Obama's Official Long Form Birth Cert Released

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not going to drag this thread into CT.

The substance of this thread appears to be more appropriate in CT than in US Politics. Moved.

fontanalis

Overheal wrote: »

im pretty sure it's a fake, and have been since I saw it. Far too many questions surrounding it.

:rolleyes:

Overheal

fontanalis wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Back at you. I would love to believe everything the government tells us is gospel but that isn't the case. Nobody wants to believe it's a fake because of what it would imply. And frankly I'm not interested in that implication, or impeaching the guy based on that. I'm simply saying that at face value I question the validity of the cert. On that note, you should really view the video in post #37

uncleoswald

Overheal wrote: »

Back at you. I would love to believe everything the government tells us is gospel but that isn't the case. Nobody wants to believe it's a fake because of what it would imply. And frankly I'm not interested in that implication, or impeaching the guy based on that. I'm simply saying that at face value I question the validity of the cert. On that note, you should really view the video in post #37

So why believe the guy in the video over the "mainstream" media? It's been shown that the is nothing unusual about the pdf file having layers and yet you still find it a convincing argument?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding

Why was Obama's birth announced in Hawaiian newspapers on the day after his birth? Just incredible/convoluted forward planning?

oscarBravo

Overheal wrote: »

I would love to believe everything the government tells us is gospel but that isn't the case.

Straw man. I don't believe everything any government tells me. That's not at issue here.

Nobody wants to believe it's a fake because of what it would imply.

It's not a question of wanting to believe anything; it's a question of balance of probabilities. In the absence of a compelling case that it's forged, the likelihood is that it's not. So far it's been claimed that the PDF containing layers proves it's a forgery (it doesn't), and that a manual typewriter should produce text lined up exactly the same as a pre-printed form. That's not exactly a smoking gun.

I'm simply saying that at face value I question the validity of the cert.

At face value, there's no reason to question it.

fontanalis

Overheal wrote: »

Back at you. I would love to believe everything the government tells us is gospel but that isn't the case. Nobody wants to believe it's a fake because of what it would imply. And frankly I'm not interested in that implication, or impeaching the guy based on that. I'm simply saying that at face value I question the validity of the cert. On that note, you should really view the video in post #37

You should go on the committee that decides who can run for president.
I think I will because I don't believe any of the last 10 presidents were citizens. Prove me wrong because you're not going to fool me with "official proof".

fontanalis

oscarBravo wrote: »

Straw man. I don't believe everything any government tells me. That's not at issue here. It's not a question of wanting to believe anything; it's a question of balance of probabilities. In the absence of a compelling case that it's forged, the likelihood is that it's not. So far it's been claimed that the PDF containing layers proves it's a forgery (it doesn't), and that a manual typewriter should produce text lined up exactly the same as a pre-printed form. That's not exactly a smoking gun. At face value, there's no reason to question it.

The usual narcissism you get from these anti government types and being a sore loser will do it.

Overheal

fontanalis wrote: »

You should go on the committee that decides who can run for president.
I think I will because I don't believe any of the last 10 presidents were citizens. Prove me wrong because you're not going to fool me with "official proof".

Where did I say I had a problem with him being the President? Where did I say that I cared whether or not he is a natural born citizen? I simply believe the document is questionable. I don't know what you mean by ""Official proof"".

Overheal

uncleoswald wrote: »

So why believe the guy in the video over the "mainstream" media? It's been shown that the is nothing unusual about the pdf file having layers and yet you still find it a convincing argument?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding

Why was Obama's birth announced in Hawaiian newspapers on the day after his birth? Just incredible/convoluted forward planning?

Since I don't have access to Adobe Bridge or Adobe Illustrator or the couple hundred dollars to drop on a copy*, I can't verify anything said in your link. It would have been courteous of him to perform a demonstration.

Even if the PDF was programmatically sliced into layers, the video does point out some very curious differences in the text. Text that appears to have been written in with a digital brush tool, and some that appears to have actually been scanned-in pen. It has nothing to do with the youtuber being non-mainstream or vice versa, it's that he actually presents a plausible argument. If a child told me 2+2 = 4, would I disbelieve him if only because this information came from a child and not an MIT mathematician?

I have no care one way or another for the newspapers or where he was actually born, his legitimacy as a president, or any of that. I just think it odd that they waited until the media made a flurry about it to release this very peculiar document. That's honestly as far as my interest reaches. Being realistic: look at the PDF on whitehouse.gov. Look at section 20, and explain to me how they could have possibly stamped a date that reads AUG - 8 1981 ? Did they dip the last digit in black ink and the rest in green? What about section 22? Why would slicing the layers affect the coloring? These aren't outlandish questions.

*I tried pirating them once upon a time for my brother, but only ran into virii, so I wont be doing that again.

tbh

Overheal wrote: »

If a child told me 2+2 = 4, would I disbelieve him if only because this information came from a child and not an MIT mathematician?
.

No, because you already know that information to be true. If a child however told you something you didn't already know, and an MIT mathematician told you something else, you'd be pretty dumb to take the child's word for it.

Overheal

Touché

oscarBravo

Overheal wrote: »

Since I don't have access to Adobe Bridge or Adobe Illustrator or the couple hundred dollars to drop on a copy*, I can't verify anything said in your link. It would have been courteous of him to perform a demonstration.

Inkscape is open source and cross-platform, and can do much of what Illustrator can.

Even if the PDF was programmatically sliced into layers, the video does point out some very curious differences in the text. Text that appears to have been written in with a digital brush tool, and some that appears to have actually been scanned-in pen.

You're describing the difference between 1-bit (black and white) and multi-bit (greyscale) encoding of the layers.

Once again: a scanned document generally contains two types of information. There's the printed or typed text, and there's the background image (think of the texture and colour of old paper, or coffee-mug stains on the document, or whatever).

A document archival format like DjVu stores the different types of information in different layers. The text is stored in a 1-bit layer, which is high-contrast and extremely storage efficient. It can be highly compressed in a lossless way, like a GIF or PNG image. The background image is stored as a lossy JPEG-style image, which may be at lower resolution. It's a more flexible and storage-efficient way to store a scanned document than as a single huge compressed image.

The birth certificate has some apparent anomalies with some typewritten letters appearing on the background image - which has multiple shades of colour - and as such appearing fuzzier than the letters which are stored on the black-and-white layer. The archival software has to make a decision as to which parts of the document are foreground, and which are background. If a letter isn't quite as dark as its neighbours, it can fall below the threshold for "sharpness" that informs the decision as to whether it's foreground or background detail.

Once the archival software has separated the document into layers, those layers are compressed differently, so it's inevitable that the letters will look different in the finished document once it's re-rendered as a PDF.

Being realistic: look at the PDF on whitehouse.gov. Look at section 20, and explain to me how they could have possibly stamped a date that reads AUG - 8 1981 ? Did they dip the last digit in black ink and the rest in green? What about section 22? Why would slicing the layers affect the coloring? These aren't outlandish questions.

I've answered them above. The differences don't exist in the original (paper) document; they're an artifact of the document storage process.

I'm pretty familiar with document archival, having researched the subject for two manufacturing companies in the mid-nineties. If you're not familiar with the technology, it looks a little strange. I looked at the PDF - even before separating the layers in Inkscape - and immediately thought "DjVu or similar".

robtri

Overheal wrote: »

Even if the PDF was programmatically sliced into layers, the video does point out some very curious differences in the text. Text that appears to have been written in with a digital brush tool, and some that appears to have actually been scanned-in pen. It has nothing to do with the youtuber being non-mainstream or vice versa, it's that he actually presents a plausible argument. If a child told me 2+2 = 4, would I disbelieve him if only because this information came from a child and not an MIT mathematician?

I have no care one way or another for the newspapers or where he was actually born, his legitimacy as a president, or any of that. I just think it odd that they waited until the media made a flurry about it to release this very peculiar document. That's honestly as far as my interest reaches. Being realistic: look at the PDF on whitehouse.gov. Look at section 20, and explain to me how they could have possibly stamped a date that reads AUG - 8 1981 ? Did they dip the last digit in black ink and the rest in green? What about section 22? Why would slicing the layers affect the coloring? These aren't outlandish questions.

they are not outlandish questions... actually very good questions....

but before knowing the answer or seeking the answers to them you have already decided you dont believe it....

sbsquarepants

I think the whole birther argument is a bit far fetched to be honest and the clinging to the different layers proving it as a forgery, when it's already been proven that any document scanned for storage will be automaticaly split into these same layers, just smells of desperation!

However i do find it strange that his mother is called Stanley!:D

Overheal

Thank you OB.

robtri wrote: »

they are not outlandish questions... actually very good questions....

but before knowing the answer or seeking the answers to them you have already decided you dont believe it....

Have I? That's twisting my words quite a bit. I've surely decided I don't have/(had) enough information to believe one way or the other. There is such a thing as uncertainty. And there is such a thing as being willing to change your mind with the introduction of better information. If they are good questions why would you automatically assume I would not be able to change my view or opinion about the topic in the face of good answers?

robtri

Overheal wrote: »

Thank you OB.
Have I? That's twisting my words quite a bit. I've surely decided I don't have/(had) enough information to believe one way or the other. There is such a thing as uncertainty. And there is such a thing as being willing to change your mind with the introduction of better information. If they are good questions why would you automatically assume I would not be able to change my view or opinion about the topic in the face of good answers?

your first post

Overheal wrote: »

im pretty sure it's a fake, and have been since I saw it. Far too many questions surrounding it.

as i stated, you have already decided it was fake or forged..

i never said you couldnt change your mind... but u blatantly dismissed it as a fake without knowledge of how potential storage of such documents works...

but hey who needs facts when we have youtube

Overheal

robtri wrote: »

your first post



as i stated, you have already decided it was fake or forged..

i never said you couldnt change your mind... but u blatantly dismissed it as a fake without knowledge of how potential storage of such documents works...

but hey who needs facts when we have youtube

So being pretty sure of something means im rigid and unwilling to change? As opposed to being absolutely certain of something. I do my best to leave room for doubt, as I have here. And as you can see, I am open to discussion. To be frank rob, I'm not sure what your angle is, what are you trying to get across here?

Just take the first thing I say and twist it to whatever context you fancy, and don't read at the other posts in which I cared to elaborate my position.

Talk E

How come you are still discussing the birth cert ???

This was all supposed to be overwritten by the Osama program :pac:

LeinsterDub

If your to believe some here this is the nation who faked the moon landing and carried out a false flag operation on the twin towers but some reason are unable to carry out a simple forgery. This despite having the CIA who's spies have some of the best forgeries known to man.

These people apply no logic to their theories.