ummmm yes it does.
there is no possible reason for a flat sheet of paper, photocopied or scanned into pdf, should have removable layers- no reason at all.
The LAYERS are part of the PDF file format when created in Photoshop.
The fact you can open the PDF and see layers at all is stunning- you can compress them down to one layer when you are done, which would then have looked like a scanned image EXCEPT if you examined it pixel by pixel, and found editting artifacts.
The LAYERS were created in photoshop
I opened it in Photoshop Elements and saw those white areas behind the text.
YES!
That image was built up, not scanned from a document.
Would somebody please save the document as posted on the WH site for me *before* they read all this layers stuff and “ fix it” so it’s more “ real”?
Thanks in advance!
Apparently there is commonly used software (Adobe Acrobat, I would surmise) that does Optical Character Recognition on a scanned document in the process of converting it to a PDF, and splits the scanned image into actual text where it detects characters that can be converted, plus images, then recombines those into the pdf.
Apparently it does this for the sake of making the resulting document text-searchable.
Again, in order to challenge the validity of this document, as far as I can tell, one needs to:
1. Demonstrate that the certificate the White House released is NOT what was received from Hawaii.
or,
2. Demonstrate that the certificates the State of Hawaii supplied are themselves forged.
or,
3. Demonstrate that the letter posted from Loretta J Fuddy is a forgery.
Unless you can do one (or more) of the three, and do so in an iron-clad manner, you really don’t have anything (as far as I can tell) that demonstrates the new certificate is a forgery.
The presence of layers in the PDF could well turn out to be relevant to one of the three items above, but unless you can convincingly demonstrate the layers aren’t “innocently” there, that fact alone does not seem sufficient to label the release a forgery.
OR: Find another angle (e.g., Leo Donofrio's) by which the document is irrelevant and Obama is ineligible in spite of having been born in the US. I haven't delved deeply enough into Donofrio's writings, but I have seen at least one judicial writing going back (I think) to the mid 1800s that expressed that any person born in the US even of alien parents not of diplomats/ others who were not subject to US jurisdiction is a natural born citizen.
Perhaps it's a dual-citizenship angle, as he was indisputably a dual citizen of the UK/then Kenya and the US. His own web site admits this.
Perhaps he lost his citizenship when adopted by Soetoro. Although the small bit of judicial comment I've seen on this doesn't seem promising, either.
And of course, the other option is to defeat Obama politically based on his wrong-headed and disastrous policies.
You don't need artificts. magnify the document to the maximum resoultion. The digital blocks that compose the image are of two different sizes. Look at the doctors signature and the date corresponding to it. The date is a different resolution than the signature. This can't happen in a singl source document.
I think that an absolute key to "taking back our country" is to somehow educate the masses that personal responsibility is better than government handouts, not only for our country as a whole, but even for individuals who might be in line to receive the government handouts.
Obama himself, bad though he may be, is not the main driving force for increased socialism, government overspending, and exploding debt that now threatens to bankrupt us as a nation. He could do nothing if it weren't for those who voted him into office, and unless the PEOPLE of our country can be made to see that we're headed down the wrong path, when he is gone they will likely vote in someone even worse than he is.
This can only come through some form of easy-to-understand and convincing education of the masses that actually reaches those who supported Obama and will support others like him.