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 ...
Thank you for that.
I am working at getting her to present her info at our local Tea Party group here in El Dorado Hills.
She is up for it but we have to convince our membership board to let her speak.
I suspect that if or when she does speak at our group that we will have some debunkers in the audience.
I want to be able to debunk the debunkers so any other info would be appreciated.
Meanwhile.....Mara get on here now and post woman!!!
Except that you miss one minor detail. ALL of the compression, so-called, taking place on Obama’s BC miraculously occurs in areas that would need possible alteration for it to be deemed useful for his NBC purposes. Is that little tidbit too complicated for you to understand?
Note: Document specialist/analyst Doug Vogt pointed out that the alleged 'imprinted seal' is THE WRONG SIZE.. Too small! See item #6 herein: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58721290/Obama-Birth-Certificate-Final-Affidavit-of-Douglas-Vogt-June-24-2011-Total-of-9-items-now-listed
Methinks both the paper copies and PDF were generated from decades-old data rendered as I described. That explains the multiple data layers featuring inconsistent rendering styles.
“Birthers” are making a serious mistake in applying modern technical sensibilities to what amounts to ancient technology. 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. (Of course, whenever I try to explain these facts about technology past, I get lambasted as an Obama sympathizer. Emotional abuse doesn’t change the facts to fit their beliefs.)
Here are a few tidbits. Dr. Nonsense claims Hawaii first participated in the national natality report in 1961. This is not true. The 1960 reported is posted at the CDC website and can be downloaded. Hawaii’s birth statistics are in it. The race classifications changed somewhat from 1960 to 1961, which is explained in these reports. Dr. Nonsense allegedly obtained a 1960-1961 coding document through a freedom of information request that shows how both years were coded the exact same way, and in a much more detailed manner than is specified in the 1960 report. Second, the document he obtained has a division heading from a government division that didn’t get created until TWO years later in 1963. Something fishy is afoot. Do not trust ANYTHING posted by Dr. Nonsense.
Sorry, but this is simply babbling nonsense. The paper copies and PDF weren’t generated from decades-old data. The alleged long-form would have been a hard copy that had to be copied onto a current form. It wouldn’t be in any kind of data form. This is really a new low in fogger-styled excuses.
Based upon 26 years involved directly in pre-press operations both film based and electronic, I can attest with 100% certainly that the site you posted has it wrong and this document is a complete poorly done forgery.. A person with just one year of experience would be able to spot all the edits.
Even without everything they tried to disprove (which they did not) I based my assessment on edits completely different.
I downloaded the document right from the White House site and the very first thing after opening it in Adobe Illustrator was over 25 layers of edits. Now a few layers might be expected for re-sizing and maybe adjusting the brightness or contrast level. So maybe 2 or 3 layers would not be unusual.
Looking at items like the signature which when enlarged will show a dark center line and as you look to the edges of a REAL pen/pencil line you would expect to see pixels get progressively lighter.
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.
If anyone doubts what I am saying just sign your name in pen/pencil on paper then look at the line under enlargement. You will easily see how the pen/pencil line is never fully solid from center to the edges.
There were also letters typed which suffered from a similar problem. A typed letter will have less of a soft transition from solid black to transparent but you can easily see some numbers/characters were just solid black which again is a manual edit by a very lazy and unprofessional operator. These edits, to an untrained eye simply look like they were typed on a different machine. They were manually edited 100% certainty.
They already do
I’m convinced.
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.
So you're saying the lawyers returning to Washington DC from Hawaii with the envelope containing two certified copies of the birth certificate and a cover letter from Loretta J. Fuddy, Hawaii's Secretary of Health, wherein she states: "Enclosed please find two certified copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth," is a lie and she also included a diskette with an electronic copy containing layers?
And when she said, "I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies," she really meant the document she witnessed being copied was first compiled from electronic copy and then put on a copy machine so she could witness the process? Wouldn't her language have been different if the process you describe had been used?
I'm not in any way trying to be antagonistic and have no doubt early efforts at non-paper archiving were quite different than they are today. However, the facts in evidence do not convince me of your theory.
[shrug] Whatever. I just know from having been involved in document processing at the time that it was common for warehouses of important paper documents to be digitized, processed, and destroyed - leaving only a mangled image file as I described. Any printed copies would be rendered from that data (perhaps run thru a few layers of modernization software, producing “haloing” and related artifacts) and printed on new green-hash “security” paper, or .PDF files generated with a similar background.
Believe me or not. I’m trying to help; ignore the past at your peril.
From Mara:
“Jay —
I’m waiting on an email to authorize my register info before I can post but in the mean time... you need to tell ctdonath2 that all of his posts are irrelevant to the topic... all the misdirection information he posted would not apply to a microfiche storage of birth certificate information... so I’m having a WTF moment on why he’s even going down the road he travels. He clearly has no understanding of the pertinent points to the discussion and should start by reading my article and report... and to also check out the link to my first report (released for the Cold Case Posse)... that report explains why OCR is not a factor...
Mara”
Here she comes!!!!
If you want to help, turn off your computer, call your Congressmen and Representatives and demand that they investigate the HI DOH and the illegitmate Kenyan Coward™ posing as our president.
The fact were still talking about the layers and optimization and other abnormalities over year after the release by the whitehouse shows IT’S AS PHONEY AS A THREE DOLLAR BILL. I have produced a copy of my original long form birth certificate several times and never was it questioned once. If the FOREIGNER had a real one it would not be questioned either. What is equally pathetic as this charade of deceit by the socialist democrats on the american people, is the LEFTIST’S in the MSM TURNING A BLIND EYE ON THIS FRAUD. They truely are anti american and have no credibility left.
No lie involved. I’m saying the HI SoH personally watched a printer print two copies the official image data onto generic “security paper”, stamped them as certified authentic, handed the lawyers the two copies plus a floppy (or whatever) with the PDF file. No, her language would not be different because - legal terminology often having different nuances than general conversation - her language is consistent with legally equivalent processes across different technologies. “Witnessing copying” could apply to paper-to-paper photocopying or to digital-to-paper printing; same idea as far as the lawyers are concerned so long as the source is legally declared “original”, which was a big issue with the obnoxious process I described.
Yeah, I know I’m not going to convince many here. It’s hard to grasp if you weren’t there and haven’t seen the technology - and laws involving it - evolve.
""Birthers" are making a serious mistake in applying modern technical sensibilities to what amounts to ancient technology. 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. (Of course, whenever I try to explain these facts about technology past, I get lambasted as an Obama sympathizer. Emotional abuse doesn’t change the facts to fit their beliefs.)"If the information would be embarrassing in a court then why did a FEDERAL JUDGE read Mara's report and say the following: Alabama Supreme Court Justice Notes Evidence Presented Raises Serious Questions to Authenticity of Both Obama's Birth Certificates http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/03/alabama-supreme-court-serious-questions.html This is a Federal Judge... he couldn't rule on the case because it hadn't gone through the proper process of a lower court first... but read his ruling which references Mara's report as an attachment and he states the following:
"Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the "short form" and the "long form" birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public."
I contend they don't have a microfiche of the BC, nor true original paper form. At the time I describe, it was fashionable to "automate the documents" and destroy all physical copies; to solve some of the legal problems, it was legally necessary to destroy the originals (laws being the twisted derangements they often are).
I read the report. Methinks the references to "random" breakdowns and inconsistencies in the image data fit perfectly with data processing models of the time.
A lot of people have a lot invested in proving this a forgery. Maybe it is. So far I haven't seen anything, consistent with my own experiences in the field & history thereof, which points to fraud instead of mundane low/old-tech software.
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.