Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier
Disprove what was explained in the video.
|
Disporve what? Gillar's hand-waving about a stupid picture of an "Obot clown" that has nothing to do with the president's birth certificate?
The clipping mask is an ordinary addition of a lot of scanner software. Scanners automatically identify the borders of a scanned image and crop to fit. And as in this case, they will sometimes clip-mask the border to account for documents that are not aligned perfectly on the scanner platen.
Some of the other amateurish stupidities and deliberate falsehoods in this video include:
1. Gillar claims that we can prove the Guthrie cell-phone snapshot and the released PDF have the same source copy since the the date and certification line up perfectly, and this would not be possible since they were "hand stamped." Gillar's problem here is that they were
not hand stamped. Hawaii
machine stamps and seals all the document copies from their Department of Health.
2. The "additional information" Gillar claims is hidden behind the clipping mask is hardly "information" at all. They are completely illegible and apparently meaningless marks which could just as well have been dust or some other defect on the scanner platen as something on the original document. In fact, such defects are so common that they are actually
used by forensic scientists to identify a particular scanner from which scans have been made. Gillar makes the claim that they are not present on Guthrie's cell-phone snapshot. Ignoring that the marks are so subtle that they might actually be there, just not visible given the resolution of her cell phone camera, the fact that scanned images often carry defects from the platen that are not on the document pretty much renders Gillar's insistent certainty completely flaccid.
3. Gillar's theory also suffers from the rather patent stupidity of his "theory of history." He is claiming essentially that (since this is supposed to be a deliberate forgery) those illegible, pointless and ultimately eliminated marks were for some incomprehensible reason deliberately added by the "forger" and then subsequently (but just as deliberately) "hidden" behind a clipping mask.
What conceivable sense does that make?
4. Gillar calls the black and white photocopy handed out at the Whitehouse press conference a "poor quality photocopy," when it actually is a
far higher resolution image than the posted PDF. This is a intentional lie by Gillar, because the truth contradicts the intended conclusion of his video. Since it is impossible to go from a lower resolution image to a higher one, the PDF cannot be the original image, but must be (either) a scan of some original higher resolution source document, or a
second independent forgery.
That single detail completely eviscerates Gillar's entire theory that it is the original electronic forgery and the "original" is just a printout.
Ultimately, this is very similar to pseudoscientific "research" into nonsense like parapsychology or cryptozoology. The researchers have proven so incompetent to actually come up with solid evidence for their prejudices that they defer to tinier and tinier anomalies in the desperate hope of keeping their delusions alive.
And of course, there are always brain damaged cretins willing to swallow the stupidity hook, line and sinker. And some of them start birther threads on city-dato.
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.
