Quote: I suspect that you didn't bother to watch it? Illustrator isn't rocket science, really. No worries, perhaps you've never worked with the software, and/or have your mind made up. You are assuming that the author is quite cleverly fabricating the evidence. With the responses I see in this thread (not referring to yours), is there any utility in posting all the previously published critiques of the document? Probably not. I just had never seen this strait forward and simple PDF analysis before, and thought someone might have a reasoned response to it here.
Listen , up, you're missing hte point. Never worked with Illustrator? I taught illustrator, and from my days working with a 6502, I've coded software in machine language. But anyway, here is something you might want to consider...
Quote: is there any utility in posting all the previously published critiques of the document
In many court cases, one side lines up their witnesses and the other lines up theirs, and everyone write their opinion and the court decides who is right. Volume of evidence does not qualify as proof. Only accuracy of evidence counts as proof. You can have the police and prosecutors present all kinds of records, emails suggesting a guy killed his wife including eye witness accounts that they saw him do it. But if the guy was addressing a convention on another continent when the murder happened, it doesn't matter how much evidence the police have that he was there and committed the crime, he was somewhere else and couldn't have done it. The police may have 500 pieces of evidence connecting him to the crime, but he has 60 better witnesses, people who actually know him and can couch for where he was. Volume of evidence does not constitute proof.
It reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with a Baptist minister I was engaged in a theological discussion with. (He lived across the street with me.) He said OK next thursday I'll come over and we'll "discuss" the issue. I put together a few references to illustrate my point. He came over with his bible all bookmarked. He said " How many references do you have...to which I replied "5". He said , "I have 13, I win." To people with poor logic skills this kind of logic is un-assailable. To people like myself, you have to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion in hope to find out what the truth is, often you will never find out, and if you are going to undertake these kinds of searches, you have to be mature enough to live with that. And how many people you can line up to say something is true, has never been a measure of what the truth is to the seeker of truth. ALthough there is a type of person for whom that is all they need and they never feel the need to look beyond that.
This is your baby not mine. I'd encourage you to look at some opposing opinions. If Obama's birth certificate is faked, I would expect at some point someone will produce the person who faked it. Third party analysis by self proclaimed experts with no access to original documents is almost always wrong.