White House Releases President Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate [Archive] - Page 2

Wild Cobra

05-02-2011, 01:22 AM

It actually shows it's in fact real to those that do forensics. Removing the original scanner layering would have proved tampering.

But you're talking to an expert on the matter, you just don't know when to shut the fuck up.
You don't get it. Do you?

The laying makes it easier to alter an image. All the text could have been put together as desired.

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 01:23 AM

The laying makes it easier to alter an image. All the text could have been put together as desired.

How do you know this? Do you often layer images or do forensics? Did you read this somewhere?

Please explain why layering would indicate this was a forgery.

Wild Cobra

05-02-2011, 01:24 AM

Why? Because you say so?

You don't have any expertise doing forensics in this area, do you?

Can you point to ANY forensics experts that back your claim up?

Are you serious?

We have layers of material that can easily be altered and reassembled.

Since when does such a simple concept require an expert?

Tell me now. What was the experts exact words....

The only think I noticed was that they say it is normal for such a scanned pdf to be like that.

Wild Cobra

05-02-2011, 01:27 AM

How do you know this? Do you often layer images or do forensics? Did you read this somewhere?

Please explain why layering would indicate this was a forgery.
Stop right there fucker.

I am getting sick and tired of you assholes twisting my words.

I did not say it was a forgery.

Go fuck off since you two are too fucking stupid to comprehend simple things.

ElNono

05-02-2011, 01:27 AM

You don't get it. Do you?

The laying makes it easier to alter an image. All the text could have been put together as desired.

You still don't get it :lmao

None of the layers are text layers, and the top layers occlude the bottom layers (as they should). Making changes on any layer would make it EASIER to spot the change once layers are merged. It's HARDER to doctor a multi-layer scan than a single layer.

If I cared, I could probably even determine what scanner brand and model was used to scan the document.

Let it go. This is no parts changer or motorola 68000 territory.

ElNono

05-02-2011, 01:28 AM

Run lola run :lol

GoodOdor

05-02-2011, 01:29 AM

WC wikipedia's this shit, he knows what he's talking about......

Wild Cobra

05-02-2011, 01:29 AM

You still don't get it :lmao

None of the layers are text layers, and the top layers occlude the bottom layers (as they should). Making changes on any layer would make it EASIER to spot the change once layers are merged. It's HARDER to doctor a multi-layer scan than a single layer.

If I cared, I could probably even determine what scanner brand and model was used to scan the document.

Let it go. This is no parts changer or motorola 68000 territory.
It's not impossible to change a layer, and you know it. It's not even that hard.

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 01:29 AM

Are you serious?

We have layers of material that can easily be altered and reassembled.
Since when does such a simple concept require an expert?

Just because you say it's easy doesn't make it so. Why should multiple layers be harder to fake than a single layer? I'm no expert, so surely you can either give ms technical details or give me a link.

Tell me now. What was the experts exact words....

The only think I noticed was that they say it is normal for such a scanned pdf to be like that.

So if it's normal for layers to be scanned like that, why is it fishy? Wouldn't making the document on one layer (or NOT normal) be fishy?

ElNono

05-02-2011, 01:30 AM

As a matter of fact, if you went through the trouble of doctoring the layers, the LAST thing you would do is release a multi-layered document, since it provides a larger sample to scrutinize for doctoring. This is image forensics 101.

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 01:30 AM

It's not impossible to change a layer, and you know it. It's not even that hard.

So if it's easy to change one layer, why is it easier to change multiple layers?

Wild Cobra

05-02-2011, 01:31 AM

I give up. Two closed minds that wish to remain ignorant.

ElNono

05-02-2011, 01:32 AM

It's not impossible to change a layer, and you know it. It's not even that hard.

It is when the layers below it are occluded by the top layers. Go look at the Illustrator videos posted in the thread. See when you take out the text part, the bottom part still has the silhouette of the text? That means you have to edit that too and it has to be so BOTH layers cannot be detected as doctored.

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 01:33 AM

Stop right there fucker.

I am getting sick and tired of you assholes twisting my words.

I did not say it was a forgery.

Go fuck off since you two are too fucking stupid to comprehend simple things.

Youre the one who can't comprehend. I didn't say you were calling it a forgery. I asked you to explain why multiple layers MIGHT indicate it as a forgery, mores than a single layer document would.

You said it's fishy. That must mean that multiple layers is more indicative of forgery than single layers. I'm asking you to explain why, on a technical level.

ElNono

05-02-2011, 01:34 AM

I give up. Two closed minds that wish to remain ignorant.

LOl you're getting free lessons in digital image forensics and call people close minded. Pay attention!

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 01:35 AM

I give up. Two closed minds that wish to remain ignorant.

You keep saying "it's fishy" and expect hand waving to save the day because you don't realize it would be harder to fake a multi layer document rather than a single layer. A single layer document would be fishy, since they'd be scanning it in a way that wasn't normal.

But keep taking umbrage at us asking for evidence. It's your MO.

ElNono

05-02-2011, 01:39 AM

Hilarious he thinks this is like a layered photoshop image. The scanner doesn't know what's under the ink, thus the background still has the text silhouette on it. The only layering the scanner does is a color separation using a threshold to layer out the text so it can be OCRd easier.

Wild Cobra

05-02-2011, 02:00 AM

Maybe I should do more than separate layers and create a document? Afterall, all I have to do is separate the layers, change the green fill as needed, alter the text layer, and put the layers back together.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/birth-certificate-long-form0001.jpg

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 02:02 AM

Maybe I should do more than separate layers and create a document? Afterall, all I have to do is separate the layers, change the green fill as needed, alter the text, and put the layers back together.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/birth-certificate-long-form0001.jpg

Wouldn't it be easier to just forge ONE single layer instead of doing all of the above?

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 02:03 AM

Also, wouldn't you have to make sure that the edits on one layer reflected the edits on another layer?

ElNono

05-02-2011, 02:04 AM

I'm glad you finally understand what I've been trying to tell you.

You have to doctor two layers, then they have to match once reassembled, without vestiges of the doctoring.

A single layer document is MUCH easier to doctor, since you don't have to worry about the underlying layers.

BTW, you can split ANY document in layers like that post-facto with Illustrator. Obviously, somebody that never used AI has little to no idea.

ElNono

05-02-2011, 02:05 AM

Also, wouldn't you have to make sure that the edits on one layer reflected the edits on another layer?

You do. And if you think hiding changes on a single layer is difficult, changing it on two is even harder.

Wild Cobra

05-02-2011, 02:13 AM

Also, wouldn't you have to make sure that the edits on one layer reflected the edits on another layer?

That's actually real easy to do.

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 02:16 AM

That's actually real easy to do.

Wouldn't it be easier to edit just a single layer?

Also, how do you know it's easy to do? Have you done it, or know someone who has? Just curious.

ElNono

05-02-2011, 02:37 AM

That's actually real easy to do.

If you want people to notice you doctored the document, sure :lol

It's actually easier to just edit a non-layered document, basically dragging your argument that the multi-layer format is fishier than a non-layered straight into the ignorant and absurd territory...

Wild Cobra

05-02-2011, 02:41 AM

ElNono

05-02-2011, 02:54 AM

Seems to me it's more effective to alter a document that can be explained away as a normal feature of a copy process. After-all, you two lemmings are proving that there is no possibility in your mind that it could be an altered document. If this was a forgery, they sure fooled you two.

Except that post-facto digital alterations to a digital document are quite detectable, even more than non-digital alterations.

The point here is that your contention that the document is intrinsically "fishy" because it's multi-layered, it's actually completely erroneous. It's actually more "fishy" to see a single-layer document, since it's easier to hide the doctoring.

Whats worse is you calling people ignorant, when the grossly ignorant all along was nobody other than you.

Wild Cobra

05-02-2011, 03:10 AM

Sorry that you are so narrow minded.

MannyIsGod

05-02-2011, 03:13 AM

:lmao

ChumpDumper

05-02-2011, 03:53 AM

fraga

05-02-2011, 08:31 AM

Sorry that you are so narrow minded.

You have officially derailed...

Winehole23

05-02-2011, 08:37 AM

You have officially derailed...I take exception to the inference that WC was ever on the rails in this thread.

RandomGuy

05-02-2011, 08:58 AM

Yes, the pdf release is fishy. Sorry, but you are the ignorant one.

You say it isn't a forgery, but then turn around and say it is "fishy" even though there is a logical, reasonable, and fully plausible explanation.

Cognitive, meet dissonance.

Dissonance meet cognitive.

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.[2] Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

You have to know that this sounds like the 9-11 truthers who find things "fishy" about the "official" explanation, right?

It's fishy that no steel framed building ever collapsed from a fire.

It's fishy that Bush's cousin workedf for building security at the towers

Start down that path at your peril.

Either the explanation is reasonable, or it isn't.

By stating it is "fishy" you are directly implying that the most plausible explanation, i.e. somewhere in the scan/save/email/host on server process Adobe OCR split the file into two layers, is not reasonable.

Is that what you are trying to say?

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 09:00 AM

Seems to me it's more effective to alter a document that can be explained away as a normal feature of a copy process. After-all, you two lemmings are proving that there is no possibility in your mind that it could be an altered document. If this was a forgery, they sure fooled you two.

It's "fooled" us because it's much harder to do it on multiple levels than one, rendering your "fishy" argument null and void.

Your argument frankly makes no sense. You're saying the more authentic something looks, the more suspect it is. Kinda like a conspiracist, you're willing to keep changing your argument if it gives you hope at being right.

TeyshaBlue

05-02-2011, 09:01 AM

There's some rock-hard stupid on display here.

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 09:02 AM

Sorry that you are so narrow minded.

:lol

WC, you know, it shouldn't be a point of pride to believe in things that make no sense, or have no proof. You wear those beliefs like a badge of courage. YOU are the narrow-minded ones, as no matter what we say, you continue to grasp for arguments that justify your new belief.

ElNono

05-02-2011, 10:42 AM

:lol open/narrow minded has nothing to do with it...

Winehole23

05-02-2011, 10:58 AM

Wild Cobra

05-02-2011, 10:26 PM

Do you think it's a forgery?

Yes or no.
No. I don't think it's a forgery.

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 10:28 PM

No. I don't think it's a forgery.

Why do you think it would be easier to forge a multiple-layer document rather than a single-layer document?

ChumpDumper

05-03-2011, 04:33 AM

No. I don't think it's a forgery.:lmao

Wild Cobra

05-03-2011, 07:11 AM

Why do you think it would be easier to forge a multiple-layer document rather than a single-layer document?
It's not necessarily easier, but the green around the text is already removed in a manner that is explainable. Subtle mistakes are more easily blamed as the process. The black and white characters have no aliasing to worry about and are then easily moved as needed. The green is easily manipulated as needed also.

Think about it. A recreation can look as good as the pdf scan.

Cry Havoc

05-03-2011, 07:39 AM

Sorry that you are so narrow minded.

Dude. You're a smart guy. Why the fuck would you argue with someone who clearly commands a much more in-depth knowledge of the subject at hand than you do, when you yourself know almost nothing? You can't even answer basic questions being asked of you, yet everyone else is narrow minded? :lmao

It's astounding to me how someone can show intelligence at times and then prove themselves to be completely incapable of rational thought.

MannyIsGod

05-03-2011, 08:50 AM

WC is a smart guy?!?!!?!? If WC is smart I must be the lovechild of Albert Einstein and Hawking.

I'm sorry but there is more to being smart than copy and pasting wikipedia. Perhaps a bit of critical thinking. Perhaps.

MannyIsGod

05-03-2011, 08:52 AM

No. I don't think it's a forgery.

All I can say to the above is:

Sorry that you are so narrow minded.

Agloco

05-03-2011, 10:29 AM

Again, I am not saying the document is fake. I am saying that the way they presented it to the public is in no way proof it is real.

Keep in mind I am not saying it is a fake. I'm saying it could be a fake. Open your mind, and stop ignoring possibilities.

I am reasonable certain a proof positive copy exists.

Yes, the pdf release is fishy.

But in the meantime you're intent on stirring up "what if's" and conspiracy theories. At the end of the day if you believe that it's real, why all of the theatrics?

Karl Rove had it right. More people should have heeded his warnings. For all of his failings, he is a pretty bright guy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20033073-503544.html

This is all you really needed to say IMO:

No. I don't think it's a forgery.

Wild Cobra

05-03-2011, 09:31 PM

But in the meantime you're intent on stirring up "what if's" and conspiracy theories. At the end of the day if you believe that it's real, why all of the theatrics?

Karl Rove had it right. More people should have heeded his warnings. For all of his failings, he is a pretty bright guy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20033073-503544.html

This is all you really needed to say IMO:
No. I don't think it's a forgery.
If you go and look at post #47, all I did was point out a problem that people would perceive. Then in post 50, yes, I decided to stir the pot.

I too, agree this birther issue should be avoided by any candidate who wishes to be viable. I have stated similar remarks in the past. I also said to the effect that I believed it possible, that not showing proof, was possibly an intentional trap to make others look bad. For all I know, this format that was released was to keep the controversy alive rather than kill it.

LnGrrrR

05-03-2011, 09:36 PM

It's not necessarily easier, but the green around the text is already removed in a manner that is explainable. Subtle mistakes are more easily blamed as the process. The black and white characters have no aliasing to worry about and are then easily moved as needed. The green is easily manipulated as needed also.

Think about it. A recreation can look as good as the pdf scan.

If it's not easier, why would someone do it that way? After all, when one if forging something, they want to do it as authentically as possible, which means they're probably going to go the easiest route that would still look authentic. Why would anyone make it harder on themselves?

Also, how do you know easily it is to manipulate the various layers? Is this based on expertise you possess, or an expert opinion you found somewhere?

LnGrrrR

05-03-2011, 09:41 PM

For all I know, this format that was released was to keep the controversy alive rather than kill it.

Except that multi-layers PDF docs are just as "normal" as single-layer documents, but due to people's ignorance, it looks "fishy" to some people.

Again, it's no fishier than people who say we didn't land on the moon because the American flag is obviously being affected by wind. They don't bother to look up the technical reason, and just believe some dumb conspiracy because the flag moving looks "fishy".

Wild Cobra

05-03-2011, 09:43 PM

Except that multi-layers PDF docs are just as "normal" as single-layer documents, but due to people's ignorance, it looks "fishy" to some people.

Again, it's no fishier than people who say we didn't land on the moon because the American flag is obviously being affected by wind. They don't bother to look up the technical reason, and just believe some dumb conspiracy because the flag moving looks "fishy".
Like I said, keep it alive to let people make fools of themselves.