Which is Fake? Which is Real?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I have read a lot about Obama's birth certificate that is posted on the Internet as regards Polarik's and Techdude's findings that Obama's is fake when compared to another birth certificate of the same time period. That prompted me to make this thread.

I am not a birther, but in that vein, I'm curious about what ATS members think about these pictures.

I'm just going to post some document pictures and I'd like your input on them. The comparisons are of roughly the same area on the document. Can you draw some conclusions from these pictures?

Which one would you think is fake?
Which would you trust to be real?

Thank you!










The next picture is of approximately the same area as the previous picture, but I've zoomed in on one to get roughly the same pixel size for equal comparison.




[edit on 4/21/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Real what? Fake what? In context to what, exactly? I don't understand. I see a real letter B, but I'm sure that's not what your on about, is it?

Is this from a bank note?

[edit on 4/21/2010 by hhcore]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
For now, I'm just asking openly for input on the pictures. If you have some, that would be great. If you don't, that's fine, too.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Yah you cant just say which is real or fake without giving context... Document 2 constantly comes out more pixelated so if thats what you want to know I would say that those are the "fakes". More description to what your looking for would help.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
To be a fair comparison, both would need to be the same resolutions, AND better quality images in order to tell.

Other wise I pick '2' as real

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Scarcer]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I appreciate your patience.
And I will definitely give the context once I get some of your opinions. I was hoping people could look at them and take note of differences and what they might mean.

There are no wrong answers, I'm just asking to note what you see.


[edit on 4/21/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
they are both real as I can see both of them on my monitor in reality. Boooyah! did I pass the test



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicious Jones
 


A+! (Just kidding) There will be no test.

Sorry to be so vague.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
K - If I'm hazarding a guess, I would say 1 looks real. Two, is quite pixelated, therefore messier. But then again, 1 could be fake by way of trying to perfect the reproduction. oof. IDK.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Confused on the context, but I guess 2 would be fake.

I think.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I have read a lot about Obama's birth certificate that is posted on the Internet as regards Polarik's and Techdude's findings that Obama's is fake when compared to another birth certificate of the same time period. That prompted me to make this thread.

I am not a birther, but in that vein, I'm curious about what ATS members think about these pictures.

(I will add this context to the OP to make it less confusing.)



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I'm going to go with document #1 as the fake. Simply because Document #1 is less pixlated.

I will hypothesize that #2 is the actual document, as printers back then probably produced more pixelated documents. With jet printers, my guess is that we get less of that.

I know nothing about imaging, so it's just a stab in the dark...and it's fun too!



[edit on 21-4-2010 by Aggie Man]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Document 2 is fake, due to antialiasing. The first set was telling, as I can make similar lettering in Photoshop. The designs are 'off', too. Pic one is printed on paper.

If you're trying to get feedback to counterfeit, my advice is to do with a printing press and an engraver.


On a more serious note- I (think I) see where you're going with this- you want to make comparisons between the 'Official' Obama certificate, shown on the website against the OTHER 'official' Obama certificate that is a photo of a piece of paper. I agree. Those 2 'official' certificates need to be shown side by side so the collective minds on here can go 'wtf?!' and wonder what the heck's going on....

Or, I am wrong, and people will snicker and call me names behind my back.


I smell a conspiracy, all right- but I dont think it actually has to do with where he was born.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by wylekat]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Could be the same document scanned with different settings? IDK. BH, why are you playing games here? Polarik did the analysis and you know well of his findings- we debated them at length many months ago.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Not being a document expert I would place a bet on number 1 being real. Based on simple clarity issues.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Just for reference, here's TechDude's findings about Obama's birth certificate complete with comparison pictures.

Source

True American, I'm doing an experiment of sorts. I'm looking for the same critical inspection that many people have had over Obama's certificate when compared to the Decosta certificate.


Yes, we have debated it, but is it resolved? Have people who thought it was real now agreed that it's fake or vice versa? I don't remember that we all came to the same conclusion.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
OK. Here's the scoop. True American had it right. These ARE the same document. The ONLY difference is the camera used to take the pictures. They were taken by the same person (me) within seconds of each other and in the same location.

And these are just jpegs. No scanning involved. The pictures were just uploaded to my computer from the cameras. I used the same photo editors (Irfanview and Paint) to get the comparison pictures.

Imagine the differences we might see if the pictures were taken by two different people, with different cameras, in different locations and in different lighting... or scanned by different scanners and posted on the Internet... Just imagine.

I have always said that the findings of Techdude and Polarik cannot be trusted because they were analyzing jpeg pictures of scanned documents instead of actual documents. I think these pictures prove my suspicions.

Here are pictures of the document taken with the 2 cameras.



Thoughts?



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Ok, I see where you're going with this now BH, but jeez, next time how about just present the document as the same and show the differences with the cameras, eh?

What, you don't trust us to separate fact from fiction? I want to know the real truth behind this issue just as bad as the next guy- or gal, in your case.


But ok, here's my comments:

I think you have a valid point to the extent that you have shown what can happen with the same document image using two different cameras. But BH, I hate to say it, but I think you have missed some problems that techdude points out with the kerning differences and the heat map image.

While I might almost agree that differences in compression might account for the font size differences, there is no way that it could account for the kerning differences, imo. At least, not to the extent shown in his analysis.


The fonts were observed to not be in the same locations and they also did not share same kerning. The procedure was then used with the 2008 overlay on top of the KOS image. Once again when the 2008 overlay was placed on top of the image they did not immediately line up. After being matched from corner to corner like the 2007 overlay again with some minor variations on the minute angle of the images the security border pattern obviously did not match in pattern or in color. The fonts were observed to not be in the same locations on the page and they also did not share same kerning.


And then you also have the problem with the embossed seals and ink stamps:


The embossed seals and ink stamps in all of the pre-2006 images are clearly visible in the scans however none of the post-2006 seals or ink stamps are visible without extensive manipulation to the digital images. Even when scanning the physical post-2006 certificate in my possession using multiple resolutions and using multiple scanners I was also unable to produce an image which would allow the seal to show though the image. The ink stamps on the rear side were also not visible in the front side scans without digital modifications to the scanned images. My scans of the physical certificate also produced the same results using multiple resolutions and using multiple scanners.


Also note that he was careful to obtain real hard copy certificates to vet these differences.

Frankly, you bringing this back up now just reinforces my opinion that "Steve" is most definitely trying to hide something.

[edit on Wed Apr 21st 2010 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I'll assume that you are talking about the "B" at the top of your examples as being a comparison of two certificates from the same period of time. Based on that, if it is indeed what you are hinting at..

Example 2 is the fake.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


It's not that I didn't trust anyone, I wanted people to be able to look at this without any preconceptions.

I'm not going to get into the details of the analysis. The pictures above (of an ACTUAL document, not a jpeg made from a scanned document on the Internet) reveal vast differences on the SAME document.

The analyses made by TechDude and Polarik are worthless.



Also note that he was careful to obtain real hard copy certificates to vet these differences.


He didn't have an actual copy of Obama's certificate.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join