Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Was Obama's Certificate of Birth Photoshopped?

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   
I don't know where Obama found you to become one of his "Cybernaughts" Savage, but did he give you that Image Library to quickly post these silly pictures with each successive post?

I'm wondering if we can't find a few more of the same images around the Internet on Blog and Board sites.


[edit on 16-6-2008 by jetxnet]




posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by HaTaX
Hmmm, well I'll first admit that I did not read the entire thread, and thought it best not to, so that I would share my opinion about the OP without being influenced by all the previous responses.



Excellent post...

However he is not going to listen to you...

It would not matter if you made a 5 hour movie detailing exactly why and how it is that way..

He is not going to listen.

There is nothing anyone can say that has not been said 50 times in this thread today..

There is no level of evidence that you can provide.. They think figures of speech are actual threats..

They cannot even differentiate figures of speech...bringing up pixel compression in PS is not even going to register as a point.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
I don't know where Obama found you to become one of his "Cybernaughts" Savage, but did he give you that Image Library to quickly post these silly pictures with each successive post?

I'm wondering if we can't find a few more of the same images around the Internet on Blog and Board sites.


[edit on 16-6-2008 by jetxnet]



In the opposite place the GOP found you.

My pictures speak 10,000 words... and they make more sense then the collective works of all of you.

Why is it bothering you?

You going to call some mods because I am so mean to you?

If you cry I get a bumper sticker.







posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
dagnabbit jaime don't make me come in here and explain T&C again.


WHERE THE HELL ARE THE MODS???

PTS IS GONE... THIS IS ATS... GO READ POLITICAL BAITING in the T&C... THESE THREADS ARE BLATANT VIOLATIONS.


I'm about to run and get Mark...



Coven



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:08 AM
link   
This thread requires Logic and Deductive Reasoning to partake and see the viable indiications that the CoB is indeed a digitized fake.

If you are not logical or giving into emotional appeasement as you are Coven, then you will fail to understand threads with this much introspection to reveal the facts.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
This thread requires Logic and Deductive Reasoning to partake and see the viable indiications that the CoB is indeed a digitized fake.

If you are not logical or giving into emotional appeasement as you are Coven, then you will fail to understand threads with this much introspection to reveal the facts.






Now you are trying to say you have the abilities of Logic and Deductive Reasoning!!!

Well with the volume of ALL of your posts regarding everything Barrack Hussien Obama... There is not a single instance of logic or deductive reasoning...

If we were to round you all up and squeeze you till the last drop we would not be able fill a bucky ball with logic or reasoning.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:30 AM
link   


If we were to round you all up and squeeze you till the last drop we would not be able fill a bucky ball with logic or reasoning.


You have contributed absolutely nothing to thread in terms of a reasonable challange to the OP's findings with regard to a fake image.

It is because you cannot. Because you can't, you just spew forward with emotional based posts aimed with a pathetic attempt at destroying the credibility of the target poster.

Your pictures and flaming rhetoric shows your inclination to emotional appeasment, thus ignoring factual information or providing logic to arrive at this information.

At first, though maybe 'cause your glasses were to thick, but now see that you are a "feeler" with regard to this subject and likely others. This is isn't a bad thing, just not good for finding facts.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet



If we were to round you all up and squeeze you till the last drop we would not be able fill a bucky ball with logic or reasoning.


You have contributed absolutely nothing to thread in terms of a reasonable challange to the OP's findings with regard to a fake image.

It is because you cannot. Because you can't, you just spew forward with emotional based posts aimed with a pathetic attempt at destroying the credibility of the target poster.

Your pictures and flaming rhetoric shows your inclination to emotional appeasment, thus ignoring factual information or providing logic to arrive at this information.

At first, though maybe 'cause your glasses were to thick, but now see that you are a "feeler" with regard to this subject and likely others. This is isn't a bad thing, just not good for finding facts.


FACTS??

CREDIBILITY????

LOGIC????

REASONING????


What makes you think you or the OP have any of this?


Well perhaps if you could READ you would see how long ago and how many times I and others have obliterated your nonsense.

I have pointed out the fallacies to your inane "BELIEFS" that do not have a single iota of reality to them..

But you fools do not listen... How many times can you be shown to be wrong.. told that you are wrong... proven to be wrong before it sinks in that you are indeed.....WRONG...



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   
You, Savage one, have not proved anything wrong in even the most remote context of the topic.

Please provide some detail explaining where us who think the CoB is a fake are wrong, with regard to the supporting evidence in this thread.

I may be fried, but feel I held up my end of the bargain pretty-well (and I still know there are 50 states ; )

This thread also require that you have good vision, at least 20/30. You may not be able to see the evidence that well either. Those glasses are pretty-thick, so one has to speculate as to how much detail you can see in the images.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   
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...



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   
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]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by pstrron
Blacking out the number is a red flag as the number couldn't be used for identity theft but sure can be back traced.


So it can be back traced... but not used in a way to violate his privacy?????

Comon..

This is Logic?

No its not.

We do not need his BC... its absurd..

He could of been born on the goddamn alien world IDX TWAAAHCK in 4th star system to the left after the third globular cluster in intergalactic space and he would still be a US CITIZEN!!!!

I am so sick of this bullcrap..



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SavageHenry


Excellent post...

However he is not going to listen to you...

It would not matter if you made a 5 hour movie detailing exactly why and how it is that way..

He is not going to listen.

There is nothing anyone can say that has not been said 50 times in this thread today..

There is no level of evidence that you can provide.. They think figures of speech are actual threats..

They cannot even differentiate figures of speech...bringing up pixel compression in PS is not even going to register as a point.


First, you've shown ZERO knowledge of anything relating to this topic, and have added nothing to the discussion.

Second, try discussing the topic, not the poster. You're repeatedly violating the T&C on this thread.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by coven
dagnabbit jaime don't make me come in here and explain T&C again.


WHERE THE HELL ARE THE MODS???

PTS IS GONE... THIS IS ATS... GO READ POLITICAL BAITING in the T&C... THESE THREADS ARE BLATANT VIOLATIONS.

Coven


What? Now trying to determine the TRUTH about whether Obama photoshopped his certificate of birth is political baiting??? In the Decision 2008 forum?? On a conspiracy site???

It's you who are violating the T&C by making your posts about me, and not about the topic of the thread, which is "Was Obama's Certificate of Birth Photoshopped?"



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SavageHenryis?


But you fools do not listen... How many times can you be shown to be wrong.. told that you are wrong... proven to be wrong before it sinks in that you are indeed.....WRONG...




Ok. Here's your challenge. Create a thread the PROVES that Obama's Certificate of Birth hasn't been photoshopped. Or even cite one scintilla of evidence that it wasn't edited. Just one scintilla. You do know what a scintilla is, right?

The question has become not IF the document was digitally edited, but WHAT part of the document was digitally edited.

If you would actually try reading the posts you might have learned this by now.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thousand
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.


Not exactly.

Here's what he know:

1. CoB was scanned.
2. Scan was edited in photoshop or other editor. This is 100% certain.
3. Resulting edited file was saved and uploaded.
4. Uploaded file has inconsistent pixelation and artifacts.

Here's the name Obama:




Here's the date stamp:




Big difference in pixelation and artifacts between these two areas.

And why is it that so many people want this subject not to be discussed?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   
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]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   
This thread makes perfect sense to me since Obama was holding back his birth certificate from the public in the first place.Brings one a sense of why?Is he trying to hide something?I think the OP is just doing his part to look into this matter a little more. I am no George Bush lover that is for sure but look at how many people delved into his background and dissected every piece of material they could get their hands on...fair is fair in love and war.

I have read through this entire thread and SavageHenry you have done nothing but try to derail this thread left and right....you have provided absolutely nothing with any substance other than your ridiculous ranting about how everyone else knows nothing.Not to mention your clear violation of decorum on this thread.You are starting to show that you are a useless member.

[edit on 05/16/2008 by CaptGizmo]

[edit on 05/16/2008 by CaptGizmo]






top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join