Was Obama's Certificate of Birth Photoshopped?, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 16-6-2008 @ 03:53 AM by SavageHenry
reply to post by jetxnet



The information is all around you... try stepping out of your cheap echo chambers and take a gander at the responses others have made regarding the technicalities.

Its called reading...and it is FUNdamental...


reply posted on 16-6-2008 @ 04:07 AM by pstrron
reply to post by jetxnet


After reading the full thread, there seems to be a troll here abouts. Jetnet, it is always best not to feed trolls.

(on topic)

There is no doubt that the coB has been altered in several ways. Now as to the implications we will have to see the original. Blacking out the number is a red flag as the number couldn't be used for identity theft but sure can be back traced.

Personally I have nothing against Obama as the CFR and Trilateral always get their man, woman or both if Obama picks up Hillary. If the Republicans win, the CFR and Trilateral win, if the Democrats win, the CFR and Trilateral win. You never know, this might just be a ruse to get Hillary in office. Should that be the case, a fake coB, money paid to take the fall and the American public is taken for a ride.

So lets see the original with all the numbers and no Photoshop touch-ups.

[edit on 6/16/2008 by pstrron]


reply posted on 16-6-2008 @ 05:13 AM by Thousand
reply to post by HaTaX


I'd say that after this post, you could close the thread. Pixel artifacting like that in the certificate file is about as common a thing as you will find in digital images. JPG compression is a total beast when it comes to accuracy. Anything below 80% quality and it usually starts to mess with the fine details in an image pretty badly. Text is a nightmare when it comes to compression, because it deals with exact lines while a JPG deals with approximations. I'm a web developer, I deal with this kind of thing daily. You're constantly trying to find a balance between image quality and file size, and more often than not we err on the side of quality to get around things exactly like this. I can't even believe this is an issue. It sounds like a big round of straw-grasping if you ask me.

As for the Certificate number, of course it's blacked out. You don't let anything like that out on the net, especially if you're someone important. It doesn't matter if it can be used in identity theft or not, it's a piece of personally identifying information, and it belongs to Obama. I would have done the exact same thing without giving it a moment's thought.

Originally posted by jetxnet
It means i'll have to reload Fireworks and Crack it etc.


Or, you know. You could not be a thief. That would be cool.


reply posted on 16-6-2008 @ 08:34 AM by jamie83
Originally posted by HaTaX

I can tell you from first impression what you're seeing with those artifacts is created by a compression or quantization pattern that is being run in low quality mode. Basically what these quantization matrices do is break the image across a block, and then break that block into many other blocks attempting to compress the image and use "repeated blocks" to save space by referencing 1 block many times across an image. loyees)

So anyway, the point of that whole mess is that the type of artifacting you're seeing is exactly as planned. The user wanted to post that image on the web and probably had to meet size constraints. Because of that, they chose a lesser quality algorithm to make the file smaller. Smaller file size = larger blocks of sample size, so there's less "samples" of the original image. When those blocks have a piece of a letter in them, they tend to throw the color value for the entire block off. Then we see this as mis-colored "boxes" around the print.

This should prove that just because we see it in the document, that isn't 100% proof that it was modified. Anytime that document is saved as a JPEG in a lower quality, those artifacts are bound to show up, and with each progressive copy and re-sampling, the problem becomes more pronounced and obvious.


This is what I thought at first too. However, the date stamp on the same certificate does NOT show this type of artifact. Look here:



Now compare the above part of the certificate to this part of the certificate:




It seems the date stamp was scanned at one resolution, but the laser printed letters were saved at a different resolution.

Further, the a sample from other scans that are known to be unaltered look like the portion of the CoB that has the date stamp, not the laser printing:




So your premise about the loss of resolution actually supports the theory that the words on the CoB were added in photoshop.


reply posted on 16-6-2008 @ 09:07 AM by jimmyx
reply to post by jamie83


was McCain's birth certificate forged? at 71 yrs old, does anybody really have the original bith certificate for McCain from 71 years ago? how do anybody know if that is for real? i mean he was born.. what...1937??? back in the days of the great depression, any old piece of paper back then could have been forged for 50 cents.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by jimmyx]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^