With regards to the thread talking about the image being photoshopped because of "halos", they're a direct result of image compression for JPGS..

Short version of image compression, comparing 3 different common internet file types.

BMP = Completely uncompressed, BMPS are bitmaps, where every pixel is assigned a specific location and color value. These files are large, which is why we use the following two types frequently..

GIF - image has reduced color depth, limiting the number of colors used in the image, allowing there to simply be a color key, and then assigning each pixel in an image a value from the color key. Fewer colors, smaller file

JPG - Uses a funky algorithm to compare areas of documents - an area that's mostly one color will get chopped up into one big block of color, and more detailed areas use more of the file size. The artifacts mentioned are a direct result of JPG compression and smoothing, which is why you should never actually repeatedly save JPGs with an image editing program, because the artifacts will increase and the detail will decrease.

So yeah, artifacts are not a sign of being "photoshopped", if anything, it's harder to fake artifacts when you're photoshopping something, unless you're really aware of the basic details I just mentioned, you can make an image look too smooth, by only editing one particular area. The eye will notice this and your editing will be revealed.. (in a former life, I occasionally removed digital watermarks from video game screenshots for blog reviews, so I've had a bit of practice with this sort of thing)

Not to say it can't be done, but artifacts do not equal proof one way or the other. A talented forger with the right tools can do almost anything nowadays.

this is very intimidating.

/

[edit on 103131p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by coolieno99

I went into this with a completely open mind (something the Obamanationalists seem to have lost).

Sounds like an open mind, all right!

Anyway, I agree there are differences in the 2 documents. I have seen that since the beginning. But that does not prove that one is a FAKE and one is REAL. They are DIFFERENT for SOME reason. But to assume that that reason is that one is "faked" is... well... just an assumption.

I used to work at Intel and I have dealt with my share of documentation updates and errors. It's VERY possible that they updated the border design and didn't change the revision number of the document because the text on the document did not change. Who knows? Maybe the revision number only indicates the revision of the DATA that's on the document.

And it would seem to me that if they were going to make a fake, they had to have an original to "copy" it from. The DeCosta certificate was easy enough to find. Why would Obama's people (whoever made this "fake") make such an obvious difference?? If they had an original, why didn't they just make a copy of it and make their "fake"? It doesn't make sense that they would make it so different than the copy they were using as an original.

The other obvious anomalies were the missing registrar signature and the state embossed seal. It would've been very easy for the Obama people just flip over the BC, and scan the back side, and show it to the public. If the first copy is not too legible, they can plunk down $11.50 and order another one.
One other qualm I have with this BC, is that the state embossed seal doesn't show through. From what I've read, the embossing tool can imprint just about any kind of paper except cardboard(where the imprints would be visible on both sides). Unless Obama's BC was printed on cardboard, the embossed seal should show through the front face(like DeCosta's BC).

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
... Why would Obama's people (whoever made this "fake") make such an obvious difference?? If they had an original, why didn't they just make a copy of it and make their "fake"? It doesn't make sense that they would make it so different than the copy they were using as an original.

This "fake" is good enough to fool most of the 120 million registered voters. As long as it appears "official".
It is perplexing, the Obama and DeCosta BC both have the same Revision date. The layout and design should be the same. Who knows, maybe they based their template on DeCosta's BC, and changed the borders to make it look better. Maybe this explains why the borders have a slight mismatch on Obama's BC (from Techdude's analysis).

Originally posted by coolieno99
One other qualm I have with this BC, is that the state embossed seal doesn't show through.

But it does. This has been discussed in at least one of the other threads but to sum it up, most printers have lights from 2 directions that wipe out the shadows made by folds and other bumps, such as those made by an embossed seal. See the link in my signature and follow the links there for more information. They have used edge detection software to "find" the seal and it's there. I can even see it on the uncompressed KOS version.

Obama birth certificate: Real or phony baloney?
Authenticity of crucial document staked on Daily Kos-derived image

Thus his citizenship comes down to proving he was born in the USA, and his campaign has staked its credibility on the authenticity of the Daily Kos-derived birth certificate image," the report said.

I don't know what is going on but he could end this whole controversy.

Originally posted by neformore

Not sure if I've got all of them yet - those are the ones from this forum. I'll look at the other poltical forums in a while.

Note - I haven't closed any yet.

I think it should also be noted that 4 of the threads mentioned were created by two members. Two threads each. So in regard to the ATS TOS they were spamming themselves (and FlyersFan, who created the first thread).

I personally think that one should look deeper into the members jamming the board with rehash spam type threads. One of the members who created two Obama Birth Cert. threads has created numerous (over 30) threads in the little over a month that they have been here, that push the limits of ATS TOS regarding this spam issue. I encourage you to look deeper into the matter, seriously. This goes farther than Obama's CoB.

Since this is now the definitive Birth Certificate thread, does it also apply to John McCain? I have not seen his Birth Certificate posted anywhere, and he was actually born in another country. Obama may or may not have dual citizenship because of his father not being a citizen of the United States, but he was actually born on US soil. Wouldn't McCain also have dual citizenship because of his Parents citizenship, in combination with his live birth in Panama? Where is the clamor for his CoB and questions of dual citizenship?

DocMoreau

Originally posted by coolieno99
Since then, Ms. Okubo has retracted from her earlier statement concerning the legitimacy of Obama's BC.

SHE did not "retract" her statement. The truth is she made several statements, some of them seemingly contradictory, but she has not (as far as I know) issued a retraction to anything she said.

By the way, put the purple copy above up on your screen and walk about 10 feet away and look at it! YOU CAN SEE THE SEAL!

My husband was just standing at the door and I was talking about this post and he said, "I can see it". So I got up and crossed the room and I can see it, too! Even in the purple one!