View Single Post
      05-24-2011, 07:51 PM   #29
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
167
Rep
4,759
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11Series View Post
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...athan-goulding

The RIGHT WING National Review has already done the work on OCR. No need to redo it.

PDF Layers in Obama’s Birth Certificate
April 27, 2011 2:35 P.M.
By Nathan Goulding

We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.

The PDF is composed of multiple images. That’s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they’re being called, aren’t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They’re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.

What’s plausible is that somewhere along the way — from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) — these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What’s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama’s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It’s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let’s leave it at that.

UPDATE: I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.

UPDATE II: For those of you who still aren’t convinced, here’s a one-page PDF that I just scanned and optimized, so you can see for yourself that an optimized PDF shows up in Illustrator as layers. (I didn’t spend hours getting the settings right.)


Your conspiracy theory was killed almost a MONTH ago!!

Stop falling into Obama's trap to make you look like a complete moron.
Thanks for copying and pasting that. Have you tried the scanning to PDF yourself? Unfortunately I don't have Windows and Adobe software anymore since I switched to Linux, The GIMP and Okular for my scanning and OCR. In these packages you don't get any of these junk layers. I don't even scan much anymore (I used to scan a lot but never made the error of leaving OCR on when it should be on). Maybe it was a stupid clerical mistake.

I still haven't watched videos 2, 3 and 4. In video 1, the piece that caught my eye was what could be either digital painting on the Dunham signature, or perhaps using threshold settings on the scan. Either that is deliberately tampering with the scanned image, or it is a strange thing that scanning with OCR would switch between gray scale and a threshold filter. It just doesn't add up.

I am not going to pick up copies of all these Windows software packages to see if I can recreate Obama's errors. Others can battle that out.

Again, thanks for posting, but in too many of your comments you are not discussing issues and information. You are attacking others who want to discuss these things. That is simply unacceptable language. You need to just stop it. Post rational replies without cutting remarks and you will be taken much more seriously, and perhaps not be shouting at your computer screen.

Jerome Corsi's book has shipped. I'll have my copy soon. Maybe I will read it soon and have more to discuss. But your anger and your haranguing in these forums in not conducive to rational discussion, but is more likely to elicit shallow replies if anything. It is as if you have been coached by ACORN how to shout down opposing views in the hope of silencing them.

If you have calmed your tone, then I apologize. I think I get you mixed up with xbook at times because you both often post together. I am not going to go back and read them again to see who was who.