It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's Birth Certificate

page: 11
20
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
Also, there's the issue as to why the jpg doesn't show any stamp of certification from the State of Hawaii.


I posted about this. The "backwards" date (June 6, 2007) is part of the stamp on the other side of the document.

Your post attributes a quote to me that isn't mine.




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Orlan Zvezda
I HOPE THIS GETS MY POINT ACROSS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR BIRTH CERTIFICATE.


Oh, so now it's released, you're going to claim it's a fake? What's CLEAR is that you edited it.



that has got to be the funniest post ever.

this thing is so much a fake!

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Danger Girl]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you can use Google, you can find that information.

Obama Launches Anti-Smear Site

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has taken the unprecedented step of launching its own Website to knock down false rumors about the candidate and his wife.
The question was: "Does he personally take responsibility for the contents of his site, not his campaign? We all know how he tends to blame his staffers for any mistakes or untruths he's caught in. If you can so kindly show mw where he personally endorses the site, I'd be most greatful.





The site also doesn't address why the document was turned over to KOS instead of the media? The only reason I can think of is "Plausible Deniability".


Yeah, that must be it.


If you read through this thread, you'd see that KOS said they asked the campaign for a copy for journalistic purposes and the campaign provided it. Only later did the "Smears" website show up.
They asked the campaign once again.. Not Obama.

Remember the derogatory ad about Obama that the McCain campaign ran a while back? I believe that was pawned off on McCain's campaign staff, and later repudiated by John McCain himself.

[edit on 6/13/08 by LLoyd45]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
Flyersfan, ... I wish more at ATS were like you.

Mind if I save this quote from ya' ... for our future 'get togethers' on threads?



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Did you notice they said his race wasn't "African", it's "Muslim"?

Yep. I saw that. Ignorant.

Did you see where the document said the race was 'African'? African is not a race. Kinda makes me wonder about whoever made the 'certification of birth'. Saying someones race is 'African' is like saying my race is 'American'.


Originally posted by SaviorComplex
While it is not the original birth certificate, it is the short form (as you said).

Right. That's what it's supposed to be. That's why I said it.


All of the above information is on the link you posted.

DUH! That's why I posted it.


Your refusal to accept that it is as valid as the long-form birth certificate ...

Your automatic acceptance of something posted ont he internet ... well let's just say it doesn't look so smart.


This refusal is nothing but a lame attempt at moving the goal-posts of the conversation,

Listen up, Junior - and I do mean LISTEN UP. Obviously you are only seeing what you want to see with my posts. You are getting a bit obsessive with my posting. It's odd.

This is a CONSPIRACY board. We investigate EVERYTHING.


Why are you assuming that it is fake?

Why are you assuming that I assume it's fake? :shk:

Why must it be proven real?

OMG!!! Get real.
That's what we do here - check everything out.

Why don't you prove that it is not genuine?

Why don't you take a look at what people are discussing and posting for a change. You'll see that no one has an agenda and is trying to prove that it's fake. People are discussing if it is fake - OR NOT. They point out things, and discuss them .. both postive and negative.

This is a conspiracy board. Most folks here dont' take the word of politicians or MSM ... and certainly not the word of so-called journalists who are just shilling for politicians. Guess you missed what this board is all about, eh?



[edit on 6/13/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Do a google image search on "Birth Certificate". Find a similar one and see if it's any different. I can zoom in on it, but I can't save it like that. It looks just the same. It's something about graphics on the computer, I'm sure.


Yes, it is something about graphics on a computer.

When any digital image is created, whether it's a scan, photo, or completely computer generated image, a file is created. If an image is photoshopped, splicing one image or graphics onto an original, the digital data must be combined.

Herein lies the problem, which you seem to be blowing off as just "something about graphics on a computer."

When you look at the CoB it is obvious that there is something drastically different about the letters making up the name information compared to anything else on the certificate. There is a large amount of pixelation, and the letters have a white "halo" around them. As far as I can tell, there is no way a laster printer can imprint white on green paper.

Here's an image of the certificate with the saturation and contrast adjusted to show just how much of a white halo surrounds the letters in question:




Note that the seal in the center of the page does NOT have anything similar:




What this indicates is that the black on green letters showing the identifying information may NOT have been part of the original scan of the certificate. In other words, the digital representation of these letters was not created at the same time as the digital representation of the background.

This type of pixelation problems can be caused when the different resolutions of two different digital representations are blended into a third image.

Also, the blacked out cert. number shows that the image was edited. It's just a matter of what exactly was edited.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by jamie83]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
For those of you still hung up on the "short form" birth certificate. A few years ago I had to request a copy from the Florida Bureau of Vital Statistics, because the one I had been using for thirty years was almost unreadable. By the way, this was for purposes of agencies of the federal government verifying my identity previous to yet another background check for security clearance upgrade. When I received them (3 copies), they were computer generated on an entirely new form, with new watermarks, colors, etc. None of those changes meant squat. Official is official.
Naturally, I don't expect you to change your minds. BHO being the love child of Elvis and an alien from Zeta Ridiculous is a much better story.
Don't forget your meds...



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
While it is not the original birth certificate, it is the short form (as you said).

Right. That's what it's supposed to be. That's why I said it.


Then why continue to claim that it isn't valid?


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Your automatic acceptance of something posted ont he internet ... well let's just say it doesn't look so smart.


Just as your automatic assumption and implication that it's fake, and despite the sources you yourself provided, claiming that it is not valid documentation.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Listen up, Junior - and I do mean LISTEN UP.


Oh wow! Big angry words! That's scary!


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Why don't you take a look at what people are discussing and posting for a change. You'll see that no one has an agenda and is trying to prove that it's fake.


You and I know that is BS. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence for you to even attempt to convince us you or other people do not have an agenda.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
This is a conspiracy board. Most folks here dont' take the word of politicians or MSM ... and certainly not the word of so-called journalists who are just shilling for politicians. Guess you missed what this board is all about, eh?


Again, don't insult our intelligence. You do take the word of politicians, pundits, and the mainstream media...the ones you favor. Otherwise, you would not be so obsessed over a non-issue such as a birth-certificate. You're just as much of a dupe as you accuse other people of being.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
Herein lies the problem, which you seem to be blowing off as just "something about graphics on a computer."


I'm not blowing it off. I just don't understand!
Sorry, Graphics is not my thing. But I think it's very possible for printing made by a stamp and printing made by a printer to look different.

The printing "Child's Name" and his name, "Barack Obama" look the same to me. I'm not sure what the problem is. Yes, it's different than the seal. but the seal wasn't typed on there. So, I'm not sure why it wouldn't look different. And the black on green might look different still.



As far as I can tell, there is no way a laster printer can imprint white on green paper.


I don't think the laser printer did it. I think it was like that in the file. For example, a while ago, I made myself an avatar in "Paint" by just adding print to colors. It looked great until I saved it to my machine and opened it up again. Then it looked like this:



A kind person on this board took the image, "cleaned it up" (I don't know how). But when they gave it to me, it looked like it had when I first made it. Like this:



It doesn't have anything to do with printing, because these were not printed, it has to do with some graphics thing. Sorry if that sounds stupid, but that's because I don't know what the problem is. Noise?


I see what you're saying, I'm just not AT ALL convinced of your conclusions. I'm honestly not blowing you off, because I like how you're going about making sure. I just can't help.


[edit on 13-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LLoyd45
 

Lloyd, you asked if I had anything that proved if Obama endorsed the "Fight the Smears" website. The query has been deleted from your post. Did YOU find something? I did not. I suspect he'll mention it publicly in the next few days, but I haven't heard him personally address it.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It doesn't have anything to do with printing, because these were not printed, it has to do with some graphics thing. Sorry if that sounds stupid, but that's because I don't know what the problem is. Noise?


I see what you're saying, I'm just not AT ALL convinced of your conclusions. I'm honestly not blowing you off, because I like how you're going about making sure. I just can't help.


Thanks for the examples. I'm not saying it's fake either. I'm just saying that I've been in a few discussions about altered jpg images and the issues I'm raising are usually the type of issues that raise some red flags.

The laser printed lettering is different than the lettering that is on the blank certificates. However, the entire certificate would have been scanned. It's odd that the laser printed letters appear to have different artifacts than the rest of the lettering on the same scanned page.

In other words, during the scanning process, why would black letters produced by a laser printer come out different than black letters printed on the certificate? The scanner and software should treat them the same I would think.

On the other hand, if the lettering was added in a software editing program, like you showed with your example, weird digital artifacts may be caused by the blending of the images.

Also, as I mentioned in the other post, we KNOW the image was digitally altered by the FACT that somebody put a black rectangle over the certificate number. It's just a matter of which specific information was altered.

Here's the black square gamma corrected. It's weird that there seems to be another rectangle inside the black rectangle.




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
It's still there, but it's no big deal. I simply wanted to know if Barack personally endorsed the site and knew what was on it, or if it was put up on his behalf.

Unless I'm specifically addressed, I'm out of this discussion. Obviously there are two polarized groups present, and proving or disproving anything at this point is nigh impossible. It's all speculation, opinion, hearsay, etc.

Thanks for the reply BH.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
That looks very much like the extra rectangles in my "uncleaned) avatar picture.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by coop039
I read a couple pages past this and no one has responded to it yet. If this is true, the even his birth certificate wont help. His mother would have been 3 years shy of making him eligible.


Just wanted to respond to this. I believe you are right. Even if his mother was on vacation out of the country when he was born, he would be ineligible to be President. I'm not a lawyer or anything, but from everything I've read, that's what I think.

But I also think he was born in the US, so there's so problem.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That looks very much like the extra rectangles in my "uncleaned) avatar picture.


Geez.... I didn't even notice that.

You're right. It's looks just like your uncleaned avatar. Which to me shows that the certificate was scanned and the black rectangle added in some sort of editing software. This gives strong reason to believe the scan was edited digitally before being published. I.e., the black rectangle wasn't the result of a black marker, or paper taped on the page. The black rectangle was digitally added.

The question is, were other parts of the image edited at the same time, like the names, etc.?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I DO NOT think a 10 Minute Old Baby has a religion preference. That is absolutely crazy.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


Of course the black rectangle was added in software editing. I thought that was clear from the beginning. The document was scanned, and then, so someone couldn't print it off and use it for identity theft, the number of the document (like a serial number) was blacked out. I never suspected that someone used a marker. That wouldn't be very secure.

As to what other parts were edited, I guess we'll just have to keep wondering.
But check this out. As regards the pixelation, I don't see a difference in the print and the seal:



Also, the green DOES extend into the letters. (Between A and M in NAME and within the C in Barack)



Then I looked at the printing across the top (dark green background):



Then I did a "negative" of that image (to get a light background)



It looks just like the rest. But because of the dark background, it's just harder to see.

I'm sick today and can't do anything else, so this is kind of fun.


[edit on 13-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Good finds!

The negative of the white on black is a good pic. I didn't notice the pixelation on the seal in my viewer.

If you think this is fun, try going into the 9/11 forum and analyzing some of the pics and vids there.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LLoyd45
I don't see where producing his birth certificate is asking so much of the man? I have to do it when I apply for a job, why shouldn't he for the presidency?


Really? I find that very interesting; in all the time I have been in the job market, over 30 years, I have never been asked to supply my birth certificate, even when applying for government (state & federal) positions. I admit that it is one of the documents that can be used when filling out your W-4 for a new job, but it is never required, as long as you have a social security card.

Also, just so you all know, one of the requisite qualifications for fiilng papers to run for POTUS is that you be a citizen of the U.S., which requires, surprise, a valid birth certificate. Go figure~!



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
You know, the people who seem to feel that this is no big deal, and think that to ask him to produce a document common to all naturally born citizens of America is inappropriate; I hope you can take just a second, go find a mirror, and consider what you're saying. This guy is running for the top office of the most powerful and influential country on the planet. The most powerful and influential country that has in fact ever existed in recorded history.

And you think asking him to provide a document, as one astute poster points out, that you need to be hired for a part time job, is "scraping the barrel?"

You Obamanatics need some serious time to reflect on all you've been brainwashed into believing. The mans not the messiah, nor is he beyond reproach. If you actually did some research about all of the exceptionally negative aspects of Obama, rather then blindly buy into all the media hype, you'd awaken to a political landscape very much different than the one you're seeing through rosy red glasses.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Then why continue to claim that it isn't valid?

Hmmm .... so now QUESTIONING if it's authentic is the same as stating absolutely that it's not valid? Only in your universe, slick.


Just as your automatic assumption and implication that it's fake,


1 - Automatic assumption/implication - no. If you bothered to read the thread, you would have seen that my automatic assumption/implication and response to BH posting it was ... EXCELLENT! Now it can be put to bed.

Read the freak'n thread.

2 - After viewing the 'race = African' part, I QUESTION the authenticity.
Big difference.


You and I know that is BS. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence for you to even attempt to convince us you or other people do not have an agenda.

Oh please ... how old are you?

Get on the topic (which isn't me) or get off the thread.


[edit on 6/13/2008 by FlyersFan]



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join