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.
No, because I don't have illustrator. I did post a vid above about how to make PDF editable and it was quite instructive. I am trying to understand what you are saying, but so far even after having looked at several "how to" vids, I am far from convinced that the document was not constructed. It is not a DIRECT copy- to-scan from the book or file where it has supposedly been for over nearly 50 years. It has been tampered with.
However:
Quote:
It is an EDITABLE PDF. Someone has to purposely use a program on it to make it editable. It does not become automatically editable just because it was scanned into a PDF.
I noticed that you cut off the end of my quote about how it has to be purposefully put into an editing program. Why would anyone do that with this document in the first place or ever? There is no reason to do that with something that should be a direct copy/scan from an an original old document in order to be bona fide.
With all due respect my good friend ... lets make sure we use the right argument.
ADOBE Acrobat cannot create layers ... BUT layers can be created and maintained in a pdf document, and the software that is used to scan a document and save it off as a pdf file could concievably create layers for the purpose of compression.
What is not likely is for random generation of layers to be done without human intervention in the manner that we see ... with various portions of text being separated by different layers.
The big argument was that Adobe Illustrator automatically creates layers when a pdf is imported ... mystery solved. But those auto created layers don't have data in them ... there is still just the single layer of data. And that is not what we see with the birth certificate ... we see layers populated with data ..... among many other inexplicable anomalies.
These deniers and apologists will latch onto anything ... no matter how obscure, while ignoring everything else, if given the opportunity.
I made the error early of saying that Illustrator wouldn't automatically create separate layers ... what I meant by that statement was that Illustrator wouldn't create separate layers filled with data in each of those layers ... but the response was LOOK ... SEE ... it creates layers!!!! Well ... not really ... it creates empty layers ... probably by default for a place to separate objects in a multiple object file ... but they latched onto that like a dog to a bone, ignoring the OBVIOUS differences between those automatically created empty layers, and the multiple layers containing elements of the entire document as is seen with the BC.
Don't give em any wiggle room.
".....with various portions of text being separated by different layers..."
Yes, thank you. I was not clear in my argument but I understood it as you state above. I am not as good at expressing myself as you are. Keep up the good work!
open up both the birth cert and the sample that national revue gave. i think it will give you some better understanding on what happens in the PDF conversion to AI.
I don't think it's amazing that someone on the left linked to a right-leaning periodical in hopes of persuading a right-leaning person of their argument. I see people on right do exactly the same thing. People on the left tend to favor left-leaning sources. People on the right tend to favor right-leaning sources. But people on the left are more than willing to cite right-leaning sources when they endorse the left's argument. Just as people on the right will cite a left-leaning source that endorses their argument. When you are trying to persuade someone of a point, it tends to be more persuasive to cite from a information source they normally favor.
What is interesting is that people who generally identify with the GOP but who have become emotionally vested in the birther arguments are willing to completely abandon the GOP in favor of this single issue. Clearly there is a lot of passion at play on this.
Well that wouldn't define me. You can look at thousands of posts and you will see one consistent position from me ... that the left-right argument is false, and that both parties are members of the same team .... not the people's team .... their team.
the video you post here references editing using OCR softwear. as i pointed out in a previous post if OCR had been used there would be consistency among the type faces. there isn't.
Sorry I missed your posts. It's hard to keep track when there are 138 pages, lol. I'd love to read what you said. If you can link me to your posts, that'd be extremely helpful. Thanks.
I don't know how to link to them but my first post is #1268 and then more are scattered on down. However, I would recommend GNT's posts as good explanations. Sometimes I understand things perfectly but do not put my understandings into words very well- especially technical details.
the video you post here references editing using OCR softwear. as i pointed out in a previous post if OCR had been used there would be consistency among the type faces. there isn't.
I know I am not clear as this is not an area of expertise of mine. Still, I can plainly see that the document has been tampered with and I can understand what the demonstrators are saying, though I may not retain all the details for retelling.
You, also, are not clear. I don't know if you are able to be more clear but are you saying that the people who are demonstrating the document anomalies are the ones who caused these anomalies?
Well that wouldn't define me. You can look at thousands of posts and you will see one consistent position from me ... that the left-right argument is false, and that both parties are members of the same team .... not the people's team .... their team.
I understand that YOU are not typical. However, the use of National Review to persuade right-leaning people is not an exceptional strategy either. I often feel the need to say that I don't fit the stereotype. The truth is, hardly any of actually do. Sometimes things about the stereotype apply to us, and quite often they don't.
I know I am not clear as this is not an area of expertise of mine. Still, I can plainly see that the document has been tampered with and I can understand what the demonstrators are saying, though I may not retain all the details for retelling.
You, also, are not clear. I don't know if you are able to be more clear but are you saying that the people who are demonstrating the document anomalies are the ones who caused these anomalies?
no, they did not cause the anomalies, nor did i. i have the exact same ones when i open the file in illustrator. i think the problem lies in understanding where/when the file was "tampered with". the original scan is just fine. the "tampering" is the result of the computer trying to convert the PDF into something illustrator can understand and creating bizarre "editable" pieces ( which aren't true layers ). to illustrate this the national revue took their own scan ( no tampering ) saved it as a PDF optimized for the web ( correct procedure ) then opened it in illustrator and....... viola...... they got the same bizarre "editables" ( even more than the birth cert ).
i'd recommend getting the trial copy of illustrator and seeing for yourself.
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.
