Conquer Club

mpjh wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote: That's why there is no copy of the birth certificate.

Wrong. there is an original birth certificate at the Obama HQ in Chicago. The Obama organization has let people inspect it and has placed a copy on the web. A court can inspect it. There is nothing hidden here, including the political agenda of the people pushing this issue.

ahem... a photoshop doctored copy. It is not valid.

The document at the Obama chicago HQ is an original from the State of Hawaii.

mpjh wrote:The document at the Obama chicago HQ is an original from the State of Hawaii.

It would be nice to have someone other than some folks at factcheck.org verify that. The one on his website was doctored. Wonder why?

black elk speaks wrote:It would be nice to have someone other than some folks at factcheck.org verify that. The one on his website was doctored. Wonder why?

Heresay.

Please define exactly what you mean by "Doctored", and why you believe it so.

No links please.

Backglass wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:It would be nice to have someone other than some folks at factcheck.org verify that. The one on his website was doctored. Wonder why?

Heresay.

Please define exactly what you mean by "Doctored", and why you believe it so.

No links please.

Then how do you expect hit to evidence his claim or even to have begun to form an opinion? I'm lost.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Then how do you expect hit to evidence his claim or even to have begun to form an opinion? I'm lost.

Huh? Your joking...right?

What? Please decipher for us Juan.

I did say "Please".

I don't understand how you can expect him to show you why he thinks it's a fake without him evidencing it in anyway. that's like the definition of heresay. All he could say is, "I heard on a website that it's a fake"

Juan_Bottom wrote:I don't understand how you can expect him to show you why he thinks it's a fake without him evidencing it in anyway. that's like the definition of heresay. All he could say is, "I heard on a website that it's a fake"

It's pretty self explanatory. He claims the document is "Doctored", an extremely broad & intentionally vague assertion.

I only ask that he define exactly what he means. How much more clear can you be?

That makes much more sense.

Backglass wrote:Please define exactly what you mean by "Doctored", and why you believe it so.

No links please.

But you did say to say why he thinks that way, without providing links. Anyway, you can see why I thought what I did. So we understand each other.

Are you drinking again, Juan?

CNN sucks on this report, if that's what you want to call it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDYeImcVCrI

Why didn't CNN interview Phil Berg or Leo Donofrio instead of two obviously pro-Obama political and legal analysts?

Backglass wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:It would be nice to have someone other than some folks at factcheck.org verify that. The one on his website was doctored. Wonder why?

Heresay.

Please define exactly what you mean by "Doctored", and why you believe it so.

No links please.

I mean that you can download the document and open it in a hex editor. There you can see the complete history of everything that has happened to that document, as every time you open a document and save it, you leave a bit trail of what software you used and the date. In his "special presentation document" there is a timestamp which grants that the document was edited by photoshop. The online document cannot be used as a valid document because it is tainted. Why?

black elk speaks wrote:I mean that you can download the document and open it in a hex editor. There you can see the complete history of everything that has happened to that document, as every time you open a document and save it, you leave a bit trail of what software you used and the date.

You are talking COMPLETELY out your ass about things you have no knowledge of. You obviously have no idea what a Hex Editor IS or even what it is used for.

This entire statement discredits you completely.

black elk speaks wrote:In his "special presentation document" there is a timestamp which grants that the document was edited by photoshop. The online document cannot be used as a valid document because it is tainted. Why?

Please explain "special presentation document". Exactly what document are you referring to. There is only one birth certificate in question to my knowledge.

As for the document on the website, of course it was edited...there is a big black mark over the document number for privacy purposes! Of course, the document itself has no such mark, as many have testified.

Let the sad straw grasp continue! Obama could present Super-8 movies of his mother giving birth on a Honolulu street corner and you wouldnt believe it.

Backglass wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:I mean that you can download the document and open it in a hex editor. There you can see the complete history of everything that has happened to that document, as every time you open a document and save it, you leave a bit trail of what software you used and the date.

You are talking COMPLETELY out your ass about things you have no knowledge of. You obviously have no idea what a Hex Editor IS or even what it is used for.

This entire statement discredits you completely.

black elk speaks wrote:In his "special presentation document" there is a timestamp which grants that the document was edited by photoshop. The online document cannot be used as a valid document because it is tainted. Why?

Please explain "special presentation document". Exactly what document are you referring to. There is only one birth certificate in question to my knowledge.

As for the document on the website, of course it was edited...there is a big black mark over the document number for privacy purposes! Of course, the document itself has no such mark, as many have testified.

Let the sad straw grasp continue! Obama could present Super-8 movies of his mother giving birth on a Honolulu street corner and you wouldnt believe it.

excuse me? I know perfectly what a hex editor is and how it is used. I primarily use it to examine binary data. And as I stated, it can be used to isolate and read information out of compressed files, such as file header information, file edit history, etc.

I may not have extensive knowledge or experience in the use of a hex editor, but I have used one before. As for the "special presentation document" that I was referring to, I meant his birth certificate. The version of it that they have on the BO's website, according to the evidence that I have seen in the arguments of others (links posted by DaGip) has been saved by photoshop. Why open up an image and save it with photoshot if you have not altered it? And, whether the document was actually altered or not, it is not a valid piece of evident because it may have been altered. So the birth certificate on display at BO's website is worthless.

Aren't you people tired of being deceived by our government? Lets just get to the bottom of it. I don't think it much matters to be honest. If we were to pull BO out of office at the last minute, I think it would be worse for our country in the long run, but I think we are fucked as a nation regardless.

f*ck you blackglass... you are a stupid bitch anyway. Mother fucker.

black elk speaks wrote:Why open up an image and save it with photoshot if you have not altered it?

We've been over this. it's a complete red herring. That the document was saved from Photoshop does not prove that the image was altered in any meaningful way. Perhaps it was originally scanned in Photoshop, perhaps it was cropped to remove extraneous pixels (parts of the image that were not the actual document), could have been re-sampled to reduce file size for bandwidth concerns, etc. I'm sure if we sat and thought about it for a few minutes we could come up with dozens of scenarios where an image might be opened in Photoshop and not "tampered with" but simply re-saved for legitimate reasons.

StiffMittens wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:Why open up an image and save it with photoshot if you have not altered it?

We've been over this. it's a complete red herring. That the document was saved from Photoshop does not prove that the image was altered in any meaningful way. Perhaps it was originally scanned in Photoshop, perhaps it was cropped to remove extraneous pixels (parts of the image that were not the actual document), could have been re-sampled to reduce file size for bandwidth concerns, etc. I'm sure if we sat and thought about it for a few minutes we could come up with dozens of scenarios where an image might be opened in Photoshop and not "tampered with" but simply re-saved for legitimate reasons.

Yeah, you said this shit before, and I responded to it by saying that no matter what the reason for opening a document in photoshop, that is invalidates the document... whether you are "removing extraneous pixels" or what ever, you are altering the originally scanned document, thereby invalidating the doc.

black elk speaks wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:Why open up an image and save it with photoshot if you have not altered it?

We've been over this. it's a complete red herring. That the document was saved from Photoshop does not prove that the image was altered in any meaningful way. Perhaps it was originally scanned in Photoshop, perhaps it was cropped to remove extraneous pixels (parts of the image that were not the actual document), could have been re-sampled to reduce file size for bandwidth concerns, etc. I'm sure if we sat and thought about it for a few minutes we could come up with dozens of scenarios where an image might be opened in Photoshop and not "tampered with" but simply re-saved for legitimate reasons.

Yeah, you said this shit before, and I responded to it by saying that no matter what the reason for opening a document in photoshop, that is invalidates the document... whether you are "removing extraneous pixels" or what ever, you are altering the originally scanned document, thereby invalidating the doc.

Actually, nt because of what I'm argueing here, but I do agree with BES on this one. And I wouldn't expect any document like that to hold up in court. I don't see how you could save a document that people are alleging is doctored with photoshop and not expect people to take that as some form of validation that they may be right.

The Obama people would never produce the photostat copy, or any copy, for that matter. The original in in their Chicago HQ. That is the document that matters.

mpjh wrote:The Obama people would never produce the photostat copy, or any copy, for that matter. The original in in their Chicago HQ. That is the document that matters.

Sure... that would be the one that I would like to see a judge certify by some legal means. As it turns out, BO appears to be hiding something.

black elk speaks wrote:excuse me? I know perfectly what a hex editor is and how it is used. I primarily use it to examine binary data. And as I stated, it can be used to isolate and read information out of compressed files, such as file header information, file edit history, etc.

Sure you do. Binary "File edit history" in Hex? Keep talking, please.

black elk speaks wrote:I may not have extensive knowledge or experience in the use of a hex editor, but I have used one before.

Of course you have. You are obviously a coding genius, examining BINARY with a HEX editor. Do you also write Japanese with a German dictionary?

black elk speaks wrote:As for the "special presentation document" that I was referring to, I meant his birth certificate. The version of it that they have on the BO's website, according to the evidence that I have seen in the arguments of others (links posted by DaGip) has been saved by photoshop. Why open up an image and save it with photoshot if you have not altered it? And, whether the document was actually altered or not, it is not a valid piece of evident because it may have been altered. So the birth certificate on display at BO's website is worthless.

Well, a JPG/GIF on a website is not the original document, of course. There isn't any way to post the original document on a website that would meet your criteria. What would need to happen is that the original document would have to be presented for people to examine. Oh...wait...they did that didn't they. Yet, the straw grasp continues.

black elk speaks wrote:Aren't you people tired of being deceived by our government? Lets just get to the bottom of it. I don't think it much matters to be honest. If we were to pull BO out of office at the last minute, I think it would be worse for our country in the long run, but I think we are fucked as a nation regardless.

Get to the bottom of WHAT? Your useless waste of time and effort? There is no conspiracy here...only the sad, desperate attempt of a bunch of redneck losers to try to go against the will of the American people. And these fools have the nerve to call themselves PATRIOTS while acting in a most traitorous manor. You should leave our great nation if you can't abide by the will of it's people. These actions are an embarrassment to all who call themselves Americans.

black elk speaks wrote:f*ck you blackglass... you are a stupid bitch anyway. Mother fucker.

Nice! Finally we see the real BES!

This only goes to prove the uneducated, backwoods, racist rube that you are. Go shoot some guns in the air you hillbilly...it will make your moonshine buzz feel all that much better while screwing your sister in the backseat of your Firebird.

And please...tell us all more about Hex editors.

blackglass wrote:Sure you do. Binary "File edit history" in Hex? Keep talking, please.

Thanks blackglass, for making yourself so obviously ignorant of what a hex editor actually is without even bothering to look it up your self...

For those of you that would actually like to learn what a hex editor does...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_editor

wikipedia wrote:A hex editor (or binary file editor or byte editor) is a type of computer program that allows a user to manipulate binary (normally non-plain text) computer files. Hex editors that were designed to edit sector data from floppy or hard disks were sometimes called sector editors or disk editors.

What I am saying is that you can tell if an image has been modified by examining its timestamp history, embedded in its binary data, by reading it with a hex editor.

the rest of your arguments are now defunct because you are so stupid that you would argue what a hex editor can do, without actually knowing yourself... fucking moron.

black elk speaks wrote:

blackglass wrote:Sure you do. Binary "File edit history" in Hex? Keep talking, please.

Thanks blackglass, for making yourself so obviously ignorant of what a hex editor actually is without even bothering to look it up your self...

For those of you that would actually like to learn what a hex editor does...

No need to go "look it up"...I use one every day. Nice try.

First...you need to learn the difference between Binary...and Hexadecimal.

Pro-tip: Wiki is not a reliable source.

black elk speaks wrote:What I am saying is that you can tell if an image has been modified by examining its timestamp history, embedded in its binary data, by reading it with a hex editor.

the rest of your arguments are now defunct because you are so stupid that you would argue what a hex editor can do, without actually knowing yourself... fucking moron.

You really just need to stop, as you are only making yourself look more foolish by the second. You really shouldn't try to proclaim yourself an expert at something you are obviously clueless about.

A message for BES wrote:42 6c 61 63 6b 20 45 6c 6b 20 53 70 65 61 6b 73 20 69 73 20 61 20 63 6c 75 65 6c 65 73 73 20 72 65 64 6e 65 63 6b 20 77 68 6f 20 74 61 6c 6b 73 20 6f 75 74 20 68 69 73 20 61 73 73 2e

Good Luck.

Backglass wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:

blackglass wrote:Sure you do. Binary "File edit history" in Hex? Keep talking, please.

Thanks blackglass, for making yourself so obviously ignorant of what a hex editor actually is without even bothering to look it up your self...

For those of you that would actually like to learn what a hex editor does...

No need to go "look it up"...I use one every day. Nice try.

First...you need to learn the difference between Binary...and Hexadecimal.

Pro-tip: Wiki is not a reliable source.

black elk speaks wrote:What I am saying is that you can tell if an image has been modified by examining its timestamp history, embedded in its binary data, by reading it with a hex editor.

the rest of your arguments are now defunct because you are so stupid that you would argue what a hex editor can do, without actually knowing yourself... fucking moron.

You really just need to stop, as you are only making yourself look more foolish by the second. You really shouldn't try to proclaim yourself an expert at something you are obviously clueless about.

sorry black glass... but you are wrong. How about you show a link that disproves mine. I can give you more that support what I say.

now...
67 6f 20 66 75 63 6b 20 79 6f 75 72 73 65 6c 66 20 79 6f 75 20 70 69 6e 6b 6f 20 63 6f 6d 6d 69 65 20 62 69 74 63 68


and the binary version of what you wrote...

01000010 01101100 01100001 01100011 01101011 00100000 01000101 01101100 01101011 00100000 01010011 01110000 01100101 01100001 01101011 01110011 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100011 01101100 01110101 01100101 01101100 01100101 01110011 01110011 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100100 01101110 01100101 01100011 01101011 00100000 01110111 01101000 01101111 00100000 01110100 01100001 01101100 01101011 01110011 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 00101110


its all transferable you stupid cunt.