U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-15-2012, 12:04 PM
 
19,280 posts, read 9,187,918 times
Reputation: 3919

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gsgsgs View Post
yes, that's how I found this page. They posted a "pingback" to your link.
I had forgotten that I was already member here
welcome (back).

i was just about to reply ( with the guthrie photos and HI DoH confirmation ) to this post from last night in a different forum but i'd be interested to get your take on it ( and the zatkovich analysis ) since your technical knowledge far outweighs mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gal from the South View Post
Oops... I guess you didn't read the report. See below for excerpts from the second link. The first link wouldn't open.

Here is the last paragraph:

All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document. It is possible that in addition to enhancing the legibility of the document that the content of the document was also changed. There is no specific evidence of how or why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was changed.

Also in the report:
The meta data indicates that some parts of the file are TIFF images and some parts of the file are PNG.
These are two common file formats. TIFF images are usually produced by scanning softwarebused with scanner devices. PNG is a newer format used by graphics programs that store in graphics databa more efficient format producing smaller files than TIFF files.

The two image types appearing in the meta data is consistent with the fact that the PDF document contains layers where small chunks of image are overlaid on the larger background image containing the form and security paper background. What caused those layers to exist is unknown. One commenter at a prominent website said that the layers were caused by “optimizing the PDF.” I know of no PDF optimization process that creates layers in the output PDF file.
Romney debate stipulation "Say Mr. Ryan NOT Congressman Ryan"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2012, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Germany
261 posts, read 189,715 times
Reputation: 64
(E) generally to learn whom and what to trust in internet and how to figure that out

---------------------------------------------------

the document was clearly changed in that it was optimized to reduce the size.
That's very common in internet, usually you see .jpg images.
Here they made a pdf file, that's common for WH-documents.

I think this size reduction was probably the only reason for the separation into the layers.
And that this separation was done automatically, by some algorithm, and the main
criterium was the exact color of the areas. (2ndary also maybe the location, distance
from other areas, connection of dark areas)

I haven't noticed the TIFF-files, is that mentioned in the meta-data ?
After compression we have 8 binary files compressed with "flate" as used in
pkzip,gnuzip,... and one 256-color file compressed with DCT (discrete cosine transform)
as used in JPG compression. The resolution of the 8 bit background layer was halfed
for better compression.
I extracted the 9 layers with the pdftotext.exe utility and reassembled them together
with the layer boundaries in red and pixels to mark the 16x16-grid (8x8 in the background)
which was used by the compression algorithm here:
http://magictour.free.fr/OUTLINE.BMZ
(decompress with gzip and rename to a .bmp, I use irfanview to view it)

The way how this separation and compression was done makes sense IMO, although
the exact program that was used is unknown, it must be pretty uncommon.

[wikipedia links to flate/deflate , DCT)
(link to irfanview)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_cosine_transform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFLATE
http://www.irfanview.de/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 12:41 PM
 
Location: NC
1,673 posts, read 1,488,830 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02 View Post
If Obama wasn't born in the USA, why wouldn't people want to know? If we have a President that is illegal, why are Democrats, who supposedly love this country and the principles in which it was founded on, not care? We aren't talking about an issue of policy here. We are talking about possibly the biggest scandal in American history! Democrats are quick to judge anybody who questions the Hawaii birth certificate as a racist, but why is that? This has nothing to do with race, this is about protecting the Constitution of the United States and the best interests of our country!
All threads like yours do is reinforce the fact the the great nation known as the United States is still marred by approximately 20% of the population who are extremely ignorant and/or racist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 03:15 PM
 
993 posts, read 685,639 times
Reputation: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-recor...ate_042711.pdf

" Both documents are legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawai„i, and both provide the
same fundamental information: President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai„i at 7:24
p.m. on August 4, 1961, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein
Obama. "
Quote:
Originally Posted by disturbia752 View Post
Birthers are racist idiots, and the State of Hawaii has confirmed Obama was born there. He's an American period, you just can't accept a black man whose name sounds "scary" to you as our President. I never saw ANYBODY ask about birth certificates until Obama came around, and even now that he's shown all the proof that can possibly be shown they won't accept it, that tells me all I need to know. You Birthers make me sick.
The statement from Hawaii is dated the day they released it, and it does not confirm that the whitehouse.gov document wasn't altered. That's what all the fuss is about. Everyone knows what Hawaii stated that day. Knowing it hasn't been settled in 1 1/2 years due to the obvious changes in the document, they could just as easily issue another statement. Also, they did not state his birth name, which I would be interested to see confirmed by them. They just said "President Obama" was born there.

If "birthers" make you sick, maybe Michelle Obama should, too. She is recorded in public saying Kenya is his home country. Also, Obama allowed that fact to be printed at Harvard Law School and his publisher stood by that info. for 16 years. Leave it to a democrat to play the racist card yet again.

What democrats can't see because they are voluntarily blind, is that he is hiding something. We just don't know what that is. People don't go around publishing they were born in Kenya for years unless there's a reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 03:22 PM
 
993 posts, read 685,639 times
Reputation: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
too bad nobody wants to include the paternal grandmothers account that hussein was born in kenya and that she was there............
also the fact the husseins SSN is not a SSN from Hawaii. too bad people just cant seem to explain that away either.
Even the Kenyan Ambassador says his birthplace was well-known and they planned to put up a monument. He says this toward the end - around 12 - 12 1/2 minutes into it. The first part shows it's a legitimate recording.

Kenyan Ambassador Admits Obama Born There - Birthplace "Already Well Known" / Audio Recording - YouTube

Last edited by Gal from the South; 10-15-2012 at 03:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 03:39 PM
 
993 posts, read 685,639 times
Reputation: 252
Obama supporters have posted two types of articles about the birth certificate issue.

1. Articles that are not thorough and only talked about layers existing, which can happen for various reasons. It didn't talk about the other inconsistencies and the extreme high unlikihood that all these things could have happened without intentional manipulation.

2. Articles trying to explain this away by proposing some mysterious sequence of unexplainable events. The first logical conclusion of anyone who knows computer graphics, is that the document was altered by a person. Democrats think we imagine the problem when in fact, the only way to explain this away is to stretch the imagation to the outer limits to try to find a way to dismiss the obvious.

It would be good for all concerned if a democrat who knows the facts would just go ahead and admit the document was tampered with, and say they don't care, or whatever. That would be better than all the illogical convoluted excuses about the inconsistencies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 03:44 PM
 
19,280 posts, read 9,187,918 times
Reputation: 3919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gal from the South View Post
The statement from Hawaii is dated the day they released it, and it does not confirm that the whitehouse.gov document wasn't altered. That's what all the fuss is about.
so you believe that the state of hawaii sent an official certified document that stated the president was " born in Honolulu, Hawai„i at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama " but the white house felt the need to make a fraudulent document stating that the president was " born in Honolulu, Hawai„i at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama ". is that a correct assessment of your belief?

Quote:
Knowing it hasn't been settled in 1 1/2 years due to the obvious changes in the document,....
exactly what "changes"?

Quote:
....... they could just as easily issue another statement.
"he really really really REALLY was born here."

Quote:
Also, they did not state his birth name, which I would be interested to see confirmed by them. They just said "President Obama" was born there.
so now your belief is that the HI department of health may have been referring to a different US president that was born in Honolulu, Hawai„i at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961?

Quote:
If "birthers" make you sick, maybe Michelle Obama should, too. She is recorded in public saying Kenya is his home country.
yep, and JFK calling himself a "berliner" and ronald reagan referring to his "home town" of ballyporeen, ireland as "wonderful".

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/we...then.html?_r=0

Quote:
Also, Obama allowed that fact to be printed at Harvard Law School and his publisher stood by that info. for 16 years.
it was after he graduated harvard law and the fact that the bio blurb stood for 16years is a testament to the fact that it wasn't closely checked. the blurb was used in connection with "dreams from my father", a book that specifically talks about obama being born in hawaii.

Quote:
What democrats can't see because they are voluntarily blind, is that he is hiding something.
my views on birtherism are not based on anything the president has or hasn't said or speculation on what he may be "hiding" ( maybe that's because i'm independent ).

Quote:
People don't go around publishing they were born in Kenya for years unless there's a reason.
there is a reason, mariam goderich skrewed up ( by her own admission ), no one checked, and the thing got cut-n-pasted for several years until it was discovered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 04:59 PM
 
19,280 posts, read 9,187,918 times
Reputation: 3919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gal from the South View Post
Obama supporters have posted two types of articles about the birth certificate issue.
you don't have to be an obama supporter to believe that belief in birtherism is completely ridiculous.

Quote:
1. Articles that are not thorough and only talked about layers existing,....
not thorough? john woodman wrote an entire book debunking all of the birther "fraudulent LFBC" claims going into minute detail well beyond the existence of layers ( which the birthers have contradicted themselves on. the first claim was that layers were impossible, then the cold case posse claimed there weren't enough layers).

An Easy-to-Find Guide to the Content of This Site

Quote:
2. Articles trying to explain this away by proposing some mysterious sequence of unexplainable events.
what exactly do you consider a "mysterious sequence" and "unexplainable events" in this context?

Quote:
The first logical conclusion of anyone who knows computer graphics, is that the document was altered by a person.
you have a strange sense of logic. the PDF matches exactly the photo taken of the physical copy by savannah guthrie. how does your logic dictate "they look exactly the same therefore one must be altered"?

Quote:
Democrats think we imagine the problem....
as do some independents and republicans.

Quote:
.... when in fact, the only way to explain this away is to stretch the imagation to the outer limits to try to find a way to dismiss the obvious.
the outer limit of your imagination is "it was scanned" ? i'd avoid writing children's books.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Barrington
42,265 posts, read 32,046,000 times
Reputation: 14171
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02 View Post

And you liberals weren't totally convinced Bush was behind or at least knew about 9/11 beforehand?
These folk are referred to as "9/11 truthers", generally men in their 20 who favor right wing politics :

9/11 Truth movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 08:42 PM
 
993 posts, read 685,639 times
Reputation: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
you don't have to be an obama supporter to believe that belief in birtherism is completely ridiculous.



not thorough? john woodman wrote an entire book debunking all of the birther "fraudulent LFBC" claims going into minute detail well beyond the existence of layers ( which the birthers have contradicted themselves on. the first claim was that layers were impossible, then the cold case posse claimed there weren't enough layers).

An Easy-to-Find Guide to the Content of This Site


what exactly do you consider a "mysterious sequence" and "unexplainable events" in this context?


you have a strange sense of logic. the PDF matches exactly the photo taken of the physical copy by savannah guthrie. how does your logic dictate "they look exactly the same therefore one must be altered"?

as do some independents and republicans.

the outer limit of your imagination is "it was scanned" ? i'd avoid writing children's books.
I did not say that Hawaii released a birth certificate of a different president. I said that Hawaii did not said the name on his certificate was Barack Hussein Obama.

For every computer expert that says the multiple inconsistencies were explainable, there are many, many more who will call BS on that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top