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.

 

Was Obama's Certificate of Birth Photoshopped?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthWithin
Figured you would do that.

Here is your own evidence. The other birth certificate that you claim is real and shouldn't have any artifacts.



So does this mean you are a fraud too?

Care to talk about some issues instead of birth certificates?


these obama haters are busted....nice one, but this is not going to stop them from speading this type of crap around. they don't have to tell the truth, they just have to have people believe the lie




posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
As someone that has been working for 10 years in photoshop I can say that it is indeed photoshopped. But that doesn't matter.

The fact is, there is no raised state seal on the document, meaning it is not authentic. All state certificates must have a raised seal, or they cannot be used for legal purposes.

And even if there was a raised seal, this would merely be a certificate of birth or CoB, not a birth certificate or BC. They are 2 different things. Obama was asked to provide his birth certificate, he produced another document and claims it's his birth certificate. He is blatantly lying to our faces by claiming it is a birth certificate when it is not and is instead a certificate of birth.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

these obama haters are busted....nice one, but this is not going to stop them from speading this type of crap around. they don't have to tell the truth, they just have to have people believe the lie


You are very far off base here. I am looking for the truth, not just blindly accepting what other people say.

It's already know with 100% certainty that the CoB was photoshopped or edited with some other digital editing software. This is not in dispute.

What IS in dispute is which portion of the CoB was edited. I have provided examples that CLEARLY show that the black on green letters are distorted in a way very similar to letters on color background generated by editing software. I have also shown that ON THE SAME CERTIFICATE there is another area where the date stamp is located that does NOT show any artifacts at all.

Here are the two sections side by side:


Area with distortion






No distortion



Also note that the area of NO distortion has even been enlarged significantly in attempt to see and SIGNS of distortion in this area. There are none.

So why are the letters representing Obama's name, presumably scanned directly from the printed certificate, showing substantial distortion compared to the other areas of the certificate?

I still believe this is the result of the certificate being scanned at a different resolution than the saved photoshop job. I haven't seen ONE bit of evidence or source to refute this theory.

Anybody?

[edit on 16-6-2008 by jamie83]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
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.



PLEASE... PLEASE... PLEASE!!!! Do explain logic, and lack of emotion to me... PLEASE... I'm sure your grasp on both is EVIDENT by your postings in these forums.

as the mods REFUSE to do their job on these threads let me again point out T&C for ATS...

1g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while posting outside the Politics forums at politics.abovetopsecret.com....


There is NO PTS anymore... It has been integrated into ATS, and as such any posts like these are considered POLITICAL baiting. Say so in plain english in the T&C... either time for an update... or time to ban these posters and their threads.

No qualms here... if you went about your information in the right way (I.e. facts and evidence... not blogs, and rabbit holes) I would be glad to contribute to your thread. being that the only purpose of these threads is to make your point that "Obama Bad" is against the T&C for the use of this website and SHOULD cease and desist immediately.

Just because the mods are to lazy to do their job, doesn't mean the membership is going to give EITHER of you a pass Jetxnet & Jaime83.

I have done my part to end this little ploy.

If it continues in this manner, I am sure I am not the only long term member ATS will lose (this is a replacement for a lost account created in '04)


Coven



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
(not that anyone cares what I think .. but I'm going to tell you anyways)

I think it would be FANTASTIC if the people who understand photoshopping and faking documents could have a thread to educate the rest of us on it all.

There are TONS of alleged documents out there - UFO documents, Majestic documents, military documents, 'certificates of birth', etc etc ... and considering this site is into debunking and/or verifying, it would be VERY HELPFUL to know what to look for in regards to fake documents.

I have no clue what to look for in regards to fakery in documents.

In Obama's fake certificate of birth case - the 'race = African' thing stuck out as odd. But as far as looking at documents etc etc ... I have no clue.

I'd like it if those who understand documents, photoshopping, fakery, etc ... if those folks could get together and make a thread to educate us all.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Oh .. to those that are complaining about T&C and MODS .... I'll add this complaint ... the TAGS at the bottom of this thead violate T&C. They should be considered bad tags and those that posted them should get fined points.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I can explain why you see the pixelation in one part of the image and not in the other. The date stamp is done in a much lighter ink, almost like a watermark. Because the difference delta in luminosity is greater on the darker print, each one of the squares has a much larger range of luminosity to cover.

In other words, the background being a light green contains mostly light colored pixels in it, its easier for the compression algorithm to come to a happy medium for that entire block. When there is a part of black text contained in the block, it skews the luminosity result for that entire block. So the resultant "block" after compression is going to be skewed dark and light greatly with respect to how much of that letter is inside of that sample block.

Good observing, and to the untrained eye what you're saying makes perfect sense. Just remember computers think on a much more linear level then we do, it has no idea the black there is part of text, in fact it doesn't care what it is. It's very similar in how a digital camera adjusts it's white balance based on incoming light. Take a picture of a light bulb in a dark room, you will only see the light bulb, the camera doesn't know there's more to the picture, it can only adjust for the light levels it receives and therefore makes it's best guess to capture as much information as possible.

If you want to see the levels I am referring to, open a image in some type of photo editing software (Photoshop works great, but if you don't have it and want a great free alternative try Paint.Net) and take a look at the "Levels" section of the application. This will show what the luminosity levels are across the image. IE, a higher level on the white side means the image is very bright and possibly washed out, a lower level means it is a darker picture and might have lost detail because the color levels are so close to black. When you get a histogram (The chart thats in the level section) that has a large amount of white AND black in it, it becomes difficult for image compression algorithms to deal with cleanly.

Hope this helps clear up what I'm talking about a little more.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



The thing that stands out the most to me is that the "background" of the certificate is rather blurry and out of focus, while the text is very sharp. If the text is real and actually printed on the paper, it is on the same focal plane as the background paper, so should be the same sharpness as it. But it's not. That is the biggest sign to me that the text was added digitally, after the background paper was scanned in.

Here's an example. The first image, is an out-of-focus photograph of a car. The second image is the same photograph with text that I added in photoshop. Now, the third photograph is what it should look like if the text was really in the photo, actually on the car when the photo was taken.








Do you see what I am saying?

Now here is an actual crop of Barack's certificate:





Now if it were real, it should look more like this, with the text matching the 'blurryness' (low resolution scan) of the background paper:




Sorry, but this certificate of birth is rather fake. Everyone keeps pointing out the 'halos' or compression artifacts around the text, but that doesn't mean anything. Instead, look to how sharp the text is compared to the paper it is printed on. Since paper and any text printed on it would be flat, it should scan at the same 'sharpness' since they are on the same focal plane. But on Obama's certificate of birth, they are not.

It's a fake.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
After that, I would also like to point out again that on the original scan, there is still no raised state seal on the certificate. The state seal is flat. On state certificates, the seal is supposed to be raised to show authenticity.

Even if it's not photoshopped, the document ITSELF is fake and not authentic.

What excuse is the Obama campaign going to come up with now - that they sent the certificate of birth through a laundry press?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by coven
No qualms here... if you went about your information in the right way (I.e. facts and evidence... not blogs, and rabbit holes) I would be glad to contribute to your thread. being that the only purpose of these threads is to make your point that "Obama Bad" is against the T&C for the use of this website and SHOULD cease and desist immediately.

Just because the mods are to lazy to do their job, doesn't mean the membership is going to give EITHER of you a pass Jetxnet & Jaime83.


Dude, ATS created the Decision 2008 forum to discuss the 2008 Presidential election. ATS is also a conspiracy site. This mystery about Obama's certificate of birth is BOTH a conspiracy topic and related to Decision 2008.

So get off your self-righteous high horse and try addressing the questions posed in this thread.

The source of truth is irrelevant. I'm sure Obama supporters who read the "Obama and the Bilderbergers" thread on ATS about Jim Johnson, George Soros, and Perseus would have labeled it a smear job -until it proved correct.

Maybe the same things going to happen with the CoB. I do know I wouldn't count on the MSM to break open any stories like these.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HaTaX

In other words, the background being a light green contains mostly light colored pixels in it, its easier for the compression algorithm to come to a happy medium for that entire block. When there is a part of black text contained in the block, it skews the luminosity result for that entire block. So the resultant "block" after compression is going to be skewed dark and light greatly with respect to how much of that letter is inside of that sample block.


So what you're saying is areas of high contrast would tend to be distorted more?

Also, is there a way to tell if this effect was caused in the scan or was the result of photoshopping the letters? I'm curious because I've yet to find another similar scan that shows the same artifacts, but I have seen other photoshop text that produces the artifacts.

And where is the distortion most likely to occur? In the scanning process, or in the conversion to jpg process?

Thanks! Great post!



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
This discussion will continue in a Civil Manner.

Any further derailments, off topic or attacking posts will be deleted and warnings issued.

Please be guided accordingly.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_Orange Since paper and any text printed on it would be flat, it should scan at the same 'sharpness' since they are on the same focal plane. But on Obama's certificate of birth, they are not.

It's a fake.


So what's your take on this part of the image, in terms of focus and blurryness,




...and this part of the image:




To me it looks like the date stamp area looks "real" and the letter area looks fake, in part because of what you said about the focus.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_Orange

Even if it's not photoshopped, the document ITSELF is fake and not authentic.

What excuse is the Obama campaign going to come up with now - that they sent the certificate of birth through a laundry press?


The document was 100% photoshopped where they blacked out the certificate no. It's just a matter of WHERE exactly it was photoshopped.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
This discussion will continue in a Civil Manner.

Any further derailments, off topic or attacking posts will be deleted and warnings issued.

Please be guided accordingly.


THANK YOU!!!!!

I am very happy that somebody noticed!



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


Yes exactly. If the text (not the date stamp) were actually on the paper when it was scanned, it should be at the same level of focus as that date stamp which is really on the paper.

The date stamp is real, the level of sharpness/focus matches the paper and texture it is printed on.

The other text is not. It's very sharp, and appears to be floating in the air over the paper. That is a flawless sign that it was added AFTER it was scanned in.

What it appears has happened, is they took a blank certificate (one that wasn't yet printed on), scanned it in, and then added the text on the computer. That is, without a doubt what the process was.

Or perhaps they took a certificate that wasn't blank, cloned out the real text in photoshop (which with a textured background like on the certificate, would be easy as cake) and then typed the obama text over it. But this is less likely I think.


Whichever process they used, the certificate is simply not real.

And again, I'll make note of the raised seal - all state certificates have raised seals to show authenticity. Especially ones printed in 2007 like this one. This certificate is lacking a raised seal, photoshopped or not, which means the document itself is a phony.

Kind of like phony money - it's not photoshopped either, but it's fake and counterfeit.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_Orange

Or perhaps they took a certificate that wasn't blank, cloned out the real text in photoshop (which with a textured background like on the certificate, would be easy as cake) and then typed the obama text over it. But this is less likely I think.

Whichever process they used, the certificate is simply not real.

And again, I'll make note of the raised seal - all state certificates have raised seals to show authenticity. Especially ones printed in 2007 like this one. This certificate is lacking a raised seal, photoshopped or not, which means the document itself is a phony.


I think they may have used somebody else's certificate, but then THAT certificate should have a raised seal, no?

Don't we have any ATS members here who were born in Hawaii who could request a Certificate of Birth to see what theirs looks like!!!???



[edit on 16-6-2008 by jamie83]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I don't have any doubt at all that it's a fake certificate. The question I have is WHY? Is there really any evidence that he was born in Kenya and not the US?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Well it does appear to be photo shopped;so the question is what exactly is he or a member of his staff trying to hide.His religion-which should not make any difference if you are proud of your faith or the fact that he may not be a valid U.S. citizen? If it is the latter then he can kiss his chances of presidency good bye. I think it is probably both. I personally don't like or dislike Obama.He has never done anything wrong to me or the country as far as I can tell.That does not mean I am going to vote for him though.

It is definitely a major red flag issue though.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_Orange
 


I am one who believes the BC is fake too....for most of the reasons discussed here. Specifically the black out of the File number (BC number).

There is absolutely NO reason to block that out: 1. Because he is running for the President of the US....his life MUST be an open book 100% 2. That number being shown will provide NO MORE information then what is provided to us already (name, parents names, etc) except for one thing: it can be traced to see if it is indeed HIS BC. That should raise MAJOR flags to everyone. Its FILE NUMBER
like an invoice number.
Same thing.

Even if someone got his social security number....so what? There is NO WAY anyone could harm with it. LMAO


However, I wanted to say that I pulled out my birth certificate. I have an official 'copy' because after 30+yrs, my original one has been lost


My copy has a seal from the state of Texas. However, the seal is not raised, per say. The BC around the edges, including the seals are textured.



[edit on 16-6-2008 by greeneyedleo]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join