Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
So the OP's theory is that the White House (or whoever) doctored up this document by typing up all the information they want us to believe, and then slapping it on some birth certificate blank but then forgetting to merge the layers. Have I got that? Or close enough?

If that's the case, then why would the "R" in "BARACK" (box 1) and the "S" in "STANLEY" (box 13) belong to the "bottom" layer and not the same layer as "BA ACK" and "TANLEY" and the rest of the writing? It makes sense to suppose that, when Adobe Illustrator separated the scan into layers, it missed a letter here or there. It doesn't make sense to suppose that the White House was working from a blank birth certificate with an "R" and an "S" already inserted, so they just had to type "BA ACK" and "TANLEY" next to them.

Also, the "o, gi" in box 7e. There may be others.
 
therival58 said:
Shouldnt the COLB have an embossed seal on the front, like these two??
Click to expand...


I think that it may be missing from the new "long form" one because it isn't actually a certified copy; the certified copies issued by Hawaii these days are the "short form" certificates that the birthers object to. The new "long form" is just a copy of the original paper document, not a certified copy.

By the way, aren't those just two copies of the same certificate?
 
BaC, you still haven't answered any of the relevant questions.

Does this birth certificate put to rest any concerns you have over the President's birthplace or not?

I'm ignoring your flawed interpretation of the laws in Hawaii due to the fact that you seem to be ignoring that the White House, according to the correspondence they posted, had to request an EXCEPTION to the law (thereby proving that Hawaii under their current law will NOT release the original to just anyone), so you won't be getting any apologies from me. Besides, IANAL anyway, a fact I freely admit.

You'll get an apology from me when I see an apology from you for refusing to believe that Lakin brought his situation on himself despite the fact that I know more about how the military works than you do (as evidenced by my 9+ years in service), plus a retraction of your statements that Obama ruined his career. You admit that you're wrong, and we'll talk. But setting that aside, I still want you to answer one simple question in yes or no format: Does this birth certificate released by the White House quiet any concerns that you may have had about the President's birth place? Direct question, yes or no response only please. No qualifications of the answer will be accepted.

JudeBrando and randman; same question to you, same rules. Yes or no responses ONLY.
 
v33at4.jpg


From: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2L5a_KS6iw
 
Anders Lindman said:
What I wonder is if the background pattern is supposed to be original, or if they copied the original to a paper with that background pattern. But if they copied the original, why is it so curved on the left side? :confused:
Click to expand...

The background is not curved and the printing is. Also, the BC appears to be inset into the background, but the pattern is the same on the 'background' border and the BC itself. It's just too odd, it doesn't look anything like a scanned document.

Here is the doc for reference....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

I suppose one explanation would be that they scanned the document on a black and white scanner and then overlaid it on the green crosshatched background.

I think we need to see the provenance of the pdf file. Who made the scan, who assembled the pdf file, etc.

Also the 1-bit scanned 1064 and the grayscale scanned 1 is .... very strange.
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
The background is not curved and the printing is. Also, the BC appears to be inset into the background, but the pattern is the same on the 'background' border and the BC itself. It's just too odd, it doesn't look anything like a scanned document.

Here is the doc for reference....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

I suppose one explanation would be that they scanned the document on a black and white scanner and then overlaid it on the green crosshatched background.

I think we need to see the provenance of the pdf file. Who made the scan, who assembled the pdf file, etc.
Click to expand...

The most plausible explanation is that the document was scanned from a book/binder. The background is not the original, but they don't claim it is either, so those things could be normal. This however is a bit suspicious: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7128248&postcount=54 The last '1' obviously has been added later. Why?
 
I think a nice way to test this theory would be for someone to scan a document or a number of documents, and see how Illustrator translates the image into layers.
 
Well it's proved fake now. randman's favorite site, gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com, has all the evidence. They received the evidence from a certain

"Photoshop expert and author of more than 17 books on computer graphics
Click to expand...

(their bolding) of course there is no reference and Mara Z is not a result for books in google.

This is exacly like the no planers. All of those "video experts" saying that a hoax was proved.
 
michaelsuede said:
All media in this post is hosted on my servers. This post content comes from my personal blog.


Click through to see this post on ATS.

Seriously, you’ll crap your pants.

The people who doctored the image of Obama’s birth cert were stupid enough not to merge the image layers of their forgery before converting it into a pdf document. (technically they are clipping masks, which are slightly different than layers).

Hence, there are image layers that can be pulled out of the document when it is imported into Adobe Illustrator.

Here’s the layer that contains the stamps:
[qimg]http://www.fascistsoup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/obamafake-371x480.png[/qimg]

This means that the stamps, the lettering, and the background are all separate entities within the image that were layered together digitally. It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY this officially released document is an original scanned image of Obama’s birth cert. An original pdf of a scanned image would have only one layer – the scanned image itself. And certainly there would be no ‘stamp’ layers.

I have verified the ATS author’s claims. Here is an image I created myself by moving the layers in the official document:
[qimg]http://www.fascistsoup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/obamaforgery.jpg[/qimg]

Here is my altered version of that pdf.

Alex Jones actually opens up Adobe Illustrator and points out the same things I just did in this post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g30VCl_cgk

A few more points of note from

www.thesmokinggun.com…

• If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document’s safety paper be so seamless?

• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?

• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?

• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.

• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?

• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?

• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: It is spelled “Ukulele.”
Click to expand...

Wow. Just watched the Alex Jones vid. This is a must see. Unbelievable.
 
cwalner said:
And how many previous posts, in this thread alone, predicted this is and stated therefore that this is the very reason that Obama shouldn't release his long form, even if he could get it?
:covereyes
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Birthers are nothing if not predictable.
 
Yes, digital effects expert Alex Jones will dazzle us with a detailed explanation of how Adobe Illustrator handles a PDF scan or it we be more along the lines of "ooga booga! Magic shows Obama lied!" like all the other people that don't know what the hell they are talking about. FSM it is like trying to explain video effects to Ace Baker.
 
Well, here's the counter to the Alex Jones vid ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcWQw2AAIho

This provides an explanation for the layers. But, it doesn't explain the background, the single-bit 1064 and the grayscale 1. I think the WH should provide the complete provenance of the posted document. And, they should post a non-photoshoped scanned image of the BC if one exists.
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
I think the WH should provide the complete provenance of the posted document.
Click to expand...

No they shouldn't. They've done way more than should be reasonably expected. The demands of unreasonable people who will make up issues with any evidence presented should be ignored.
 
Spindrift said:
No they shouldn't. They've done way more than should be reasonably expected. The demands of unreasonable people who will make up issues with any evidence presented should be ignored.
Click to expand...

They should post an non-photoshoped scanned image. Period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom