Author Topic: Rename the board? (Read 11302 times)

jtksu · « **Reply #50 on:** April 29, 2011, 01:41:15 PM »

Saw a dude try to auction of a case of that stuff on Auction Kings or one of those shows. Dude got like $100 or maybe $200.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #51 on:** April 30, 2011, 09:52:22 AM »

Quote from: LickNeckey on April 29, 2011, 01:08:10 PM

ohh the stagflation that affected most of the western world was caused by Carter? weird i didn't know that

I guess if you're going to defend Obama's economic policy, you pretty much have to defend Jimbo's.

HeinBallz · « **Reply #52 on:** May 12, 2011, 11:45:53 AM »

playing devils advocate here:

HeinBallz · « **Reply #53 on:** May 12, 2011, 11:50:02 AM »

Quote from: HeinBallz on May 12, 2011, 11:45:53 AM

playing devils advocate here:

As someone who is naturally a skeptic, but accepted the Birth certificate as genuine when it was release (based solely on thinking it was a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) argument to say the president wasn't born in the U.S.) Everything in that video is 100% logical. As someone who has, allegedly, faked documents in the past I know what trails to follow when looking for a fake.

I myself downloaded the .pdf from whitehouse.gov & everything in that video is true concerning the layers. I can say with 100% certainty that this document was tampered with. If this was a scanned document; everything should have been a rasterized image - no different than taking a picture with a camera. Instead, several portions in that document are vector based pieces of art which can only be generated by a computer - not a scanner. Having said all of that; It is without a doubt the most amateur looking photoshop I have ever seen. I would like to think that our government is capable of forging a better document. Which brings about a couple of scenarios: 1.The person that tampered with this document was really bad at their job. 2. The person that was asked to "doctor" this document was a closet republican and wanted to get the president caught or 3. What I believe most likely, This was done intentionally to further make birthers & trump look like conspiracy theory loony-toons.

SkinnyBenny · « **Reply #54 on:** May 12, 2011, 11:54:25 AM »

Quote from: HeinBallz on May 12, 2011, 11:45:53 AM

playing devils advocate here:

Love these people. LOVE them.

Yeah, pubescent guy making a YouTube video, you're right. The leader of the free world, who by the way just used two undetectable $60m stealth helicopters to orchestrate a nighttime raid that found and killed the planet's most wanted man, couldn't find a guy to do a decent photoshop.

Your YouTube video has me convinced.

HeinBallz · « **Reply #55 on:** May 12, 2011, 12:01:34 PM »

Actually, the youtube guy is right. This document was in fact tampered with. The motivation behind it is the only thing open for question. There is no doubt in my mind this was not just a place the document on the scanner and hit scan. Impossible. Some post editing absolutely, 100% positively, took place. Every person that knows anything about Illustrator can go to whitehouse.gov download the .pdf and see the added text themselves.

but why?

It's so amateur that there is no way it wasn't done on purpose. There's 100 different easy ways to prevent someone from seeing artwork added in a .pdf; but none of them were done. Why?

john "teach me how to" dougie · « **Reply #56 on:** May 12, 2011, 12:09:22 PM »

The layers thing is easily explained. Any PDF that has more than one discernible color will have layers, it's part of the process of making a PDF.

Depending on the scanner used and the settings, colors that may look the same will not be scanned as the exact same color, so when the PDF is made, they will be seen as different colors and be put in separate layers. This is easily verifiable if you have a scanner, a PDF maker, and Illustrator.

SkinnyBenny · « **Reply #57 on:** May 12, 2011, 12:11:41 PM »

Quote from: HeinBallz on May 12, 2011, 12:01:34 PM

Actually, the youtube guy is right. This document was in fact tampered with. The motivation behind it is the only thing open for question. There is no doubt in my mind this was not just a place the document on the scanner and hit scan. Impossible. Some post editing absolutely, 100% positively, took place. Every person that knows anything about Illustrator can go to whitehouse.gov download the .pdf and see the added text themselves.

but why?

It's so amateur that there is no way it wasn't done on purpose. There's 100 different easy ways to prevent someone from seeing artwork added in a .pdf; but none of them were done. Why?

Maybe you're right. I def. don't know anything about Illustrator, so I can't say. I just like the idea that Birther 'tards think that this is a smoking gun to prove that Obama is a Kenyan and therefore should be kicked out of office. If it is faked like you say, it just furthers fff's claim that Obama is really f***ing good.

wetwillie · « **Reply #58 on:** May 12, 2011, 01:01:02 PM »

Quote from: SkinnyBenny on May 12, 2011, 12:11:41 PM

Quote from: HeinBallz on May 12, 2011, 12:01:34 PM
Actually, the youtube guy is right. This document was in fact tampered with. The motivation behind it is the only thing open for question. There is no doubt in my mind this was not just a place the document on the scanner and hit scan. Impossible. Some post editing absolutely, 100% positively, took place. Every person that knows anything about Illustrator can go to whitehouse.gov download the .pdf and see the added text themselves.

but why?

It's so amateur that there is no way it wasn't done on purpose. There's 100 different easy ways to prevent someone from seeing artwork added in a .pdf; but none of them were done. Why?

Maybe you're right. I def. don't know anything about Illustrator, so I can't say. I just like the idea that Birther 'tards think that this is a smoking gun to prove that Obama is a Kenyan and therefore should be kicked out of office. If it is faked like you say, it just furthers fff's claim that Obama is really f***ing good.

I've branched off and now claim Obama was a test tube baby manufactured in a lab in Montreal.

HeinBallz · « **Reply #59 on:** May 12, 2011, 01:35:45 PM »

Quote from: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 12, 2011, 12:09:22 PM

The layers thing is easily explained. Any PDF that has more than one discernible color will have layers, it's part of the process of making a PDF.

Depending on the scanner used and the settings, colors that may look the same will not be scanned as the exact same color, so when the PDF is made, they will be seen as different colors and be put in separate layers. This is easily verifiable if you have a scanner, a PDF maker, and Illustrator.

what is easily explained is how you don't know what the eff you're talking about. There are several different ways a .pdf can be made. A .pdf is just a file format that packages images/vector artwork/ fonts into a universal file format that everyone can read. A .pdf can contain compressed .zip files, compressed .jpg files, compressed .tif files fonts / line or vector artwork even color profiles for printing. Each application has it's own way of creating .pdf files. Some will apply layered mask's to show where an images has been cropped or inserted / some will break fonts out into different layers and some will just scan it all as a rasterized image onto one layer (which is how most scanners perform this function. The only type of software that will automatically break items out into different layers is when OCR technology has been applied. Which is not actually performed by the scanner, but the software being utilized by the scanner. OCR technology tries to recognize fonts & create copyable & editable text out of something that is scanned. It is very unreliable & will often read things inaccurately. For example "r" might turn into an "n" etc. What OCR will not do is break out separate colors and place them on a separate layer. The only thing that will do that is "live trace" functions and are not typically part of scanning software. IF this particular .pdf were done with a live trace function, everything would have been vector artwork. There would not be half rasterized / half vector artwork. Furthermore, Any Live Trace function would not have known to separate background from font without OCR. Any software applied such as OCR technology would not have separated text from the background and changed the color of the fonts & it would not have recognized a signature during OCR processing. Completely blows your theory out of the water. The scanner has no idea what a background is and what text is. Someone would have had to manually manipulate this file. Why is the question I'm posing to you.

HeinBallz · « **Reply #60 on:** May 12, 2011, 01:40:25 PM »

I personally believe that this was intentionally manipulated and a left to look like a poor photoshop job to keep the birthers looking like idiots. To dispute that this certificate was not manipulated in any way just shows that you are just as close minded as racist birthers trying to get a black president thrown out of office on technicality.

john "teach me how to" dougie · « **Reply #61 on:** May 12, 2011, 02:01:29 PM »

Quote from: HeinBallz on May 12, 2011, 01:35:45 PM

Quote from: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 12, 2011, 12:09:22 PM
The layers thing is easily explained. Any PDF that has more than one discernible color will have layers, it's part of the process of making a PDF.

Depending on the scanner used and the settings, colors that may look the same will not be scanned as the exact same color, so when the PDF is made, they will be seen as different colors and be put in separate layers. This is easily verifiable if you have a scanner, a PDF maker, and Illustrator.

what is easily explained is how you don't know what the eff you're talking about. There are several different ways a .pdf can be made. A .pdf is just a file format that packages images/vector artwork/ fonts into a universal file format that everyone can read. A .pdf can contain compressed .zip files, compressed .jpg files, compressed .tif files fonts / line or vector artwork even color profiles for printing. Each application has it's own way of creating .pdf files. Some will apply layered mask's to show where an images has been cropped or inserted / some will break fonts out into different layers and some will just scan it all as a rasterized image onto one layer (which is how most scanners perform this function. The only type of software that will automatically break items out into different layers is when OCR technology has been applied. Which is not actually performed by the scanner, but the software being utilized by the scanner. OCR technology tries to recognize fonts & create copyable & editable text out of something that is scanned. It is very unreliable & will often read things inaccurately. For example "r" might turn into an "n" etc. What OCR will not do is break out separate colors and place them on a separate layer. The only thing that will do that is "live trace" functions and are not typically part of scanning software. IF this particular .pdf were done with a live trace function, everything would have been vector artwork. There would not be half rasterized / half vector artwork. Furthermore, Any Live Trace function would not have known to separate background from font without OCR. Any software applied such as OCR technology would not have separated text from the background and changed the color of the fonts & it would not have recognized a signature during OCR processing. Completely blows your theory out of the water. The scanner has no idea what a background is and what text is. Someone would have had to manually manipulate this file. Why is the question I'm posing to you.

HeinBallz · « **Reply #62 on:** May 12, 2011, 02:28:42 PM »

More like John "Teach me how to" use .pdfs

john "teach me how to" dougie · « **Reply #63 on:** May 12, 2011, 03:30:46 PM »

More like Hein "I wouldn't know a PDF layer if it hit me in the" Ballz

CHONGS · « **Reply #64 on:** May 12, 2011, 03:37:12 PM »

wow

keep digging HeinBallz, you're very close to blowing the whole thing wide open...

HeinBallz · « **Reply #65 on:** May 12, 2011, 04:04:47 PM »

blowing what open? I haven't said anything that wasn't a fact. No where did I state he wasn't a u.s. citizen. All I've said is this birth certificate has been tampered with. Prove me wrong or shut up.

CHONGS · « **Reply #66 on:** May 12, 2011, 05:13:35 PM »

Quote from: HeinBallz on May 12, 2011, 04:04:47 PM

blowing what open? I haven't said anything that wasn't a fact. No where did I state he wasn't a u.s. citizen. All I've said is this birth certificate has been tampered with. Prove me wrong or shut up.

to be fair you have stated many opinions that you think are facts. from what i understand about the "controversy" this is in fact a quite repeatable artifact caused by checking the optimized PDF option

http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Acrobat/9.0/Standard/WS58a04a822e3e50102bd615109794195ff-7f71.w.html#WS0BEFAC0B-47D9-47b8-9AF8-4DE2FE9C9736.w

try for yourself and see what you get

to me this is the simplest answer, someone made the scan, either forgot to uncheck that commonly used option or checked it without knowing what it does and converted to a pdf which was then uploaded and put online. no tampering involved.

HeinBallz · « **Reply #67 on:** May 12, 2011, 08:31:34 PM »

Okay. I can admit when I'm wrong. I've never produced results like that with a scan that I've made, but that's probably because I scan out of photoshop and I've never used some of the hokey canned effect crap that comes with most scanning software. I felt like my experience should have been respected with some credibility and jumped into defensive mode when it was suggested that I was wrong.

I apologize for for suggesting that anyone could didn't know what the eff they were doing and in fact was very wrong in this situation.

To john "teach me how to" dougie, Please accept my sincerest apologies.

Feel free to change my name to douchebag or something.

john "teach me how to" dougie · « **Reply #68 on:** May 12, 2011, 08:37:31 PM »

Quote from: HeinBallz on May 12, 2011, 08:31:34 PM

Okay. I can admit when I'm wrong. I've never produced results like that with a scan that I've made, but that's probably because I scan out of photoshop and I've never used some of the hokey canned effect crap that comes with most scanning software. I felt like my experience should have been respected with some credibility and jumped into defensive mode when it was suggested that I was wrong.

I apologize for for suggesting that anyone could didn't know what the eff they were doing and in fact was very wrong in this situation.

To john "teach me how to" dougie, Please accept my sincerest apologies.

Feel free to change my name to douchebag or something.

Remember we are dealing with a government agency, so it's not your fault.

0.42 · « **Reply #69 on:** May 12, 2011, 11:34:21 PM »

new board name should be:

SkinnyBenny · « **Reply #70 on:** May 13, 2011, 12:13:22 AM »

Quote from: HeinBallz on May 12, 2011, 08:31:34 PM

Okay. I can admit when I'm wrong. I've never produced results like that with a scan that I've made, but that's probably because I scan out of photoshop and I've never used some of the hokey canned effect crap that comes with most scanning software. I felt like my experience should have been respected with some credibility and jumped into defensive mode when it was suggested that I was wrong.

I apologize for for suggesting that anyone could didn't know what the eff they were doing and in fact was very wrong in this situation.

To john "teach me how to" dougie, Please accept my sincerest apologies.

Feel free to change my name to douchebag or something.

That was very big of you. Usually in this instance I just rip on someone's punctuation, or something.

to you.

Dugout DickStone · « **Reply #71 on:** May 13, 2011, 02:50:25 PM »

Quote from: wetwillie on May 12, 2011, 01:01:02 PM

Quote from: SkinnyBenny on May 12, 2011, 12:11:41 PM
Quote from: HeinBallz on May 12, 2011, 12:01:34 PM
Actually, the youtube guy is right. This document was in fact tampered with. The motivation behind it is the only thing open for question. There is no doubt in my mind this was not just a place the document on the scanner and hit scan. Impossible. Some post editing absolutely, 100% positively, took place. Every person that knows anything about Illustrator can go to whitehouse.gov download the .pdf and see the added text themselves.

but why?

It's so amateur that there is no way it wasn't done on purpose. There's 100 different easy ways to prevent someone from seeing artwork added in a .pdf; but none of them were done. Why?

Maybe you're right. I def. don't know anything about Illustrator, so I can't say. I just like the idea that Birther 'tards think that this is a smoking gun to prove that Obama is a Kenyan and therefore should be kicked out of office. If it is faked like you say, it just furthers fff's claim that Obama is really f***ing good.

I've branched off and now claim Obama was a test tube baby manufactured in a lab in Montreal.

I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR MONTHS. Get your own conspiracy.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #72 on:** May 15, 2011, 01:57:28 PM »

Remember all the retards on this board and in the media who said this was BO's birth certificate?

Haha retards, you were wrong. Do you even know what a real birth certificate looks like (pictured below)? I guess not. Haha retards, haha. The rough ridin' dumbshit mods even renamed the board because they thought that thing above was a birth certificate. Seriously, how can you even turn on a computer if you are that rough ridin' doltish?

haha, haha, haha, sincerely

nosejob