Obama's birth certificate is a fake (crimes, Alaska, meaning, FBI)
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.
I think what you are saying is that there is a line for you where anything below that line is a dead issue. Can you please provide some data that backs up this line or is this just your opinion?
How many dead issues are you posting to that you find entertaining?
Several. I also post on 9/11 Truthism, Chemtrails and Creationism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT
I think what you are saying is that there is a line for you where anything below that line is a dead issue. Can you please provide some data that backs up this line or is this just your opinion?
I just posted that data.
Certainly, you do not need some deep analysis to understand the difference between tens of thousands of current news articles and a few hundred. Right?
I am sure you have heard most, if not all, of the arguments and it is apparent that nothing has effected your way of thinking so it would be a mission of futility.
An argument of "I think Obama is lying about where he's born, and I'm not going to tell you what think happened because you won't agree with me!" is a very poor debate tactic. Debates on the internet, especially a busy forum like this one, aren't just between you and me. There are other posters in this thread, and there are likely many others reading this thread who don't post. Some of those may be undecided. I will admit that it's unlikely you could convince me at this point, but maybe you could convince somebody else.
I keep asking these questions of posters because I am genuinely curious as to what their theory is of the circumstances of Obama's birth. I suspect that there are many who've never even thought that far, just so long as Obama's eligibility is placed into some doubt. But your reaction of "Nah, I won't tell you," has been by far the most common response. I'll admit, it is irritating, because it frustrates my curiosity and makes it seem like I'm debating a bunch of children who aren't actually interested in anything close to a reasoned discussion.
Quote:
I never stated that because they lie they are lying about this, I only say that it sets a precedence that they are capable as apposed to being incapable.
You haven't used those exact words, but you've certainly voiced that sentiment.
Quote:
The fact that it is done is strong logic that it will be done again and in my opinion is in this matter.
And again, it is not a straight scan of a document. It is a scan into an optimized PDF.
True if it was scanned to JPEG. True if it was scaned to TIFF. True if it was scanned to GIF. True if it was scanned to BMP.
False if it was scanned to PDF.
Oh look! It's a PDF.
I call bullsh*t. This doesn't even make sense. Why would there be a scanning step between printing and certifying?
I again call bullsh*t. It does not always or even usually produce a single layer file if the output is a PDF. I suspect that this writer has never even bothered to check. Seriously? Why would they have ever bothered to check how many layers were in a PDF they had just created?
This is simply false, as can be proved by anyone with a MAC. The metadata proves that 1) no Adobe product ever touched this PDF and 2) that from the moment of its creation it has never been altered.
So you are saying if it is scanned with a copy machine and then created as a PDF file, then there could still be as many as ten layers?
So you are saying if it is scanned with a copy machine and then created as a PDF file, then there could still be as many as ten layers?
Depends on the copying machine. But this was not scanned on a copying machine. It was scanned on a flatbed scanner using Apple Preview on a Mac OS X 10.6.7 system. The PDF encoder was "Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext" (that's the back-end system library on a Mac).
And yes... any mildly complex document scanned that way will have a number of layers... even more than ten for some.
I think I know someone who could make that happen even if it hadn't, you may know someone to.
Okay... now think about that.
You are contending that whoever created this PDF was brilliant enough to change the metadata (a very hard thing to do) but too stupid to flatten the layers (a trivially easy thing to do).
I have a much simpler explanation that manages to account for every detail of the PDF.
It was scanned directly into an optimized PDF.
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.
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.
