prove it was a DoH inside job). Good luck with that!
Agree with your points. The revelation of such fraud would ignite a political and social firestorm. If the Usurper were to have a personal meltdown (which is not beyond the realm of possibility) then maybe at some point there would be a post mortum to find out the circumstances surrounding who who he really was.
You haven’t proven anything about the history of technology. If you don’t even understand what the proper government title is, how are do you have any credibility on what the technology is?? The system in Hawaii was changed in 2001. It’s not based on 25-year-old technology. The current state registrar, Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D., was actively involved in upgrading and changing that system in 2000 and 2001. All this stuff about decades-old/25-year-old technology just shows that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
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.