Posted on 04/30/2011 8:37:33 PM PDT by Triple
(Note:the HTML on the images was tricky for me - if they don't show up it is my fault)
Oh do come on folks.
There's an old saying: When the facts support your position, use them. When they don't, or when you get caught lying, throw crap at the wall and hope something sticks!
The latest is the National Review which had this to say about my analysis on the birth certificate:
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.
This is what happens when you don't bother actually watching the video I posted, or looking into the provenance of what you're arguing over - you just throw crap at the wall. Nathan goes on to post a PDF that he scanned which shows his "layers."
Unfortunately, in doing so, he proved that I'm correct.
See, the issue isn't layers. Yes, the layers are suspicious, but they're not the smoking gun. The smoking gun is that there are no chromatic artifacts in the Obama document, but the document is allegedly a color scan of an actual piece of paper, and we know it had to be a color scan because the background is allegedly color safety paper.
National Review's document, unsurprisingly, is a scan of a color document. How do we know? Because if you simply pull it up in your web browser (which will open the embedded Acrobat Reader) and zoom it up, you will see this:
Note the chromatic aberration. This document is in fact a color scan.
And here is a blown-up piece of the so-called "scan" of Obama's document:
Note the absence of chromatic aberration. The Obama White House document is not an unaltered color scan.
Folks, this is physics. It is "how things work." It is why you see rainbows. Light always is refracted slightly differently depending on wavelength when it goes through a lens - as is necessary to focus it so as to make an image.
Could I scan an image in color and then make this "go away" in an image program? Probably. Why would you? The intent of the release, remember, is to produce an actual image of a physical document and the claim made was that this was a copy of a physical piece of paper.
The Obots were all over me yesterday with the claim that "well, it could have been an electronic copy." No, it wasn't. Beyond the fact that certified copies are always printed to paper and then authenticated (e.g. with a raised seal) there is documentary evidence that Hawaii did exactly that. Look here. Hawaii produced photocopies - not electronic copies, photostatic copies of the original.
Well, that's even more troublesome, because if they were photocopies how is it that the Associated Press and the White House wound up with two very different-looking documents? How do you take a photocopy and have two different "versions" of that same piece of paper magically appear - one with a green safety paper background and the other not? Incidentally, we know factually that the green "safety paper" in question did not exist and was not used in 1961 as there are dozens of close-in-time actual birth certificates from Hawaii that have been floating around the Internet and have been posted. Therefore, given that Hawaii has stated in a public, signed letter that it issued photostatic copies of the original in the bound book the copy on the White House site has to have been - at minimum - "enhanced."
My next question (which I've tried to get answered without success) is where did the AP get the piece of paper that they put into a scanner? And note carefully: AP did, in fact, place a piece of paper into a scanner and published what came out. There is no evidence that AP tampered with the digital representation of what they scanned, while there's plenty of evidence that the White House did, and in fact what the White House produced does not appear to be an actual scan at all but is a created digital document.
The question, therefore, is what was the source and provenance of the document AP scanned? We know the apparent answer: It came from the White House, and had to, since the correspondence says that there were only two copies produced and both went directly to White House counsel. What AP presented is only as good as the source of the paper they were handed.
There are others who have noted a number of other problems with the document presented. Among them are that there are no apparent tab stops used on the Obama "birth certificate." 1961 was the day of the typewriter, and nobody hand-centered things like that. Production typists used tab stops and if you look at other, known-authentic birth certificates from the time, you'll note that they're tab-aligned. Obama's is not. Remember Dan Rather and his little forgery? 20-something idiots in the White House IT department have never used an actual typewriter in their life. 40-something bloggers and their girlfriends (and "Batgirl" deserves recognition for the catch on this one) most certainly did during our school and college years, and we remember how they worked too. Nobody ever manually centered or manually-aligned production documents in a typewriter. Can that be explained? Maybe the janitor typed Obama's birth certificate. Or maybe he was "really special" compared to the thousands of other births in Hawaii, and a lowly typist in 1961 "knew" he should have a "really pretty" typed certificate because he'd be President 40 years later. It's also entirely plausible that aliens really did land in Roswell, you know.
Other curiosities include the fact that the time of birth is exactly the same on the (now-discredited - or is it?) Kenyan birth certificate that has been floating around the Internet, and that registration dates on the long-form match the Kenyan "forgery" as well. How did a purely fraudulent document in a foreign nation happen to wind up with the exact same time of birth and certification dates as the alleged "real" certificate - if Hawaii never released the latter information until now? That's a hell of a coincidence. Yes, I know the time of birth was "out there." The certification dates were not, to the best of my ability to determine, public knowledge.
This debate is not, at this point, about whether Obama was born in the United States. There are plenty of people who question that, but this case simply isn't about that any more.
This case is about whether a sitting President presented an altered - that is, forged - document to the American public and claimed it was authentic. You cannot at the same time have Hawaii state that they made two PHOTOCOPIES of an original in a book and then have the White House and AP release "scanned" copies of that document which appear to have been printed on entirely-different paper, never mind that one of them is clearly not a simple scan.
The evidence strongly supports this allegation. The obvious next question is this: What, Mr. President, are you trying to hide, and we then must turn to whether a sitting President should be permitted to erase the tapes that document his knowledge of a break-in to a hotel....
Here's it's debunked, guy says it has something to do with the optimization process. Also there is an OCR option within the Adobe software and shows how a scan will break up in layers. I didn't know any of this. Says you can get the free trial version and try it for yourself. This is where my level of expertise comes up short, freely admit it. There would be a learning curve so I'm going to opt out of that for now, would rather get a Mac version of Photoshop installed and get my own projects going again.
I'm not going to form a definite opinion at this point. Let the dust settle. The other side (maybe could have used better test documents for one of them), has a series if you click on the contributor name.
Obama PDF Explained: Absence of Chromatic Aberration is Not Proof of Forgery. -Youtube
Somebody in the comment section said it ought to be posted here. Well, I have. I'm not afraid to look at other sides of things. Obviously if there were no layered version out there, I admit I'd analyze it some, but we'd have far less to speculate about.
They had the forethought to empower Congress with the authority to set up a Naturalization process.
Don’t get cute, we can not claim the Founders had infinite wisdom in one breath, and then claim they were too stupid to think we might need some type of way to make someone a citizen who was not a Citizen at birth a Naturalized citizen.
Well, that came out wrong, on my part.
We can not claim, in one breath, that the Founders had the foresight to do so many other things, but not the foresight to know that a Naturalized Citizen might not be a good idea as President.
Re the John Bingham is recognized as the author of the 14th Amendment. and his statements
Can you give me the source please?
I want to use it on people and I know that they will demand the source from me.
That video is the same guy from The National Review. His first attempts show Adobe Acrobat optimization can indeed produce image layers. Many of us that work with this stuff know that already.
His latest demo leaves much to be desired. IMHO, either he’s not very good at this or he’s intentionally being less than thorough.
John Bingham disagrees. I'll take his word. All he did was write the 14th Amendment
The example he used, the layers were there but all alike with no data or associated groups like in the one released. So he can spin it any way he wants, and I'm not going to be convinced either way.
Maybe you will figure that part out. Maybe it will all become more clear in time.
When I scan into Photoshop, it's a far simpler process, one layer. Then I can build on it if I choose to, add the other security paper layer and tweak it any way I want. But not layers that get scanned in using that method and come out looking like that, don't see any point in it for this purpose or the new image he's got on the NR website, a colored magazine cover. Apples and oranges to me.
Thank you. Thank you!
I really wish little arrogant noob jerks like you wouldn't come here and tell us FReepers what we should or shouldn't wise up too.
Why don't you crawl back into your little wabbit troll hole.
My pleasure!
Google John Bingham, Howard Jaccobs + 14th Amendment...plenty of sources.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
For starters....
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101121185933AAAk9yL
Especially when we watch the parades of anchor babies that were born here, demonstrating for "immigration reform"
Where do their loyalties lie and, what flags were they flying?
Any pdf has layers. Just open it up in Illustrator, they’ll be there. But they wont look like the White House’s version. And yes, the text turns into image files that can be further edited, in Photoshop for instance. Which is exactly what that White House document looks like.
I agree with Nate. It doesn’t appear anything was substituted, just that it’s been altered. Maybe it is a result of what Nate is trying to duplicate. But so far he hasn’t come very close.
I’ve cobbled together a file combining the AP version and a clean safety paper background. It looks close to what that certificate should look like if it were simply scanned in and saved as tiff.
Performing the steps Nate takes, I can’t duplicate the White House version appearance either.
You are looking at a copy of a “purported” certified copy. A copy or scan of a certified document carries no certification and therefore cannot be used FOR or AGAINST the bearer nor the people listed on it.
Obama has not released a certified copy of his COLB as generated by the DOH of Hawaii containing the required embossed seal of the DOH of Hawaii.
Chasing any of the aspect of the paper he released is an utter waste of time because it certifies absolutey nothing because it is not a certified document.
Folks...stop wasting your time analysing something that has no legal value. It’s just a public opinion swaying piece...nothing more.
=8-)
They are mad. The continuation of and progeny of the commie boomer group. The courts protected them in the sixties when we should have put a stop to their treasonous nonsense. We should have man handled the courts then. If we had we wouldn't be where we are now.
I wish I could have a whack at it, love these challenges. Let it be for a bit, something may come to you how to build the layers. I'd mask off the basic document and try to get the security paper under it right. See what you can come up with. Don't alter anything you don't have to.
I took a course in PS but don't remember what clipping is; I do know different ways of masking and could generate that security paper from scratch.
My birth cert which was a later issue than an official one I'm sure I had formerly has that same security paper as well, just lighter.
Mine came from a book, too, at one time but looks much nicer, no distortions, shadows or curvature, doesn't mean anything. I'm guessing they did a better job of archiving and could extract the data and print it out on these pre-designed blank forms. Now I think all the data in the book has been entered into a database.
If you come up with something, just let us know, don't keep the file too long or post it because I think that could get you into trouble since it's Obama's. Even my own, not a good idea to post even though YT'ers are doing it as examples.
Don't take me too seriously; I'm not sure if I'm willing to spend any time on it. I want to finish my next video and once I read on apple site how easy it is to make music with garage band, I want to get a cable for my electronic keyboard. Their version for their ipad is supposed to be easier so I'm going to have to struggle with my version.
My guess is that they had access to a BC in the 1064X series.
But not 10641.
But needed it to be 10641, because that it probably the BC of the infant girl that died. (Or some other “Safe” Certificate. A foreigner, with no family, etc.)
All other BCs could POSSIBLY be accounted for by the public. That was a risk that they could not take.
So when they chose 10641 in 2007 I do not think they did so RANDOMLY. I think they did so because they had HELP from the inside, to tell them WHICH Cert number to use.
this is another point that bothers me about this document, as offered.
It is currently acceptable to certify documents using a multi-colored signature stamp instead of a raised seal. IF this were a color copy (scan) of the true document, those colors should be part of this stamp. They are missing (meaning this is not a valid document as presented).
This would mean that what we have is a a B&W photocopy printed out on safety paper? If correct, why would there be aberrations in the safety paper line-up points?
Not only has this been layered but it appears to be a scan composed of an overlay of separate pages (documents?)
As released, This release by the white house does not pass the sniff test.
Where did the AP get their copy without the safety paper background? Did Hawaii make hardcopy versions? (one printed on plain paper)
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.