Reply With Quote
Not
Sure
If
Serious
but:
I havent read the entire thread.thanks!
Not
Sure
If
Serious
but:
I havent read the entire thread.
Not
Sure
If
Serious
but:
I havent read the entire thread.
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.
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 do ent was intentionally altered or if it was altered by some scanning process.
you need to see them again.
Sure you already have. You chose not to believe it.
Compelling!
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.
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?
They're still translating the do ent!
Nobody is here to convince you of something you don't understand.
The conclusive evidence is right in front of you in the do ent. 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
"convince me"
If I wanted to beat my head against the brick wall of confirmation bias, I would argue with twoofers over 9-11or just bump the moon hoax thread that won't die.
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.
I gotta give Cobra credit here... at least he pretended to know what he was talking about.
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.
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.
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!)
The problem - although necessarily in this case - is that he always goes up against people who actually do know what they're talking about.
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 do ent.
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 do ent.
Yes, that do ent 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.
Well if thats the case, its probably the same person with the WC's Surgeon troll and its a damn good job of trolling.
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 do ent is adjusted accordingly.
That's exactly why I'm saying you see that because of AI is rendering the PDF for the screen.
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.
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.
There's nothing funky with the do ent. 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
