What a peckerwood.
Could the "Birthers" have actually been right all along?
- Thread starter Big-Foot
- Start date
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Jim we consevatives have nothing left! We are totally right......all the time.
Dont you forget it.
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
Well done, Tim, you got it!!!!!!!!!!!! I didn't think anyone would. Good for you.
Bob, you get an "A" for sincerity and an "F" for grammar. Your sentence ought to have read "You, sir, are a peckerwood." Keep at it, though. For someone who speaks English as a second language, you're coming along handily.
Bob, you get an "A" for sincerity and an "F" for grammar. Your sentence ought to have read "You, sir, are a peckerwood." Keep at it, though. For someone who speaks English as a second language, you're coming along handily.
An Adobe expert and trainer has debunked the layers issue:
Expert: No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate Is Legit | Fox News
Fox News even
Ian
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Jimbo,
I think he needs another F, for poor use of descriptive language. This is a word that would seem right at home at a Tea Party rally.
DEFINITION
Peckerwood
A peckerwood is a rural white southerner, usually poor, undereducated or otherwise ignorant and bigoted, the term gained popularity in the deep south during the early twentieth century and was meant to be derogatory. It is a reversal of the name of the red bellied woodpecker which had a patch of red on the back of it’s head and neck, therefore a peckerwood is a redneck, terms that describe similar groups of people are trailer trash or white trash but neither of those have the same effect or ring to them as peckerwood does.
I think he needs another F, for poor use of descriptive language. This is a word that would seem right at home at a Tea Party rally.
DEFINITION
Peckerwood
A peckerwood is a rural white southerner, usually poor, undereducated or otherwise ignorant and bigoted, the term gained popularity in the deep south during the early twentieth century and was meant to be derogatory. It is a reversal of the name of the red bellied woodpecker which had a patch of red on the back of it’s head and neck, therefore a peckerwood is a redneck, terms that describe similar groups of people are trailer trash or white trash but neither of those have the same effect or ring to them as peckerwood does.
Last edited:
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
The word "peckerwood" is not always derogatory. For example, Willis Slane, the founder of Hatteras Yachts (one of the very first companies to build big power boats with fiberglass hulls) was reported to have said "you can build any damn thing with five peckerwoods and a Binks gun".....high praise indeed for the nascent fiberglass boatbuilding industry.
An Adobe expert and trainer has debunked the layers issue:
Expert: No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate Is Legit | Fox News
Fox News even
Ian
Absolutely not denying that you CAN make a layered document out of one that was scanned in, but I find it difficult to understand why you WOULD make a layered document out of a single image from a scanner. Unless, that is, you would want to maybe make some minor alterations to "clean it up"...
Don't know really...
Glad I could bring yet another topic to the paddock that could be used to fuel the ongoing pissing match between a couple of our collegues here.. :sad:
Nobody "made" the layered document from a single image on a scanner, the scanner and software did. That is what the Adobe expert is stating. The way the scanner and software perform the OCR (optical character recognition) can create layers as part of the scanning process. The only human intervention is placing the document on the scanner glass and hitting the scan button.
Ian
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Ian is correct, this software will do this to any document.
I saw an example of this, on some news show, they took someones known birth certificate and put it through the same proccess, it came out layered as well.
I can see how someone putting Obamas document through this proccess might have been miss-led into thinking this showed some sort of manipulation.
But if they had checked their hypothesis, with a known document, it would have come out the same.
***************
Maybe they did test their hypothesis, maybe they did not, but they absolutly should have. Its not that hard.
If they did test it, thats fraud!
If they did not test it thats total incompetancy! Any other data turned up by this "sheriff" and his "cold case posse" should be carefully checked!
They should have tested this very, very carefully before going public with an accusation like this!
When Dan Rather accused a President without carefully checking his information, he lost his job and is villified by folks to this day.
This sheriff, a PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATOR, who should know how to check evidence, should be treated no different!
Last edited:
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
Randy, that video didn't have anything to do with manipulation, it attempts to show how compression works and how compression can cause "oddness" with some applications such as Adobe and Illustrator. There is mind-numbing explanation of compression here:
JPEG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note, I recognize that wikipedia is not appropriate to source from in academia but for this purpose I thought it would be an ok source.
In any event, I am not sure how much you have worked with computers but seeing layers like that in Adobe Illustrator (or PhotoShop) is not uncommon. Often these programs will interpret JPEG colors and turn them into layers. I have had JPEGs with thousands of layers in my past, it is nothing to make judgements on.
I have spent a lot of time with applications such as Illustrator, Photoshop, etc. and JPEGs, BMPs, etc... I hope they have more damning evidence than layers otherwise this is going to be a short story..
Kevin
Edit: Apparently I didn't see the second page where all of this was addressed..
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Kevin,
Thanks for the input.
Say, it sounds like you are up to speed on the Web, I have a question.
I have heard this before, about Wikipedia, that their data is sometimes flawed. What is the word on this? What are they doing wrong? Can you recommend another source for quick data?
Thanks for the input.
Say, it sounds like you are up to speed on the Web, I have a question.
I have heard this before, about Wikipedia, that their data is sometimes flawed. What is the word on this? What are they doing wrong? Can you recommend another source for quick data?
Wikipedia is actually a "community" effort - articles are actually submitted and updated by the general Internet populace. It is a "self-policed" effort in that when/if someone finds an inaccuracy, they can update it themselves. However, as always, mistakes and misinformation make their way into the various articles.
Wikipedia:Introduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I actually have made a correction here and there - including the entry for the GT40. The picture of the Roaring Forties replica was originally listed as an original. I corrected to note that it is indeed an RF replica.
Overall, Wikipedia is not a bad resource. The bad info gets weeded out fairly well.
Ian
Totally agree, it is a great resource for quick information. My comment was trying to be a bit sarcastic about sourcing information; people can get picky about sourcing wikipedia and specifically in academia you don't want to use it.
That said, a well written wikipedia article often sources other creditable places to find the information so using it as an initial "go-to" is helpful.
Kevin
