Kara Ben Nemsi wrote:
Suranis wrote:
I've had one or two successes. For instance, I had one guy on a youtube comment who was amazed that the background layer on the LFBC was not just the security paper but had lines and letters on it. He thought that the background was a solid green security paper pattern and he felt that that was the most damning evidence of forgery (I'd agree with him if it were true) Some have told me they are not sure anymore.
How did you convince him differently and what's his YT username?
I'm interested.
Well I'm going to do my best to reconstruct the discussion here. The username is IlmrynX, but I was talking with other people so I'll include where he replied to those comments and the comments he replied to.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=OwmfisorUccQuote:
The judge didn't have to see documents to find that Mario's constitutional argument was unpersuasive. He found the documents that Mario brought with him about Obama's eligibility to be unpersuasive. Also concidering that Mario was basicly agreeing that Obama was born in Hawai'i but that it didn;t matter for 4000 reasons..
Your guy lost his case against a first year lawyer. That pretty much shows what a doofus he was. And banannas dont grow in Austalia. Learn something about the world ok?
jjoshaugh in reply to SeekUFind 1 month ago
Quote:
The funny thing is the evidence provided at the Arpaio press conference is very damning and as a result, a requirement to have the long form birth certificate entered in to evidence cannot be allowed. That was the whole point of the defense argument. It's not required so we don't have to provide it. So why not provide it unless it is damning. If it's legit and you provide it. You win. Don't you? And losing one case isn't the end of the process. Please disprove even one thing Arpaio's team found.
IlmrynX in reply to jjoshaugh 1 month ago
Quote:
They said the PDF was created in Adobe photoshop on a PC. It was created on an apple mac using OS X Quarkpdfcontext. And if opened in adobe photoshop it has no layers. Layers only appear if opened in illustrator, a program that is designed to work with vertices not pixel photo images and is not designed to display PDFs at all.
And Mario was foxed becasue the defense stipulated that the online image cannot be entered into evidence as it doesn't prove anything, let alone forgery.
Hows that?
jjoshaugh in reply to IlmrynX 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam hide •
Quote:
@jjoshaugh. Did you watch the Arpaio press conference?It's entitled "Sheriff Joe Arpaio Press Conference March 31(time 50:49) on YouTube" They opened it in Illustrator and there were layers.I just did this myself on my PC. Are you saying that they were using a different PDF?Can you show me a video where they open the PDF you claim was made on OSX w/ Quarkpdfcontext and there were no layers.If not, I am going to have to call shenanigans.Assertions don't win over actual demonstrations.
IlmrynX in reply to jjoshaugh 1 month ago
Quote:
Have you ever scanned your passport into a PDF file using scanner compression software, then opened it in adobe Illustrator? The Birther possee did and guess what they found? They found LAYERS!
So they tried to explain it away. And they claim that rather than layers proving it was a forgery, they said it had too FEW layers to be genuine. Pathetic.
Why don't you mosy on over to obamabirthbook/com and talk with the guy the posse refused to talk to as he had proven their claims bull.
jjoshaugh in reply to steelalive2011 (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago
Quote:
Again. At the Arpaio press conference they presented evidence for free. I guess I have to buy this guy's book? But apparently you either have a copy of the book or have spoken to the guy. Right? Assertions don't win over demonstrations. Sorry. jjoshaugh. Nice try.
IlmrynX in reply to jjoshaugh 4 weeks ago
Quote:
Funny you should mention a book, as the very next day Zullo and Corsi published a book with all their "evidence" and of course Corsi is flogging his books at every public appearence. I ask you does that sound like the behaviour of a serious criminal investigation or?
And the man has a blog where he presents a lot of the evidence in the book. The book is highly technical with examples. AND you can get the counter evidence to Arpaio for free at thefogbow/com
And yes I have a copy of his book
jjoshaugh in reply to IlmrynX (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago
Quote:
Did I simply mention a book? Really? What I said, it that I have to sets of "evidence." One is freely available and I can see the demonstration. The other, I have to buy before I can even see the evidence. I went to that other site because you said they have counter proof. It was only available by buying the book. I will now go and look at thefogbow site to see if they show any counter demonstrations.
IlmrynX in reply to jjoshaugh (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago
Quote:
Quote:
Who gives a crap about photoshop? The PDF was created on an apple mac with QuarkPDFcontext. Birther experts couldn't even figure that out, and created a bad facsimile of the PDF on a PC with Adobe software. And if you open the PDF in phshop are no layers. What you have is Illustrator, a program designed to work with VERTICES, trying to sort out the PIXEL data on a PDF, a type of file it was never designed to display.
And I suppose you have seen the High res photos of the paper document?
jjoshaugh in reply to steelalive2011 (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago
And I suppose opening the documents in Word 2007 doesn't reveal any information then as well?
Quote:
Is word designed to read PDFs that were created on a non windows operating system, namely a Macintosh, using a non windows program?
No.
jjoshaugh in reply to IlmrynX (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago
Quote:
And yet...it was one of the legitmate proofs that the Mara Zebest document was not the original PDF posted on the WH site. So I like how you qualified your statement. LOL.
IlmrynX in reply to jjoshaugh (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago
Quote:
Mara Zebest couldn't even figure out that the document wasn't made on Adobe Photoshop. She proceeded from the assumption that it was, demonstrated how it COULD have been made with days of tedious work and was then flatfooted when people pointed out to her that no adobe product had ever touched it. And that was right there on the file information.
And all you get when you load a PDF up on Word is gibberish. Unless it has a picture involved in which it will display the pixel graphic.
jjoshaugh in reply to IlmrynX (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago
Quote:
Also, the issue with layers is a specific issue. It's one where the background security paper is in a layer itself. The argument is that cannot happen simply by scanning in a document. Please demonstrate how optimizing an image, which is what a scan is, will result in a layer which has the whole security background. This is evidence of manufacturing not simply scanning/optimizing.
IlmrynX in reply to jjoshaugh (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago
Quote:
Its not just the bacground security paper and you know it. Its also random letters and the latter part of the name dinham and the last number on the BC image. And 2 of the laywers are random dots. And the layers are layed out in a way no human would have dine it... but a program would.
And I dont have to dempnstrate it. Its on springfieldcompguy's channel for free. Go and look at it yourself
jjoshaugh in reply to IlmrynX (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago
Quote:
Actually, I did not know that. I went back and viewed the Arpaio video and watched springfieldcompguys video. I was under the impression that there was a single layer of just the security paper. It is actually conveyed in that way. I followed the same steps and saw what you described. There is no single layer of just the security paper. That would have been very damning. Thanks for the persevering. I need things demonstrated to me.
IlmrynX in reply to jjoshaugh (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago
Quote:
You are very welcome. Sorry if I came across overly harsh. I'm too used to dealing with totally blinkered birthers. I am glad I was at least able to answer some of your legitimate questions.
jjoshaugh in reply to IlmrynX (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago
Quote:
No worries. I do have concerns. Nevetheless, debate allows me to weigh the evidence. I viewed a single layer of just the security paper as probably the most significant issue with the LFBC. Now I see that I completely misunderstood the facts. But sincerely, thanks for pointing me to those videos. I am only seeking the truth and nothing else.
IlmrynX in reply to jjoshaugh (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago