Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud), page 68

privacy

Pages: << 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 180 times

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 11:50 PM by GingerR

Info on the Aussie BC used for the scam.

www.genealogue.com...
[QUOTE]It was a scanned image of a "Certified Copy of Registration of Birth" dated in 1964 for a David Jeffrey Bomford on a genealogy website for the Bomford family.[/QUOTE]

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 11:53 PM by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
the "typewritten" text doesn't seem to follow the creases in the paper.

I guess that would depend on the randomness of whomever folded it. I'm sure "they" didn't line up the text to the intended folds before folding.

Secondly, the "coat of arms" or whatever is at the top seems to rather unique.

It's plausible that British colonies would all be using similar forms for such documents, with Coat-of-Arms and other boiler-plate differences.

From my experience with document scanners... from low-end hand-held devices in the mid-1990's to high-end drum units... this is clearly a document that has been scanned at medium resolution on a less-than-optimum scanner... then heavily compressed.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 11:55 PM by Jenna

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Does the scanning and compression explain why the lines are rainbow colored but very few of the words show are?

Or did I somehow end up on your ignore list?

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Jenna]

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 11:58 PM by zazzafrazz

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

An original document may have been scanned.
But the typing is clearly added later.
The G on the crease of the title is in no way creased, its on top
The H on the last sentence is also clearly on top of the crease
The R on the "Entered at the Regitsry of the Disct office" also clearl black with no creases.
There is no way these are real.
Totally bodge.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 11:58 PM by GLDNGUN

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
The more i look at these creases and the ink
the more i am convinced both are fake
The ink doesnt not behave the same way it should on a creased document. It sits on top and isnt following the changes in consistency to paper.
[edit on 3-8-2009 by zazzafrazz]

The more I look at the Aussie BC, I can see text affected by the creases. For example, examine the typed text "40 yrs" with a crease across the bottom of the text. Look especially close at the "y". Then look at the typed text "31 years" below it without a crease through the bottom of the text. It looks pretty clear to me that the upper "y" IS affected by the crease, while the lower "y" looks different (unaffected by any crease).

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 11:59 PM by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Jenna
Does the scanning and compression explain why the lines are rainbow colored but very few of the words show are?

Actually, as this close-up shows, there's "rainbow" artifacts everywhere there is a high-contrast transition... which is typical of low-end scanners.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:00 AM by zazzafrazz

reply to post by GLDNGUN

Yes there are some, but i think there ws a n original doc....
but not all buy anymeans
i have highlighted some of the dodgey ones....

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:02 AM by DrMattMaddix

reply to post by zazzafrazz

Indeed, I have been gathering and scanning the images closely in a variety of grafix prgs. The R in Registrar is amazingly black and clear as if some post processing -may- have been done with a high resolution scan before jpg compression.

The EXIF is identical on another BC on their site. "LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01" I think that's ULead technologies. Version 1.01 though ... that would be ancient.

Since ULead makes a variety of software, not just the ability to do a TWAIN compliant import from any TWAIN source, they give photoshop a run for their money in still image manipulations.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:03 AM by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
But the typing is clearly added later.

I disagree.

The easiest way to ascertain of copy has been created via a typewriter is to look at the punctuation... periods and commas... they're all much darker than the letters.

Why?

The small surface area of the periods and commas (as compared to the letters) create a more saturated transition of ink from ribbon to paper from the relatively consistent lever pressure of typing. Letters hit with just about the same pressure, but have a larger surface area, so are not as dark.

Which... oddly enough... is also seen in the Kenyan document.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:04 AM by Jenna

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Ok, thanks. I could see it on the lines without zooming more than it already was and it didn't occur to me to save a copy so I could zoom in more.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:05 AM by zazzafrazz

reply to post by DrMattMaddix

Look Im no expert.
I did a semester on conservation of paper, it helps a little.....
The letters are not consistnet at all with the paper damage
Gldngun may have found some that are, but that is from the original doc.
but i can see more that sit on top.
Its faked totally.
If someone can zoom in like SO did on the ones i have listed you will see no creas ein the letter
I suggest we do that.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:06 AM by BlasteR

reply to post by lee anoma

Well, the assumption of infallability some people have is mind boggling and self-serving to such a point you wonder if most people aren't mentally ill these days.

But look at People like Jaime Moussan. People in Mexico City actually believe everything he spoon-feeds them regarding UFO's even though he doesn't investigate anything to begin with. He wants the people to come to their own conclusions (which is usually that they believe him. At least in Mexico City).

It's this kind of blind self-righteousness that twists people's world perspectives to the point of no return (my patience along with it). People are willing to believe anything if it acts to reinforce pre-existing biases and assumptions. People are just too politically polarized these days and it honestly makes me wanna pull my hair out..

It's called a Confirmation Bias.

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to irrationally avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.

Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.

God forbid anyone admits they were wrong these days. Especially on ATS..

-ChriS

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:07 AM by zazzafrazz

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Yippeee

Shall we debate?

Zoom in the letters i pointed out.
if the ink doesnt have any distress it can not be on that paper.
If it does.....i bow out humbly
remember i think there is a original doc, but there is added text to this grpahically, or im a spider monkeys uncle
...ZAZZ

[edit on 4-8-2009 by zazzafrazz]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:07 AM by schrodingers dog

So what did I miss?

Did miss

lead you to the promised land?

Oh do tell?

What an embarrassment for all of us.

Yet somehow I doubt many have learned a thing and will be back on that lame horse like nothing ever happened ... "oh I never said it was real ..."

Even worse, there will be those that will still believe fake Taitz is selling you quality goods with this junk BC, doing all sorts of further "mental" somersaults in a desperate effort to hold on to your fantasy ... make sure you contribute lots of money to her, it is totally worth it.

And to the ATS brain trust ... congratulations on allowing this community to be one of the last in the world to declare this jackassery a hoax. To this moment the obvious "hedging" of our official position on this matter is not characteristic of the clear thinking, sound decision-making, and dignity I am either used to, or have come to expect from ATS hierarchy ... proud days indeed.

My apologies SO if I sound harsh, I am aware that these are not easy decisions to make, and I am also aware that the above statement will win me no friends, but it is what it is.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:08 AM by truthtothemasses

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Very interesting. The site where the Australian document appeared is still up.

www.bomford.net...

but the link to the image you asked about a date on

www.bomford.net...

is giving a 404 error (on IE, the page still loads from cache for me on Firefox). I wonder why it was removed? Possibly because of the e-mail the ATS user on the previous page of this thread reported sending to the website?

It seems clear one or the other is fake, or both are fake, but with no date on the document which just went missing from the original location, it's hard to say.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Weird. I get that message now clicking on the family trees. What's the deal-e-o???????? I haven't heard anything back from them either.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by truthtothemasses]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:09 AM by Lemon.Fresh

I will now add to the mystery:

1.) South Australian Coat of Arms (1936-1984):

------------------------------------------------------

2.) South Australian Coat of Arms (1984-Present):

-----------------------------------------------------

3.) Kenya Coat of Arms:

Edit: Fixed erroneous first image

[edit on 8/4/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:12 AM by zazzafrazz

~zazz taps her foot waiting impatiently for the zoomed letters requested~

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:13 AM by TrainDispatcher

somebody said something earlier about the letters over the creases...

looks like a crease over the letters to me

[edit on 4-8-2009 by TrainDispatcher]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:14 AM by Mikey84

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
I will now add to the mystery:

1.) South Australian Coat of Arms (1936-1984):

------------------------------------------------------

[edit on 8/4/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

That's incorrect, what you have pictured here is the coat of arms of the United Kingdom.

These were the coat of arms for South Australia during that time, here:

Link

Similar to the Aussie BC but not the same.

Mikey

[edit on 4/8/2009 by Mikey84]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:14 AM by DrMattMaddix

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Actually, as this close-up shows, there's "rainbow" artifacts everywhere there is a high-contrast transition... which is typical of low-end scanners.

And JPEG compression finishes off any quality remaining.

The blacks in the scans are really black.

Here's the next doc in the person's scan process ... obviously its doc66 (the other Australian one in question is doc65.)