Obama reveals "Long Form Birth Certificate"

Current events and political views (It's not liberal vs conservative , it's better versus worse!)

Re: Obama reveals "Long Form Birth Certificate"

Post by Mbed0 on Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:40 am
([msg=59379]see Re: Obama reveals "Long Form Birth Certificate"[/msg])

pretentious wrote:What i think is suspicious is that while i don't have a great deal of experience in photo editing and stuff like that, i could probably do a far better job at forging a legal document. The idea that these guys, with the magnitude of resources available to them, can't even make hand writing done on a computer look half genuine, just seems strange. Is it meant to be reverse psychology of some sort? No one can possibly be that incompetent, it must be legit.


Logic that it's so bad that it must be legit is not very solid logic to begin with. But it disturbing/strange point that you(along with others) make. I can't objectively answer why it was so poorly done. My only theory is it's a detraction from real issues. Government and magician seem to have much in common in that respect.

Objective I can point out layers, kerning(old type writer couldn't do that), lettering, missing the seal, contradiction in doctors name, contradiction with Nordyke twins birth certificate(born the day after Obama), and different ink colors.
Mbed0
New User
New User
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Obama reveals "Long Form Birth Certificate"

Post by sanddbox on Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:24 am
([msg=59384]see Re: Obama reveals "Long Form Birth Certificate"[/msg])

Mbed0 wrote:I feel that you didn't watch mine, he does explain that in the next couple of videos that address this claim directly. And that is not the only think out of place. So watch those. I've played with it myself. I say go get if it is still up. Look at the inks, the letters, and all that good stuff up close.


Do you not understand how OCR works? It scans the image and identifies letters and replaces them. That is what causes the "computer generated ink" effect, and also why layers show random letters apparently being edited in. Does it really make sense that they added an "e" to "non" to make none?

Let me summarize and disprove this guy's argument:

The basis of his argument, from what I saw from the first video, was as such:

Code: Select all
1. If a PDF file has multiple layers, it has not been scanned.
2. The PDF file had multiple layers.
3. The PDF file was not scanned, which contradicts what the government said, showing that it may have been tampered.


This argument has been proven false, as point 1 relies on the postulate that a PDF file with multiple layers has not been scanned. However, if a PDF is scanned and OCR is used, multiple layers will be generated. As statement #1 was the basis of his argument, it has been invalidated.

Let's look another of his arguments:

Code: Select all
1. If when zoomed in, all the ink is one solid color, it is computer-drawn.
2. Many of the letters were one solid color.
3. Therefore, they were drawn via a computer (as opposed to being drawn by hand like a real birth certificate).
4. Therefore, the birth certificate is a forgery.


The erroneous statement in this argument is #4 - just because some letters were computer drawn does not make the document a forgery, as they used to be hand-drawn letters, but were replaced due to the OCR.

-- Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:02 am --

Also, it's worth noting that all future arguments made by this "expert" are refuted here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp.
Image

HTS User Composition:
95% Male
4.98% Female
.01% Monica
.01% Goat
User avatar
sanddbox
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Obama reveals "Long Form Birth Certificate"

Post by Mbed0 on Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:23 am
([msg=59388]see Re: Obama reveals "Long Form Birth Certificate"[/msg])

To sandbox:

Optimize scan and OCR.... AGAIN this four part series does a very good job of explaining LAYERS. This one is part four which address this claim, which you have not debunked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW_PWzhg ... ion_899673

The layers are not the lone argument, it is support for others. The series I just gave you doesn't go into all of them in any detail. And for the "non"e, the "non" could replaced instead of "wif"e. Non was added to the document.

At this point you are attempting a straw man argument. I've given you info, look at it.

If you really want to look at all of claims here is a nice piece on the errors found.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=296881
Mbed0
New User
New User
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Previous

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests