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 ...
Ping for later reading.
If the internet document presented is an exact copy of the original, then what would be the rationale for keeping the original hidden?
placemark.
Why? Because it was created by a bunch of lazy kids who have never handled real ink and paper and think everything can -- and should -- be done on a computer.
Right. No fancy digital mumbo-jumbo is involved when copying a document from microfiche onto security paper.
...Except when there is no microfiche, and only an ancient digital rendering.
The source data is 25 years old. Modernizing the software doesn’t magically turn it into a clean 1200dpi 24-bit original.
As for title, excuse me for using the title used by the poster I was replying to, who wasn’t you.
I’m contending there is no physical original any more. Running out to Staples for a $150 scanner doesn’t do you any good if all you have is a crummy 25 year old over compressed scan.
And if there is no true original, it cannot be produced in court. What they _would_ produce is what I described.
“Chief birther bullshitter Mike Zullo.”
That’s the caption of a photo from that blog...trying to masquerade as a legitimate news source.
And people are supposed to take them seriously? Really? Are they affiliated with a parent news agency like the NY Slimes or WashingtonCompost?
Why bother? They should just put up a Che Guevara flag and call it a day.
Not according to Dr. Chiyome Fukino, who was the director of the Hawaii Department of Health under Republican Governor Linda Lingle. Dr. Fukino has claimed to have inspected the original paper document twice:
As the top Hawaiian official in charge of state health records in 2008, when the issue of Obama's birth first arose, Fukino said she thought she had put the matter to rest. Contacted by NBC, Fukino expanded on previous public statements and made two key points when asked about Trump's recent comments.The first is that the original so-called "long form" birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a "record of live birth" — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state's then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya.
Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document's validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.
"It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that," Fukino said. Moreover, she added, her boss at the time, Lingle — who was backing John McCain for president — would presumably have to be in on any cover up since Fukino made her public comment at the governor's office's request. "Why would a Republican governor — who was stumping for the other guy — hold out on a big secret?" she asked. Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is that the shorter, computer generated "certification of live birth" that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.
So, there you have it. I see no reason to doubt her account.
I think the two documents the DoH gave to Obama's lawyer were copies of the paper original that were stamped with Dr. Onaka's official stamp. Then the White House published a bad scan of one of the paper documents, done with 2011 technology, which got the birthers all wee-weed up. Which suits Obama just fine. The birthers can make asses of themselves until the cows come home, but if they ever start getting traction with the independents, Obama knows the evidence is on his side.
And if there is no true original, it cannot be produced in court. What they _would_ produce is what I described.
Which would be good enough either way — your theory or mine. As long as the facts coughed up in court by Hawaiian officials back up the facts on the long and short forms Obama has produced, he's in the clear, and the birthers are back at square 1. That's assuming it ever gets to court, of course.
You crazy, if it were possible to reproduce the nicely layered nature of the image with a dumb photo taken with any modern imager, you can bet it would have been reproduced. Crude 2011 technology my foot. This was not a stupid simple picture, if it was then it wouldn’t have been able to be analyzed to this depth.
No one believes that document is anything other than a piece of crap.
The trolls are just trying to keep busy.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/07/lessons-trolling-jihadists-state-department/54747/
The State Department of Hawaii: “We’ll Need That in Writing”
Trolling Style: Attrition. Back in May, the State Department of Hawaii was so sick of being asked for Obama’s birth certificate by Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett that they trolled him. Like the way a kitten plays with a ball of yarn (kittens do, that we’re told), they asked Bennett to write out his ridiculousness before they conceded the documents. Oh, and did we mention the media got ahold of those trolly memos—and no, we don’t think it was Bennett’s choice to supply them.
cynwoody is quite right to debunk the specific "25-yr-old tech" argument of ctdonath2 in that the official story has always been that hard copies of the certificate were sent via lawyer/courier to the White House where it was then converted to digital. Hence, any digital oddities or layers that may have existed (as ctdonath2 seems to suggest) in an Hawaiian file prior to April 2011 were "flattened" to toner and paper before being made available to the White House. To argue otherwise is to concede that Hawaii and the White House have been telling a crucial lie about how the document was transported. I'm guessing neither cynwoody nor ctdonath2 want to make such a concession.
cynwoody is also correct in pointing out that there are indeed readily, widely available combinations of scanning devices and scanning software that even a low-skilled or moderately skilled person could use to scan a piece of paper in such a way that the resulting computer file has multiple layers in it despite the absence of any human manipulation. Zullo and Zebest and others understand and state that to be the case.
Furthermore, it's important to understand that typically the algorithms those scanning processes use to optimize document information will appear to be somewhat random in how it determines what bits of the image should be separated onto a layer that has a simplified single-bit depth rendering of its elements. So it's not completely surprising that a signature (or a numeric code) may be discovered to have been broken between letters in such away that some of it is isolated onto a single-bit-depth mask layer and some of it is left as a multi-bit image in which the gradation is still visible where the edges of the ink lines blend into their background. Again the document experts who are alleging forgery understand that and they make no attempt to hide it.
Where cynwoody and Dr. Conspiracy, et al are fatally wrong is that there is no way to explain the particular kind of layering observed in the White House PDF as being the result of some automated process. For example, there is no single optimization process in presently available software that produces multiple layers of single-bit-depth information similar in nature to these--and that they have separate colorings attached to them stretches credulity still further.
Another clear indictment is that some of those layers contain a block of content such as the registrar's date stamp that is logically discreet from a human perspective but not sufficiently discreet in terms of its physical properties related to coloring or shape or contrast as to be individually isolated onto its own layer by a software algorithm.
Also, it is impossible for the software product that had the final pass on this file (according to the metadata) to produce layering of its own at all, which clarifies beyond a doubt that the contents of the White House were touched by at least two separate pieces of software prior to being posted online.
The evidence thoroughly demonstrates that the document, while digital, was tampered with through human intervention.
If cynwoody or Dr. Conspiracy has evidence of how to get the kind of layering we see, particularly the multiple layers of separately colored single-bit-depth content from a normal scanning/optimization process let them demonstrate it or point us to someone who has.
Mara, if you're out there, thanks for your great work on this. I welcome any corrections to what I am saying here that you can offer.
Besides Mara's work, I encourage everyone to please also take the time to reference the other study released through Zullo's investigation on July 17. If we are to have any hope of conveying the truth of the forgery evidence, it will pay us to be astute on what elements are to be expected and on elements are anomalies that implicate human tampering.
P.S. Smokeyblue, I did not mean this content to be a direct response to something you said, I just didn't want to feed a potential troll by responding to it directly.
Jay —
Obviously ecinkc did their homework and read my report. He/She did an excellent job of presenting the counter argument. The report (s)he referenced from the MCSO site was done by Garrett Papit. Garrett, along with Tom Harrison, Karl Denninger, and myself will be doing a radio show to discuss this topic today. I’ll pass around the link (for the show) when it becomes available.
The only point to add is a reminder that Obama’s file shows no traces of chromatic aberration and this fact in conjunction with the white halos proves the file was never a product of a scanning process representing a paper document.
Well done ecinkc.
Mara
That's neither here nor there.
Document analysis in this case (especially of a PDF) is pointless, given there exists a true copy. As long as the facts laid out in the PDF match Hawaii's records, there is no problem.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96470103/Document-35-Et-Al
The dentist drilled and drilled and finally she struck a nerve! (In law school they try to teach you not to do that.)
why a different verification for Arizona?
Could a forged BC have been inserted into the Hawaiian records and that they (HDOH) are just verifying they copied it and it matches but not whether its a valid original BC that they copied ? Plausible deniability
DUH
cant see the forest for the trees.
once again need the microfiche everything else is spinning wheels.
Yes!
The BC presented is a dog's breakfast of 2-bit black and white, 8-bit grayscale, and 24-bit color images.
Yes!
The BC presented is a dog's breakfast of 2-bit black and white, 8-bit grayscale, and 24-bit color images.
Republican establishment doesn’t care since they have two anchor babies up for consideration for VP and they would rather run against Obama than Hillary.
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.