I'm sure this has been discussed...

[Yonivore]

...ad nauseum, in this forum but, I wasn't around for the fight and, I'm interested to know if anyone was able to debunk the video beyond just engaging in a spittle-flecked birther rant.

This YouTuber posted this video on April 27, the day President Obama allowed a PDF version of his long form birth certificate to be posted on the White House website.

I think the poster makes a compelling case the birth certificate has been significantly altered. What do you say?


7s9StxsFllY

[boutons_deux]

I say you and all birthers are full of shit

[JoeChalupa]

Damn, this crap again. :rolleyes Get over it already.

[coyotes_geek]

Awesome. Resurrecting the birth certificate debate is exactly what this forum needed! :tu

[Drachen]

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Photos/search.jpg?w=1cb5aff9

[Yonivore]

Was this video posted? Have any of you watched it? And, was it debunked?

[coyotes_geek]

Was this video posted? Have any of you watched it? And, was it debunked?

No, this is all new to us. Once Obama released the birth certificate WC, Darrin, Jack and all the other red teamers said "good enough for us" and that was the end of it.

[JoeChalupa]

Was this video posted? Have any of you watched it? And, was it debunked?

This story was debunked long ago.

[Spurminator]

:lmao

[Yonivore]

This story was debunked long ago.
So, you've watched this video.

It's compelling.

[JoeChalupa]

So, you've watched this video.

It's compelling.

:sleep

[Yonivore]

Once Obama released the birth certificate...
Actually, he didn't release the birth certificate; he posted what the White House called a scanned image of the birth certificate to the White House website. The .pdf file on the White House website isn't a scanned image. It's a .pdf with multiple layers of data.

Whomever posted the birth certificate on the White House website was either an idiot or was trying to expose the fraud. Either way, the image of the birth certificate posted on the White House website has multiple layers that can be turned off and on in Adobe Illustrator to reveal what information has been altered and changed.

Again, the guy makes a compelling case. I thought it was interesting and wondered how everyone, in here, would respond to the claims made in the video.

[boutons_deux]

Yoni wants to birther Barry, but he let's dubya and his criminal posse get away with murdering and maiming 100s of 1000s of American and foreign citizens for oil.

[Drachen]

Actually, he didn't release the birth certificate; he posted what the White House called a scanned image of the birth certificate to the White House website. The .pdf file on the White House website isn't a scanned image. It's a .pdf with multiple layers of data.

Whomever posted the birth certificate on the White House website was either an idiot or was trying to expose the fraud. Either way, the image of the birth certificate posted on the White House website has multiple layers that can be turned off and on in Adobe Illustrator to reveal what information has been altered and changed.

Again, the guy makes a compelling case. I thought it was interesting and wondered how everyone, in here, would respond to the claims made in the video.

Have you
https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Photos/search.jpg?w=1cb5aff9ed yet?

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178270

[MannyIsGod]

The search function is hard.

[Yonivore]

Have you
https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Photos/search.jpg?w=1cb5aff9ed yet?
Have I what?

[RandomGuy]

Was this video posted? Have any of you watched it? And, was it debunked?

Yes, and yes.

It was part of some OCR function in the process of digitizing documents.

The "layers" they found were due to the layers added at some point by Adobe itself.

Adobe, among other programs, has a feature that allows you to scan something, then "select" portions for copying and pasting out of the scan and into other things, like Word documents.

QADAkitLu_c

The guy who made your video, although a graphic designer, is not a programmer.

I guess it is "compelling" if you are already predisposed to beleive this, and lack critical thinking skills to ask important critical questions about what is presented.

[MannyIsGod]

Yoni somehow found the video but he could not find out if it was debunked without coming to Spurstalk. Yeah - dude was not trying to stir shit at all.

[RandomGuy]

The search function is hard.

So very, very hard.

It also so very hard to click on the video I found in the "related" section of the same youtube screen where Yoni's video was posted.

I mean I had to actually move my eyes to look a couple of inches to the right, and then force my brain to recognize the squiggly lines that said "Debunking the "Layers Scandal" of Obama's Birth Certificate". Then I had to move the mouse pointer and ... :dramaquee ...CLICK on the linked video! Holy shit that was hard!

It tapped me out.

[Yonivore]

Yoni somehow found the video but he could not find out if it was debunked without coming to Spurstalk.
I looked; it hasn't been debunked. I don't think Spurstalk can debunk it either so, I didn't come here to debunk it but to find out what the forum community in which I choose to participate, concluded on the video.


Yeah - dude was not trying to stir shit at all.
Can't help if you want to stir shit instead of responding to the question of whether or not the video has been debunked.

[Drachen]

So very, very hard.

It also so very hard to click on the video I found in the "related" section of the same youtube screen where Yoni's video was posted.

I mean I had to actually move my eyes to look a couple of inches to the right, and then force my brain to recognize the squiggly lines that said "Debunking the "Layers Scandal" of Obama's Birth Certificate". Then I had to move the mouse pointer and ... :dramaquee ...CLICK on the linked video! Holy shit that was hard!

It tapped me out.

Maybe Yoni has a larger screen, or maybe yoni is using an HD TV for a screen. In that case it may have been necessary not only move his head, but to look a couple of FEET to find it.

[RandomGuy]

Yoni somehow found the video but he could not find out if it was debunked without coming to Spurstalk. Yeah - dude was not trying to stir shit at all.

It is weak sauce, even for Yoni. It's almost as if he is trying to deflect attention from the Tea Party Downgrade. :p:

[JoeChalupa]

Yoni cracks me up. :lmao I truly thought he was smarter than the birthers.

[RandomGuy]

Maybe Yoni has a larger screen, or maybe yoni is using an HD TV for a screen. In that case it may have been necessary not only move his head, but to look a couple of FEET to find it.

Well in that case it just would have been humanly impossible. Shit, can't blame the man for missing it.

[clambake]

has anyone seen darrins and yoni logged in at the same time?

[Yonivore]

Yes, and yes.

It was part of some OCR function in the process of digitizing documents.
And, he responded.

nW_PWzhgvDs


I guess it is "compelling" if you are already predisposed to beleive this, and lack critical thinking skills to ask important critical questions about what is presented.
It's still compelling.

[RandomGuy]

It was part of some OCR function in the process of digitizing documents.[/quote
And, he responded.

nW_PWzhgvDs


It's still compelling.

You didn't actually watch the video I posted, did you?

[ElNono]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/29/2a8kq2q.gif

[RandomGuy]

Sorry, not gonna re-watch a youtube videos I have already watched, and already seen debunked by other people with far more qualfications than I have.

I would simply ask a common sense question.

The White House *knows* that there are paranoid conspiracy theorists out there, and has admitted as much.

Given Obama's power/position/wealth, he would presumedly have access to some pretty hefty and talented fakers, would he not be able to present an actual certificate.

Given the time available before its release seemed to be YEARS.

Is it reasonable, that the expert faking it, presumedly competant, and having sufficient time available to do a pretty good job, would have left all of these layers in the document to be found by the first nutball with Adobe?

[Yonivore]

Yes, and yes.

It was part of some OCR function in the process of digitizing documents.

The "layers" they found were due to the layers added at some point by Adobe itself.

Adobe, among other programs, has a feature that allows you to scan something, then "select" portions for copying and pasting out of the scan and into other things, like Word documents.

QADAkitLu_c

The guy who made your video, although a graphic designer, is not a programmer.

I guess it is "compelling" if you are already predisposed to beleive this, and lack critical thinking skills to ask important critical questions about what is presented.
Super Mario proved you can create layers with Adobe on a scanned .jpg. So?

[Yonivore]

Here's another geek debunking Super Mario's OCR Theory...

pi85U0HtU68

[Yonivore]

Sorry, not gonna re-watch a youtube videos I have already watched, and already seen debunked by other people with far more qualfications than I have.

I would simply ask a common sense question.

The White House *knows* that there are paranoid conspiracy theorists out there, and has admitted as much.

Given Obama's power/position/wealth, he would presumedly have access to some pretty hefty and talented fakers, would he not be able to present an actual certificate.

Given the time available before its release seemed to be YEARS.

Is it reasonable, that the expert faking it, presumedly competant, and having sufficient time available to do a pretty good job, would have left all of these layers in the document to be found by the first nutball with Adobe?
They're an arrogant bunch, aren't they?

[ElNono]

The problem here seems to be that Yoni doesn't know or understands how Illustrator or scanners work. Which is exactly the gullible people the author of those videos is targeting.

Congrats Yoni!

[FromWayDowntown]

I want to see George W. Bush's birth certificate -- pronto.

[ElNono]

There's plenty of YouTubes about 9/11 being a government job too...

Is that what's next? :lol

[Yonivore]

The problem here seems to be that Yoni doesn't know or understands how Illustrator or scanners work. Which is exactly the gullible people the author of those videos is targeting.

Congrats Yoni!
But, I do. You should watch the last video I posted to see why the OCR Theory doesn't hold water.

There's a difference between Adobe creating layers due to OCR Optimization and layers containing information about how that portion of the document was brought in from and outside file - a link.

[FromWayDowntown]

In faking the birth certificate, Obama's people should have really fanned the flames of the conspiracy minded by creating a box for "Religious Preference" and incorporating "Muslim Extremist/Terrorist".

[ElNono]

But, I do.

No you don't. You have ZERO clue. I'm willing to bet $100 you never even launched Illustrator in your life.

The 'OCR Theory' isn't a theory at all if you ever used high end scanner.
I have. Have you?

Unfortunately, this is really WAY over your head. Like WAY WAY over your head.

[Yonivore]

There's another niggling question...

Didn't President Obama say the original long form birth certificate had been destroyed and no longer existed?

I seem to recall that when the White House released the Certificate of Live Birth and there was criticism that it didn't constitute an actual birth certificate.

[ElNono]

So, Yoni, is it a forgery?

[ElNono]

Give me a high end scan of your birth certificate, Yoni, and I'll make the same video.

[ElNono]

Has anybody debunked this yet?

up5jmbSjWkw

[Th'Pusher]

I just want to know why Obama is using a high end scanner when regular people are suffering. He'll probably have it in tow on his way to Martha's Vineyard.

[Yonivore]

No you don't. You have ZERO clue. I'm willing to bet $100 you never even launched Illustrator in your life.

The 'OCR Theory' isn't a theory at all if you ever used high end scanner.
I have. Have you?

Unfortunately, this is really WAY over your head. Like WAY WAY over your head.
I never said I was an expert. I have used Illustrator but, no, I'm not an expert.

Can you explain why the Optimization layers are links? Why the data shows they've been manipulated?

I'm willing to bet everyone in the videos, Super Mario included, have more experience with Adobe Illustrator than either of us.

[Yonivore]

So, Yoni, is it a forgery?
It appears, to me, to be a drastically altered document.

[ElNono]

Can you explain why the Optimization layers are links?

Yes. That's how high end scanner layers the documents to make it easier to perform OCR on the document.


Why the data shows they've been manipulated?

The data doesn't show any manipulation. Actually, the data shows it was NOT manipulated.

This has already been discussed on the thread you were pointed to when it was relevant. You should start reading there.

[ElNono]

It really is HARD to properly forge a document. And if you're really trying to forge a document, you would never release a multi-layer version.

[Yonivore]

It really is HARD to properly forge a document. And if you're really trying to forge a document, you would never release a multi-layer version.
Have you downloaded the .pdf and opened it in Illustrator to satisfy yourself?

When I said manipulated, the video I posted below, describes how the linked image (in one case the a date at the bottom of the form) was sized and rotated when it was linked.

Does OCR Optimization resize and rotate when it does its thing?

As for why they would have released it in this form, you're guess is as good as mine.

[Yonivore]

It really is HARD to properly forge a document. And if you're really trying to forge a document, you would never release a multi-layer version.
You would think.

[clambake]

are you saying your team dropped the ball?

[ElNono]

Have you downloaded the .pdf and opened it in Illustrator to satisfy yourself?

Wild Cobra did on the other thread and posted a split of the layers. If you look at the back green layer, there's everything you need to know. The guy on the video is actually looking at the wrong thing. He should be looking for doctoring on the background green layer, not the text over it.


When I said manipulated, the video I posted below, describes how the linked image (in one case the a date at the bottom of the form) was sized and rotated when it was linked.

Does OCR Optimization resize and rotate when it does its thing?

Yes. That's what layering is there for on high end scanners. Hints the OCR system in the scanner on how to process the text (left to right, vertical, etc).


As for why they would have released it in this form, you're guess is as good as mine.

They scanned it, and released it. As a matter of fact, releasing it as non-layered document would have yielded more scrutiny, not less. It's a lot easier to doctor a single layer document.

[Yonivore]

I'm not convinced but, I don't have the level of expertise from which to argue so...d'okie dokie.

No need to beat the horse anymore.

By the way, I didn't start the thread to kick up shit. I saw the video I posted back at the end of April, close to when it was posted. If I were some birther zealot, you would think I would have seized on it then and made a big deal.

Fact of the matter is, I've been extremely busy since then and it didn't occur to me until something jogged my memory this morning. I thought I would run it by the forum to see what had been discussed on the topic.

Since I started this thread, I've watched several videos on both sides of the issues -- by self-proclaimed experts. I have no idea if WC's credentials are better or worse than theirs.

[Yonivore]

Has anybody debunked this yet?

up5jmbSjWkw
I don't know, have they? It's a cool video.

[RandomGuy]

Is it reasonable, that the expert faking it, presumedly competant, and having sufficient time available to do a pretty good job, would have left all of these layers in the document to be found by the first nutball with Adobe?


They're an arrogant bunch, aren't they?

So your answer, is yes, someone with the power and money that Obama has, asked a total amateur to fake his birth certificate in such a way as to be readily obvious to the nutballs who they know will absolutely be combing over the file with a fine tooth comb.

That's what you are going with?

[ElNono]

There's a myriad of experts in digital document forensics out there. Like people with real credentials, not guys that post a youtube. If this is a forgery you would know by now.

[Yonivore]

Is it reasonable, that the expert faking it, presumedly competant, and having sufficient time available to do a pretty good job, would have left all of these layers in the document to be found by the first nutball with Adobe?



So your answer, is yes, someone with the power and money that Obama has, asked a total amateur to fake his birth certificate in such a way as to be readily obvious to the nutballs who they know will absolutely be combing over the file with a fine tooth comb.

That's what you are going with?
Yep. Didn't Geithner say there wouldn't be a downgrade?

The guy is surrounded by arrogant incompetents. I have no doubt there could be some one in his circle pretending to be an Adobe expert that fucked this up.

Yep, I think it's possible. Having said that, I backing off my claim unless and until more comes out.

[Yonivore]

There's a myriad of experts in digital document forensics out there. Like people with real credentials, not guys that post a youtube. If this is a forgery you would know by now.
Seems to be a lot of competing experts out there.

It took a geek in his pajamas to out Dan Rather's fraud. And, he had people with "real credentials" supporting his assertion.

Sorry, this is a fucked up world we live in where people will do and say anything they're paid to do or say.

[clambake]

Sorry, this is a fucked up world we live in where people will do and say anything they're paid to do or say.

leave powell out of this.

[MannyIsGod]

Seems to be a lot of competing experts out there.

It took a geek in his pajamas to out Dan Rather's fraud. And, he had people with "real credentials" supporting his assertion.

Sorry, this is a fucked up world we live in where people will do and say anything they're paid to do or say.

Obviously - how do you think we got into Iraq? Lol Niger.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Give Yoni credit he is consistent.. he consistently jumps the gun on anything anti - obama

oh and he is still sure there are wmds in Iraq...

[ElNono]

Seems to be a lot of competing experts out there.

There's a lot of experts. Not sure about 'competing'.


It took a geek in his pajamas to out Dan Rather's fraud. And, he had people with "real credentials" supporting his assertion.

The Dan Rather's documents weren't digital. CBS also didn't authenticate them. Once looked up by actual experts (guys like Joseph Newcomer, who has well over 30 years of computer font technology experience) or Bill Flynn (an authority on the subject at the time), they were actually declared a forgery.

But that's the kind of experts you go for when you're looking to authenticate documents, not youtube.


Sorry, this is a fucked up world we live in where people will do and say anything they're paid to do or say.

It works both ways. How do you know those guys that posted the videos aren't getting paid either?

[ElNono]

From a technical standpoint, I would expect a better explanation than what's on the videos.
IE: How the doctoring on the lower (green) layer was done (since there's the obvious text outline there). But that's not even touched in the videos at all.

[Dan Rather]

Seems to be a lot of competing experts out there.

It took a geek in his pajamas to out Dan Rather's fraud. And, he had people with "real credentials" supporting his assertion.

Sorry, this is a fucked up world we live in where people will do and say anything they're paid to do or say.

:flipoff yonivore. Only a dumbass would think this crap is still news worthy.

[ElNono]

Ain't you dead? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

The problem here seems to be that Yoni doesn't know or understands how Illustrator or scanners work. Which is exactly the gullible people the author of those videos is targeting.

Congrats Yoni!
How do you explain the rotation and the two different scaling factors?

[Wild Cobra]

:flipoff yonivore. Only a dumbass would think this crap is still news worthy.
Dan, what I don't understand is why did they put out a questionable document if the original is real. The next day, they should have released a clean copy.

[ElNono]

How do you explain the rotation and the two different scaling factors?

What's there that needs explaining? Illustrator is not a PDF editor. It actually renders the PDF layers into vector layers. That should answer your question.

If you're looking to detect whether this is a forgery, the first thing you would be looking at is the white text outline on the green layer. Doctoring is easier to detect in shaded parts (it's harder to match a gradient than a solid stroke, and a cloned area is easier to spot).

But we already went through this in the other thread, and you already acknowledged this isn't a forgery.

[ElNono]

Dan, what I don't understand is why did they put out a questionable document if the original is real. The next day, they should have released a clean copy.

:lol What's questionable about the document?

Or better yet, what kind of document WOULDN'T be questionable?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Stupid troll is stupid.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol What's questionable about the document?

Or better yet, what kind of document WOULDN'T be questionable?
I already pointed that out.

Also, I don't recall acknowledging it wasn't a forgery. I believe I said that I didn't think it was, at the time, and was asked "yes" or "no." I wasn't going to say "yes" without more evidence.

I don't know now that it is. Only that it is highly questionable. There was no reason to process the document like they did. If the document was real, then this had to be done to keep the controversy alive. Afterall, being labeled a "birther" is a bad thing, and maybe they want more of the opposition to be labeled as such.

[ElNono]

Also, I don't recall acknowledging it wasn't a forgery. I believe I said that I didn't think it was, at the time, and was asked "yes" or "no." I wasn't going to say "yes" without more evidence.

:lol so you were acknowledging it wasn't a forgery... I mean, I don't expect to get anything but your opinion, as I'm aware you've no expertise on the matter:


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



I don't know now that it is. Only that it is highly questionable.

What's questionable about it?


There was no reason to process the document like they did.

How was it processed?


If the document was real, then this had to be done to keep the controversy alive.

What was 'done' to it to keep the controversy alive?


Afterall, being labeled a "birther" is a bad thing, and maybe they want more of the opposition to be labeled as such.

So now not only it's a forgery, you think it's purposely forged to make birthers look bad?. :lol

:lmao

[LnGrrrR]

...ad nauseum, in this forum but, I wasn't around for the fight and, I'm interested to know if anyone was able to debunk the video beyond just engaging in a spittle-flecked birther rant.

This YouTuber posted this video on April 27, the day President Obama allowed a PDF version of his long form birth certificate to be posted on the White House website.

I think the poster makes a compelling case the birth certificate has been significantly altered. What do you say?



7s9StxsFllY


I'm sure this has already been said, but you're wrong.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not convinced but, I don't have the level of expertise from which to argue so...d'okie dokie.

No need to beat the horse anymore.

By the way, I didn't start the thread to kick up shit. I saw the video I posted back at the end of April, close to when it was posted. If I were some birther zealot, you would think I would have seized on it then and made a big deal.

Fact of the matter is, I've been extremely busy since then and it didn't occur to me until something jogged my memory this morning. I thought I would run it by the forum to see what had been discussed on the topic.

Since I started this thread, I've watched several videos on both sides of the issues -- by self-proclaimed experts. I have no idea if WC's credentials are better or worse than theirs.

:lol Look, I'm completely unbiased, even though I grasp at every possible straw that suggests Obama wasn't born here.

[ChumpDumper]

lol compelling

[Agloco]

Has anybody debunked this yet?

up5jmbSjWkw


Not

Sure

If

Serious

but:

rrrx9izp0Lc

I havent read the entire thread. :lol

[ElNono]

Not

Sure

If

Serious

but:

rrrx9izp0Lc

I havent read the entire thread. :lol

:lol thanks!

[LnGrrrR]

Who's to say that the person in the debunking video isn't getting paid to say that?

[Agloco]

:lol thanks!


Who's to say that the person in the debunking video isn't getting paid to say that?

rofl.....yeah I was quite certain I miseed the boat. I'll read the thread and take the dunce cap off. :lol

[Yonivore]

I'm sure this has already been said, but you're wrong.
Because you say so?

So far, I haven't seen anything that conclusively refutes the possibility that hasn't, itself, been refuted.

We went through all of this when Bush haters dismissed the evidence that Dan Rather had faked the TANG Memo. It took awhile but, truth came out.

And, as far as it being a "straw;" again, I found the initial video compelling. I've looked at several on both sides and I'm still undecided on whether or not the document was intentionally altered or if it was altered by some scanning process.

[clambake]

you need to see them again.

[ElNono]

So far, I haven't seen anything that conclusively refutes the possibility that hasn't, itself, been refuted.

Sure you already have. You chose not to believe it.

[ChumpDumper]

Compelling!

[Yonivore]

Sure you already have. You chose not to believe it.
You forgot to bold the word "conclusively."

[ElNono]

You forgot to bold the word "conclusively."

I didn't. You just don't know what you're looking at and what you're looking for.

[Yonivore]

I didn't. You just don't know what you're looking at and what you're looking for.
Okay, so what conclusive refutation did I miss?

WC's expert opinion?

Your YouTuber countering my YouTuber?

Your say so?

The sputtering throngs dismissing me as prejudiced?

Which was supposed to convince me?

[ChumpDumper]

They're still translating the document!

[ElNono]

Which was supposed to convince me?

Nobody is here to convince you of something you don't understand.

The conclusive evidence is right in front of you in the document. You just don't know what you're looking at or what you're looking for, and frankly other posters and me already went through the process of explaining why in the other thread.

You're free to believe in whatever you want to believe, Yoni.

The only thing that's conclusive is that you're not worth the time.

lol birther

[RandomGuy]

Okay, so what conclusive refutation did I miss?

WC's expert opinion?

Your YouTuber countering my YouTuber?

Your say so?

The sputtering throngs dismissing me as prejudiced?

Which was supposed to convince me?

"convince me"

If I wanted to beat my head against the brick wall of confirmation bias, I would argue with twoofers over 9-11 :bang or just bump the moon hoax thread that won't die. :deadhorse

You have some pretty in-depth technical analysis on both sides, and then the obvious common sense question about the logical implication of the thing being faked.

You admitted your prejudice, "they are just arrogant enough not to care", so I don't see much point bothering with talking about it.

This topic, like all the other things you post, are things where you have made up your mind, just like mouse, parker2112, cosmored, et al, and NOTHING that ANYBODY says will make a farts difference in a hurricainne of confirmation bias.

[ElNono]

I gotta give Cobra credit here... at least he pretended to know what he was talking about.

[Yonivore]

How do you explain the rotation and the two different scaling factors? What's there that needs explaining? Illustrator is not a PDF editor. It actually renders the PDF layers into vector layers. That should answer your question.

If you're looking to detect whether this is a forgery, the first thing you would be looking at is the white text outline on the green layer. Doctoring is easier to detect in shaded parts (it's harder to match a gradient than a solid stroke, and a cloned area is easier to spot).

But we already went through this in the other thread, and you already acknowledged this isn't a forgery.
I guess he can't explain the rotation and two different scaling factors.

[LnGrrrR]

I guess he can't explain the rotation and two different scaling factors.

If you can't explain to me how space shuttle boosters work, then the moon landing is a fake. (And just repeat ad infinitum until your opponent gets tired of explaining things you should be looking up yourself. Instant winning!)

[MannyIsGod]

I gotta give Cobra credit here... at least he pretended to know what he was talking about.

The problem - although necessarily in this case - is that he always goes up against people who actually do know what they're talking about. :lol

[ElNono]

I guess he can't explain the rotation and two different scaling factors.


What's there that needs explaining? Illustrator is not a PDF editor. It actually renders the PDF layers into vector layers. That should answer your question.

:lol still don't know what you're talking about or what you're looking for

[Yonivore]

:lol still don't know what you're talking about or what you're looking for
I understand what you're saying but, one of the videos demonstrate the layers are linked images that have, in some cases been rotated (up to 90 degrees) and resized.

I get that OCR Optimization will create layered areas as it attempts to identify text and optimized it. But, what you're not explaining is there is a difference between the layering created by OCR and the layering created by importing images and laying them on the document.

The areas one of the videos I posted talked about is how some of the layers are links -- not OCR created layers -- from external objects that were resized, rotated, and positioned on the document.

[DarrinS]

Yes, that document is "funky", but I think is just an artifact of the software used, rather than anything shady. It wouldn't surprise me if someone did it on purpose, just to screw with people.

[MannyIsGod]

Well if thats the case, its probably the same person with the WC's Surgeon troll and its a damn good job of trolling.

[ElNono]

I understand what you're saying but, one of the videos demonstrate the layers are linked images that have, in some cases been rotated (up to 90 degrees) and resized.

All scan layers are rotated -90 degrees. All images are scaled by 24%.

If you need to show a 300dpi image on a 72dpi monitor, what would the scale be?

Let me do the math for you: 300 * .24 = 72... hmmm...

The rotation is easier. It comes from how the scanner feeds the paper, and whether the user selected portrait or landscape when scanning. The rotation of the document is adjusted accordingly.

That's exactly why I'm saying you see that because of AI is rendering the PDF for the screen.


I get that OCR Optimization will create layered areas as it attempts to identify text and optimized it. But, what you're not explaining is there is a difference between the layering created by OCR and the layering created by importing images and laying them on the document.

But there's a difference. Look at when he loads the word 'Wife' to replace the 'None'. The white background behind it does not match. You still have the outline for 'None' there. You would need to doctor that background too, which is a lot harder to do.


The areas one of the videos I posted talked about is how some of the layers are links -- not OCR created layers -- from external objects that were resized, rotated, and positioned on the document.

No. Illustrator loads layers as links. You can't tell they're not native Illustrator links because when he actually does a 'get info' on them to show the rotation and scale, you can see the Size, Kind, Created, etc attributes are all NA. Illustrator-created links contain all that info.

[ElNono]

Yes, that document is "funky", but I think is just an artifact of the software used, rather than anything shady. It wouldn't surprise me if someone did it on purpose, just to screw with people.

There's nothing funky with the document. It's a side effect of trying to 'analyze' a PDF with a non-PDF editor like AI.

[DarrinS]

There's nothing funky with the document. It's a side effect of trying to 'analyze' a PDF with a non-PDF editor like AI.

To someone unfamiliar with that process, it would appear odd.

[DarrinS]

Maybe dumb question, but why not straight up copy the original and create a PDF that contains the scanned image. The copier at our office does this with a few clicks and emails you the PDF attachment. Wtf is with all the Illustrator work? Just sayin.

[ElNono]

Maybe dumb question, but why not straight up copy the original and create a PDF that contains the scanned image. The copier at our office does this with a few clicks and emails you the PDF attachment.

That's what they did. They just happen to use a fairly high end scanner that layers the image so it's easier to OCR.


Wtf is with all the Illustrator work? Just sayin.

There's no Illustrator work. The only guy using Illustrator is the guy on the video. It's a PDF document, not an Illustrator document.

[DarrinS]

That's what they did. They just happen to use a fairly high end scanner that layers the image so it's easier to OCR.



There's no Illustrator work. The only guy using Illustrator is the guy on the video. It's a PDF document, not an Illustrator document.



That's exactly my point. Why try to OCR the doc?

[ElNono]

The online copy you can download from the WH was exported using the 'Preview' app from MacOS X (using Mac OS X 10.6.7). I would venture the original was probably a multi-layer tiff, and Preview was used to convert to PDF.

[Yonivore]

That's exactly my point. Why try to OCR the doc?
I think he's suggesting it's a default for the scanner they used.

[DarrinS]

I think he's suggesting it's a default for the scanner they used.

Fair enough.

[Yonivore]

ElNono, thanks for taking the time to explain. Sounds plausible.

Now, would it be fair to say the original from which the scan was made wouldn't have the artifacts described by the first video such as the Signature with no grayscale pixels?

[ElNono]

That's exactly my point. Why try to OCR the doc?

They didn't. There's no OCR text in it. If OCR was done, the PDF would contain the text. What's likely is that they use a background removal function of the scanner (some Fujitsu models have that (http://www.fujitsu.com/global/services/computing/peripheral/scanners/fi/option/proboard/smooth.html)) so they can place the scan over a generic background.

The reason you would want to do that is because the background might opaque some of the text.

[Yonivore]

And, are you saying the process took the date and changed some of the characters into black and white with no gray pixels while leaving one number with the grayscale pixels? I think it was the 19 and the 1 that are straight black and white with the 6 being grayscale. I don't recall without going back and re-watching the video.

[ElNono]

The variations on the actual text don't really matter. The signature could be explained for many reasons: type of pen used, whether it's a single pen trace versus the pen going through multiple time over the line, etc. The machine text looks like a typewriter, which has the same problem.

What's going to tell you if the document is doctored is if the white outline that surrounds the text (and it's on the background layer) matches the text above it. If you notice a pattern on it (signs of the clone tool) or a discontinuation on the gradient then that would raise an alarm. If the guy that made the video would've spotted something like that, it would've been worth looking at.
The scale stuff is really amateur stuff. Most docs are scanned at 150 or 300 dpi. PDF uses 72dpi as native res. The math isn't that hard.

[Yonivore]

The variations on the actual text don't really matter. The signature could be explained for many reasons: type of pen used, whether it's a single pen trace versus the pen going through multiple time over the line, etc. The machine text looks like a typewriter, which has the same problem.

What's going to tell you if the document is doctored is if the white outline that surrounds the text (and it's on the background layer) matches the text above it. If you notice a pattern on it (signs of the clone tool) or a discontinuation on the gradient then that would raise an alarm. If the guy that made the video would've spotted something like that, it would've been worth looking at.
The scale stuff is really amateur stuff. Most docs are scanned at 150 or 300 dpi. PDF uses 72dpi as native res. The math isn't that hard.
I don't know much about .pdf's but I've messed with images on a microscale for a couple of decades. All scans of documents produce letters or handwriting where the pixels gray out at the edges. The only time I've ever seen a completely black pixeled piece of text or handwriting is when the image was converted to black and white.

My question was, does the OCR do that to some but not other ink artifacts on scanned documents?

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know much about .pdf's but I've messed with images on a microscale for a couple of decades.

What do you do, if you don't mind me asking?

[ElNono]

I don't know much about .pdf's but I've messed with images on a microscale for a couple of decades. All scans of documents produce letters or handwriting where the pixels gray out at the edges. The only time I've ever seen a completely black pixeled piece of text or handwriting is when the image was converted to black and white.

My question was, does the OCR do that to some but not other ink artifacts on scanned documents?

The first reason for that is that you're looking at this on a 72 dpi screen. You're basically compressing pixels to fit the screen, so you're missing basically 3 pixels for each one you see on screen.

With that in mind, the white outline you see in the background IS that edge grayscale. What happens when you do background removal is you compress the gray colorspace from 256 elements, to, say 200. The first 'whitest' 56 elements (white to light gray) are converted into white with a scaled alpha value. That way the gray contour 'fades' into 'transparent' (or the new background), instead of fading to white. Obviously, you also need to re-scale the remaining opaque image from 200 to 256 colors, which will remove some of the shading and 'wash' it a bit.

On top of that, the scanner could be set to sharpen the image (don't know that it is in this case). That would enhance the contours, sharpening the text.

[Yonivore]

The first reason for that is that you're looking at this on a 72 dpi screen. You're basically compressing pixels to fit the screen, so you're missing basically 3 pixels for each one you see on screen.

With that in mind, the white outline you see in the background IS that edge grayscale. What happens when you do background removal is you compress the gray colorspace from 256 elements, to, say 200. The first 'whitest' 56 elements (white to light gray) are converted into white with a scaled alpha value. That way the gray contour 'fades' into 'transparent' (or the new background), instead of fading to white. Obviously, you also need to re-scale the remaining opaque image from 200 to 256 colors, which will remove some of the shading and 'wash' it a bit.

On top of that, the scanner could be set to sharpen the image (don't know that it is in this case). That would enhance the contours, sharpening the text.
But, on some and not others?

[Yonivore]

What do you do, if you don't mind me asking?
The graphics work has been a hobby since computer imaging came around. I've done some logo designs and graphics work for publication.

None of which is related to my paying job. But, in that capacity, I've manipulated images on a pixel-by-pixel level a number of times.

[ElNono]

But, on some and not others?

What do you mean on some and not others? Isn't there a white outline shading to the background around the text?

[Yonivore]

What do you mean on some and not others? Isn't there a white outline shading to the background around the text?
When he talks about the doctor's signature. The first letter of the name clearly has grayscale pixels that surround the letter. The rest of the signature is black.

[ElNono]

When he talks about the doctor's signature. The first letter of the name clearly has grayscale pixels that surround the letter. The rest of the signature is black.

Not enough ink flowing from the pen when he starts writing?

Does the whole signature has a white outline around that matches?

[Yonivore]

Not enough ink flowing from the pen when he starts writing?

Does the whole signature has a white outline around that matches?
It's not an issue with how the ink was applied to the paper. The first letter is an actual scan of the letter. The rest of the signature is a black and white (transparent) image of the rest of the signature.

Forget the background for a minute because, if you assembled several originals on a transparency and then scanned them with the green background, it would create the white space you describe. That doesn't change the fact that the first letter of the signature is a full color (or at the very least a grayscale) image of the first letter and the remainder is a black and white image.

The same phenomenon occurs on the date at the bottom and in a couple of other places.

[Yonivore]

http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/aa-Barack-Obama-birth-certificate-closeup-shot-of-pixels.jpg
This is what I'm talking about.

[ElNono]

It's not an issue with how the ink was applied to the paper. The first letter is an actual scan of the letter. The rest of the signature is a black and white (transparent) image of the rest of the signature.

Forget the background for a minute because, if you assembled several originals on a transparency and then scanned them with the green background, it would create the white space you describe. That doesn't change the fact that the first letter of the signature is a full color (or at the very least a grayscale) image of the first letter and the remainder is a black and white image.

The same phenomenon occurs on the date at the bottom and in a couple of other places.

I can't forget about the background because the background isn't created with transparencies, it's removed digitally by reducing the colorspace resolution, and actually using the image data to do it. You effectively lose levels of gray by doing that. The actual intensity or porosity of the trace of the ink will have an impact in the grayscale levels you see on the scan.

There's also some form of enhancement done on the text probably to make it OCR easier. It isn't just the signature that is entirely opaque. If you look at the actual text of the form it's also entirely opaque. However, even that text has the properly shaped surrounding white outline.

In order to doctor any of the black text, you would also need to doctor the surrounding white outline, or it won't match.

[Yonivore]

I can't forget about the background because the background isn't created with transparencies, it's removed digitally by reducing the colorspace resolution, and actually using the image data to do it. You effectively lose levels of gray by doing that. The actual intensity or porosity of the trace of the ink will have an impact in the grayscale levels you see on the scan.

There's also some form of enhancement done on the text probably to make it OCR easier. It isn't just the signature that is entirely opaque. If you look at the actual text of the form it's also entirely opaque. However, even that text has the properly shaped surrounding white outline.

In order to doctor any of the black text, you would also need to doctor the surrounding white outline, or it won't match.
Okay, so will your OCR software do what I just posted?

[ElNono]

This is what I'm talking about.

I see what you're talking about. I have the original PDF with me here.

Notice the white surrounding outline matching the text. You can't 'add that text later' without fixing the outline too.

[ElNono]

Okay, so will your OCR software do what I just posted?

Some laser copiers (http://www.erd.epson.com/epal/research/Publications/DocumentImaging/ICIP99TextEnhancement.pdf) already do that.

[Yonivore]

Some laser copiers (http://www.erd.epson.com/epal/research/Publications/DocumentImaging/ICIP99TextEnhancement.pdf) already do that.
Okay, back to my other questions...to some and not others?

http://home.comcast.net/~dannylgriffin/img/longformnum.jpg

Why not the 1?

[Yonivore]

Some laser copiers (http://www.erd.epson.com/epal/research/Publications/DocumentImaging/ICIP99TextEnhancement.pdf) already do that.
They change pixel size?

[ElNono]

Okay, back to my other questions...to some and not others?

Why not the 1?

Because it's probably not clear enough to the scanner that it can threshold it. What you see there is an effective conversion from gray to opaque black if outlines can be recognized. Probably some type of adaptive thresholding like the Otsu's method.

[Yonivore]

Because it's probably not clear enough to the scanner that it can threshold it. What you see there is an effective conversion from gray to opaque black if outlines can be recognized. Probably some type of adaptive thresholding like the Otsu's method.
That changes pixel size?

[ElNono]

That changes pixel size?

What do you mean 'change pixel size'?

[Yonivore]

What do you mean 'change pixel size'?
Look at the first of two images I just posted. The black and white pixels are smaller than the grayscale pixels.

[ElNono]

Give me some evidence that the background around the alleged doctored areas was changed too to match and then we can start talking about forgery. If you can't show me that, then how the heck you can claim the actual text was changed?

That really is the bottom line.

[ElNono]

Look at the first of two images I just posted. The black and white pixels are smaller than the grayscale pixels.

You can't change the 'pixel size'. The image is 300 dpi. Each pixel is 1/300 of an inch. The guy is probably looking at it on a 72 dpi display, scaled to 72 dpi.

What he calls a 'big' pixel is simply a cluster of smaller pixels with the same color. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Yonivore]

You can't change the 'pixel size'. The image is 300 dpi. Each pixel is 1/300 of an inch. The guy is probably looking at it on a 72 dpi display, scaled to 72 dpi.

What he calls a 'big' pixel is simply a cluster of smaller pixels with the same color. There's nothing wrong with that.
So, everyone of those large pixels is a cluster of 4 smaller pixels of the same color? Not one group of four pixels (all, by the way, in a perfect square) has a different color?

Dude, the pixels are larger. They're also a different image than the one with smaller pixels.

[ElNono]

So, everyone of those large pixels is a cluster of 4 smaller pixels of the same color? Not one group of four pixels (all, by the way, in a perfect square) has a different color?

Dude, the pixels are larger. They're also a different image than the one with smaller pixels.

There's no such thing as a digital image with 'different pixel sizes' within the same image. This is basic stuff. If you're telling me you did per-pixel touchups before, you should know this by now.

[Yonivore]

There's no such thing as a digital image with 'different pixel sizes' within the same image. This is basic stuff. If you're telling me you did per-pixel touchups before, you should know this by now.
I agree, if they're the same image.

So, explain why every one of the "larger" pixels happens to be a perfect square grouping of like colored pixels?

And, if you know the difference between vector and raster based imaging, you know, in vector based imaging, two different images can be scanned at different resolutions and, in the final product, appear to be constructed of different sized pixels.

[ElNono]

I agree, if they're the same image.

The green background pattern certainly isn't part of the original document.


So, explain why every one of the "larger" pixels happens to be a perfect square grouping of like colored pixels?

Now sure what you want me to explain. Gray scanning is only 256 variations. As I said earlier, even that's reduced to less in order to remove the background. The actual removed pixels are converted to the same color (white) with varying alpha. There's plenty of perfect 'larger' pixels on a perfect square (or even bigger areas) with the same color all around the document. Look no further than the white shades around the text.


And, if you know the difference between vector and raster based imaging, you know, in vector based imaging, two different images can be scanned at different resolutions and, in the final product, appear to be constructed of different sized pixels.

Vector based imaging doesn't even have the concept of pixels. With vectors it's points, not pixels, since they're scalable to any resolution when rasterized. There's no such thing as vector based scanning.

But I think I know what you're pointing at. Scanning is strictly a raster process, with the resolution being your selection of analog to digital sample rate. Works exactly the same as digital audio conversion. What you're thinking of is scanning or rendering two raster images at different resolutions. If you want to combine them and not lose detail, then the destination image has to have the same resolution as the highest resolution source image. Then the image with the lesser resolution will be scaled to fit. Now if you use nearest-neighbor scaling and the resolution difference between the two images is exactly a power of two, then the lower resolution image will be scaled up to use 2x2 same color pixels to make a single pixel of the lower res image.

But, you would also have the same lumps on the white surrounding area, since that area is strictly based on the source text. And you can see the 'smaller' pixels also exist in that area in this image.

There's also a rather simple explanation for that phenomenon, that follows the same concept. The scanner ADC might max out to 150 dpi, but the scanner digitally upsamples and process the scan at 300 dpi (much like what's known as 'digital zoom' in digital cameras).
That would actually make 'not processed' pixels as 2x2 same color, and processed pixels look 'smaller'. Since the background removal is a threshold function from the native sensor resolution (upsampling doesn't change the actual pixel value), it make sense to do that as part of reading in from the ADC (speculation, not done my own scanner design yet, only written drivers for high end Fujitsu scanners). That's pretty consistent with what you see in that image too.

Again, actual text tampering would entail also doctoring the outline of the text as applied in the background layer. If you want a smoking gun, that's where you would start looking.

[DMX7]

This thread belongs in the hall of fame of weak sauce and fail.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao @ talking about vector and then immediately going to pixel size. You can't make that shit up.

You know why they call it vector, Yoni?

[MannyIsGod]

So, everyone of those large pixels is a cluster of 4 smaller pixels of the same color? Not one group of four pixels (all, by the way, in a perfect square) has a different color?

Dude, the pixels are larger. They're also a different image than the one with smaller pixels.

Do you have any idea how raster files actually work? You cannot have a raster file made up of pixels with different pixel sizes.

[MannyIsGod]

Anyone who has used MS Paint has done pixel by pixel editing. I'm not even sure why anyone would bring that up as some kind of credential. Its obvious there's a severe lack of understanding here of how OCR works and what raster or vector file types are.

I'e never worked directly in image processing by any means but my GIS studies have gone into great detail about raster and vector file types because of their use in cartography and GIS. I literally LOLed at the idea of a scan producing a vector file with pixels.

[MannyIsGod]

2 x 6 resolution?

http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma_colors_gimp.jpg

[DarrinS]

Anyone who has used MS Paint has done pixel by pixel editing. I'm not even sure why anyone would bring that up as some kind of credential. Its obvious there's a severe lack of understanding here of how OCR works and what raster or vector file types are.

I'e never worked directly in image processing by any means but my GIS studies have gone into great detail about raster and vector file types because of their use in cartography and GIS. I literally LOLed at the idea of a scan producing a vector file with pixels.

There are technologies that compose vector and raster graphics (PDF, svg, Silverlight, Flash, etc), but I understand what you are saying.

[Saved By Zero]

Why so many even gave this bogus thread so many replies is insane.

[Wild Cobra]

ElNono, it's obvious you know quite a bit about scanned images. Still, the layers had two different scaling factors. How do you explain that.

I can tell you other concerns, but i know you will find a reason. Just like conspiracy theorists can always find something to grab on to, you will find some excuse and be an apologist for their inept showing of the birth certificate.

It comes back to this. Why not do something like link a real 600 DPI scan? they went to the effort to show he actually had a birth certificate and utterly failed. All they did was add to the conspiracy ideas.

[ChumpDumper]

ElNono, it's obvious you know quite a bit about scanned images. Still, the layers had two different scaling factors. How do you explain that.

I can tell you other concerns, but i know you will find a reason. Just like conspiracy theorists can always find something to grab on to, you will find some excuse and be an apologist for their inept showing of the birth certificate.

It comes back to this. Why not do something like link a real 600 DPI scan? they went to the effort to show he actually had a birth certificate and utterly failed. All they did was add to the conspiracy ideas.You do realize you just admitted to being a conspiracy theorist, don't you?

[ElNono]

ElNono, it's obvious you know quite a bit about scanned images. Still, the layers had two different scaling factors. How do you explain that.

The scale on the layers on that video all show 24% by 24%.

Let me guess... the video is lying!

[ElNono]

crofl

[Wild Cobra]

The scale on the layers on that video all show 24% by 24%.

Let me guess... the video is lying!
I could swear that one layer was at 48%.

[ElNono]

As far as your 'conspiracy theorists' or not, you'll have those even if he pulls a printed copy. Already stated that from a digital forgery standpoint, it's easier to forge a single layer document than it is to forge multi-layered ones.

At the end of the day, you or Yoni or whoever will believe whatever they want to believe, tbh.

[ElNono]

I could swear that one layer was at 48%.

Maybe it was a different video?

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe it was a different video?

:lol
Explain how that is possible, the two scalings, if from the same scan.

[Wild Cobra]

At 2:42 in post number 27, he says all are scaled at 24% except the last one. Scaled at 48%.

[MannyIsGod]

There are technologies that compose vector and raster graphics (PDF, svg, Silverlight, Flash, etc), but I understand what you are saying.

I mix them all the time. Vector files may be used for one layer as say the borders of counties while I'd use raster files for the likely hood of an event in specific locations.

Most radar images you see online mix raster and vector. The point is that the vector does not take any pixels up because the lines have no width. If you zoom in on a vector you don't see it get any bigger.

[ElNono]

Explain how that is possible, the two scalings, if from the same scan.

The last 'layer' is the green background. And already explained that's not part of the original document.


The green background pattern certainly isn't part of the original document.

It's pretty obvious if you see the document. That background wasn't part of the original scan. The 48% tells you it's a 150 dpi document and actually explains the 2x2 pixels.

Thanks, my explanation makes even more sense now.

[Wild Cobra]

LOl...

Excuses excuses:

9eJx7jsPV44

[ElNono]

LOl...

Excuses excuses:

We're talking about the long form document...

lol conspiracy

[Wild Cobra]

We're talking about the long form document...

lol conspiracy
Duh, but certain things still apply.