Now Israel says Obama's birth certificate is a fake. He'll be out in 6-8 weeks.

[anaconda]

A couple of things:

1) How do they know there is supposed to be a "1" at the end of the birth certificate number?

2) I thought I read previously that graphics software, for one reason or another, will actually separate a scanned document into multiple images, and that this is routine. Anyone know about this?

Thanks.

[Zippyjuan]

Perhaps the National Review (a conservative publication not likely to be an "Obama shill") can take a look at it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...than-goulding#

PDF Layers in Obama’s Birth Certificate

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.)

[idiom]

Why of why didn't they flatten the PDF?

[fr33]

We're a little over 3 weeks since the OP and his references made this bold prophesy. Only 3-5 more weeks before I can laugh in your face for being a false prophet.

[fr33]

Times up. The prediction was 100% wrong. Jerome Corsi and Israel Hanukoglu are full of crap.

[fisharmor]

Damn, already repped you in another thread.
This is some high-class smackdown.

[Tudo]

Hahahaha

[Indy Vidual]

Hahahaha

Michelle Obama Admits Barack Hussein Obama's Home Country is Kenya



Obama ADMITS Born in Kenya:

[Occam's Banana]

Perhaps the National Review (a conservative publication not likely to be an "Obama shill") can take a look at it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...than-goulding#

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.

I have about as much use for the whole Obama birth-certificate issue as I do for another hole in my head, but Goulding's statement here is just plain obtuse. Goulding is asserting that one of the following is the case:

A) the document is a fake - the government scrood da pooch and made a "laughably rookie mistake" (BTW: as opposed to what? a "laughably expert mistake?" This is a ham-fisted attempt at framing rather than persuading. Not good, if Goulding is trying to come across as being reasonable.)

or

B) the document is not a fake - some flunky in Hawaii simply didn't push the right button, or some such thing

For some reason he can't be bothered to explain, Goulding explicitly rejects (A) as "not plausible." (Why isn't it plausible? Does the government have rigorously foolproof quality-control procedures in place for absolutely guaranteeing that any faked-up documents it releases do not contain any mistakes - "rookie" and/or "laughable" and/or otherwise?)

Since Goulding can't be bothered to justify his assertion of implausibility, that leaves only (B). And since (B) is *nothing* more than a restatement of the very issue at question (viz., "is the document a fake?"), Goulding's "argument" is just an exercise in running around in question-begging circles.

No wonder he wants to "leave it at that." If I tried pulling off an "argument" that depended upon an implicit assumption of omni-competence on the part of government, I'd want to just "leave it at that," too.

[awake]

They want their Iran war with the US backing the whole mass murder. This will get it for them. Politics is the art of deception.