Pixels Don't Lie

March 4, 2012 | Linda Jordan

[Conscience of a Conservative]

But isn't the whole point of using layers that you can work in one layer for things like (in the case of forging a birth certificate) the entries you're altering/forging, but leave things like the basic form elements alone? So that if you make a mistake or are unhappy with the results of your forgery, you can go back and have another go at those parts without altering the basic form elements? It doesn't make sense that a forger would go through the trouble of working with all of these different layers, only to place elements he's forging in the same layer as basic form elements that remain the same in any version of the document, forged or not.

Also, in the case of the "Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address)" line I cite above, both the form box in which that text appears, and the box above it are typewriter-entry boxes, with the typewriter entries coming nowhere near the "Name of Hospital or Institution . . ." text. Even if the forger had placed that text on the same layer as elements of the document that were being forged, it seems implausable that any mistake would have affected that text.

[HMS Surprise]

It only helps them because there are those on OUR side who won’t take five minutes to examine the issue out of fear of being called a birther.

[expat2]

You CAN go back and start again, if you choose to do so. You can also flatten (i.e., merge the layers into one) the edited document before publishing it, but that wasn't done. But if you are non-competent or lazy, then you may well also allow the software to start new layers, as well as fail to flatten the final version.

Of course, it's possible that the forger was disgusted with what was going on and left the separate layers on purpose.

[ethical]

No. Computer generated is where the document originated. that's why Hawaii calls their short form Certification of Live Birth a “computer generated’ document. Some of the data from the original BC is entered in to the computer and then an abstract of some of the birth information is printed out from the computer. Totally different than taking an original 1961 document, making a photocopy of it and then scanning that photocopy in to the computer. It did not originate in the computer and was not created in the computer it was simply scanned in to the computer. No comparison. OCR and optimization don't explain away any of the many forgery identifiers in the document posted on the White House website. it is a flat out forgery. national Review did not duplicate was you find on Obamas document and they had to acknowledge that you don't get that kind of layering from simply scanning a photocopy. So, go watch the many excellent tutorials on this. But it would be easier for you to just admit that the document is computer generated and created and that it is not a scanned photocopy. This in and of itself proves that it is not what B.O. said it was.

[ethical]

Scanning with OCR created 49 layers helter skelter with no rhyme or reason. Bo’s forgery had nine layers, nine thought out and obviously planned layers. There is no comparison. You guys are desperate and I can understand why.

[ethical]

Pixels guys and gals. Pixels. I understand why you don't want to touch the signature of Stanley Ann going from ink to computer-created non-ink. It is a problem isn't it?

I can imagine how it went down. It's 1961, Stanley Ann has just given birth in hospital. It's hot and she's so tired but before she can go home to her adoring husband Barack she has to sign the birth certificate for her son. Dang, the pen she was using ran out of permanent ink right after the D in “Dunham”. “I hate it when that happens” pouts Ann. “Not to worry.” says the attending,”"In 40 or so years, when your son is forced to produce a birth certificate we will have the technology to create the rest of your signature inside a computer with a computer program.” “A what?” says Ann. “Is that legal?"she wonders.” “Don't worry about it honey. Just take care of this baby with such a musical name, Barack Hussein Obama II. So musical I will talk about it with my daughter and her friend at dinner this week." ”.'Oh, thank you Dr. West. You are a lifesaver." sighs Ann.

Dream a little dream. While others try and save our country.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Scanning with OCR created 49 layers helter skelter with no rhyme or reason. Bo’s forgery had nine layers, nine thought out and obviously planned layers.

Again, if the layers were so well thought out, why was the line "Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address)" split among two layers as follows:

"N___ _f H______l __ I__________ (If ___ __ h_______ __ ____________ ____ ______ add____)"

and

"_ame o_ _ospita_ or _nstitution ___ not in _ospital or institution, give street ___ress_"

How was this (and other similar instances) "obviously planned" and why?

[Wayne07]

It helps Obama in several ways:

1: Since most people see birthers as kooks, it makes conservatives look bad by association

2: There is an inordinate amount of time wasted discussing this, and that takes away from serious discussions about real issues.

Do you think the hardcore leftists who still swear than the dan rather memo was real helped their cause, or just looked like idiots and alienated most people with common sense?

[Wayne07]

The original post claimed "Scanning a photocopy, in order to post it on a website, does not turn it in to a computer created document with multiple layers and movable text."

You are now at least admitting that scanning a document can create layers, right?

[ethical]

Computer generated document V scanned photocopy. Ink to non-ink. Focus on that and take it from there.

[ethical]

OCR does not turn it in to a computer created document. Where did the document originate? Obama says it came from a photocopy of his original 1961 BC. Yet, he did not post that. He posted a computer created document. Do you understand that? OCR also does not turn an ink signature in to a non-ink signature. OCR won't save you or the document.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

So you have no answer as to why a forger would split the line “Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address” across two layers?

[ethical]

That is not an answerable question. You can't determine what was in the forgers mind. Deal with the facts the document presents. It is computer created not a scanned photocopy. The ink signature turns in to a computer created non-ink signature. Right there you can stop your wonderings. It is a forgery. Get past it and let it sink in. The man in the White House is a fraud and a huge number of people with the responsibility to protect us from this usurper have turned a blind eye to it or aided the crime.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

And what about the PDF from post 13 in this thread? Y'know, the one that was released the same day, had no layers, and did not have the same pixellation? See this post from a FR thread shortly after the long form was released, which includes a blow-up of the relevant part of the other PDF. No layers. No mis-matched pixels.

[ethical]

Don’t deflect. Deal with the facts. I dare ya.

[ethical]

No one. No one can say that B.O. posted a scanned photocopy of his original BC. You have not seen a scanned photocopy of his original. That should bother you. You want to defend the forger? Ask him, pretty please, to reveal the photocopy he says his lawyer brought back from Hawaii. I am sure he will do what you ask.

[Wayne07]

We are viewing a PDF on a computer, so by definition it is a computer generated document. The question is whether layers are any indicator of what the original source doc is. Because It is well established that scanning and enabling OCR separates text from background and sharpens the text, you can't conclude anything.

And what makes you say it is a non ink signature?

How do you explain this document, which the white house released the same day as the PDF? http://www.wbur.org/files/2011/04/0427_obama-certificate.jpg

[HMS Surprise]

I only look like an idiot if the BC is real. Guess what? It’s not real. Arpaio had lawyers, computer experts, and seasoned investigators look at it for 6 months... What exactly is so hard for you to understand here?

[Conscience of a Conservative]

I am dealing with the facts. The facts are that there were two PDFs of the document released that day. One PDF (the one you are focused on) has a number of abnormalities, which could have been caused by a human forger or which could have been caused by scanning/OCR/optimization. The other PDF (which you have ignored as “deflect[ion]”) has none of the abnormalities of the first.

Assuming that your argument is correct and that the inconsistent pixel size and color gradation of Dunham’s signature is evidence that the signature was forged electronically, how is it possible that the other PDF (in which the pixel size and color gradation of the signature are consistent with other similar text in the document) even exists?

[Wayne07]

Arpaio didn't have computer experts working on this, he had a woman who contributed graphics and articles to a few photoshop books. There is nothing in new the report that wasn't discussed on freerepublic on the day the cert was released. It is a tired rehash of speculation and ignorance.

Arpaio is a good man, but he is almost 80 years old, not a computer expert, and is being made a fool by the people around him. Trump was the savior 6 months ago, and now it is Arpaio, and he'll ending up looking like chump, just like Trump did.

The report, like most birthers here, also ignores the non-pdf version of the cert that was released, and I posted, that doesn't have OCR artifacts that you are all obsessed with. I'll post it again: