Which is Fake? Which is Real?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
The one on Obama's website was simply a digital thing, tho. THAT certificate was *made*, simply because there was no paper folds, no nothing. An example:


[img]
[/img]

Now- this is a nearly completely created in the computer gag mining certificate. Never been printed out. Could you tell if this was real or not- as in it only exists in the digital world, and not in the 'real' on paper and in your hands one?

I see the 'digital' version created for the website as something to look at, and the paper versions as to look at secondarily. Then ask the question: Why. Then ask who started the 'birther' rumors. There's something funny going on, and I am sure it extends far past where the president was born.




posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
The one on Obama's website was simply a digital thing, tho.


Exactly. It's a file. A scan of the actual paper. Hence my suspicion about ANYONE'S ability to claim it as "fake" OR "real". How can anyone (even a document specialist) claim that a digital picture on the internet of a scanned document is a "fake" by comparing it to other digital pictures or even comparing it to a real BC?

They CAN'T. The claims of Obama's CoLB being fake are... worthless. I'm not saying it's real, I'm saying we cannot possible trust anyone's analysis of it.



Now- this is a nearly completely created in the computer gag mining certificate. Never been printed out. Could you tell if this was real or not- as in it only exists in the digital world, and not in the 'real' on paper and in your hands one?


Absolutely not.



Then ask the question: Why.


Because his critics were clamoring for it and he naively thought this would quell their curiosity.



Then ask who started the 'birther' rumors.


Great question.
Too bad we don't have that answer.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Ummm- no. That's the point I am trying to make. It wasnt a scan, it was a completely made up thing, like a CGI movie (think Toy Story). There were no folds, wrinkles, not even so much as a paper texture on it. ( I am talking about the COLB, BTW- which finding a pic of it is for some reason kinda hard- all I can find are scans of the printed one, complete with the scuffs, fibers, and other things a paper version would have.).

I looked over the 'original' and it was completely free of the normal things one sees in a scan of paper. I can no longer find the 'original' digital creation, which both ticks me off and really sends up alarm bells.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Side by side comparison doesn't tell us much...we would need two offical "real" birth certificates and then compare all three.

The other issue here is resolution, image quality, and the quality of the original printed document...not all documents print the same. One birth certificate may have been printed on a better printer than the other.


So I really don't have an opinion on these images.


ETA: Ahhh...I see where you were going with this...sneaky sneaky BH. But yeah...I agree with you, resolution, image quality, blah blah blah...you can't work with a digitial copy of something to try to prove it's authenticity. Not that this will change the minds of any birther...but good job anyway.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by OutKast Searcher]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
It wasnt a scan, it was a completely made up thing, like a CGI movie (think Toy Story). There were no folds, wrinkles, not even so much as a paper texture on it.


I'm not going to look it up right now, but it WAS a scan and the embossed seal was visible.

Additionally



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I am gonna retract my rebuttal til I can find that (blankety blank) crummy photoshopped thing that was the official BC for the first part of the year.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by wylekat]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





I'm not going to look it up right now, but it WAS a scan and the embossed seal was visible.


That one's a scan. There was a completely digitally made up one floating around out there for a while, too. I almost wanted to snag it and do nefarious yet hysterical things to it (non political), because of how perfectly bogus it was.

THAT one is MIA. I cannot find hide nor hair of it anywhere online....



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by wylekat
 


I don't remember ever seeing that one, but I know man people have mentioned it. Are you talking about the one at the Daily KOS website?

Check this out. Go to this page.

Daily KOS

Left click on the certificate so it zooms in. Use your mouse to maneuver yourself to the area right above the date stamp (on the other side of the doc) and you'll see tiny wavy lines in the green cross hatch pattern that are indicative of the embossed seal. You won't find those little ripples anywhere else on the document.



And if you use that image and the GIMP software, you can actually see the seal:



Don't know if that's what you meant or not.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Sadly, no it's not, and it's driving me NUTS not being able to find that obviously fake thing that the Obama website had.

Unless I hallucinated the whole thing, or it was in an alternate reality- I am stuck jumping up and down and screaming about something I have no proof of whatsoever. The one I saw had a herringbone background like the mining certificate one I put up- except it was bright green, no seal, and you could tell some of it was a cut/ paste job for the state seal and I think something else. There was no stamp, no embossed seal, no signatures, nothing. It was an obvious, obvious photoshop job- and it was being touted by the website as the 'real' thing. Then- POOF- gone without a trace. It was replaced by what you have now, it looks like- stamped sig, embossed seal, background is now what I guess is the official background....

Honestly, I feel like I imagined the whole thing- but...... Let's say this thing DID exist- just for argument's sake- and thanks to the short memories of the populace, it was quietly phased out for this paper version- updated and authentic looking (or hell, it could BE the real one for all I know at this point)- and for whatever reason, it was used to launch this whole mess- Birthers, Chaos, Weird new laws implemented in various states- people being called racists or worse- and what do ya know- more division.

I think there was a fake BC- as in, it was a fake created for a purpose... and that Obama IS Hawaiian born- so basically, a fake of the real thing, and I think that having done it's job, it's been quietly retired so everyone can squabble amongst themselves and probably not notice much else.....

[edit on 22-4-2010 by wylekat]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I can tell you no ifs ands or buts that the birth certificate on the external website is fake... P.S. That kos is not me...lol. Okay now to answer why. The font is completely wrong... it is lightfaced not the bold or black that is used on birth certificates. Notice his name and the spacing between it and childs name... it is wrong with the rest of the certificate. too close. Also in the name if you look at the green paper behind it there is evidence of it being photoshopped, as there is a slight smear above the BA and it is slightly angled. I can look more if anyone needs any more proof.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Also if you take it into photoshop or illustrator and draw guides you will see that the verticle green lines are equal on the rest of the document but are off under his name... someone went a little overboard with the clone tool.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by wylekat
 


I don't want to say that you're hallucinating,
but I've been in this from day one. I remember the day that the certificate was posted on Obama's website. There was MUCH discussion about it here. There were pictures a-plenty and the very first pictures were of the certificate I posted above with the green double lined background.

I do remember a person making a fake to show how easy it would be, but that was never on Obama's website. They posted it to their photobucket account.


Originally posted by K_OS
The font is completely wrong...


All that you claim proves it's fake can easily be explained. A new laser printer. A different scanner, a drop of moisture on the paper... And unless you're a documents expert and have held the document in your hand, I'm sorry, but your testimony means nothing. That's what this thread is about.

Did you see this picture???



That's the SAME document! The spacing is different, The color is drastically different, the one on the left looks "curved", the one on the right looks flat. The differences you claim are easily explained by the use of different equipment.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





I do remember a person making a fake to show how easy it would be, but that was never on Obama's website. They posted it to their photobucket account.


THAT might have been what I saw... I have seen so many versions, I am amazed my head hasn't exploded.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Actually I am sort of an expert on graphic design and photography/ digital manipulation. I also have been in charge of processing over 1200 fake documents. I will agree that having the actual document in my hand would make it easier but this one is pretty simple. The font is wrong, this wouldn't matter if it were a new laser printer, an ink jet or a dot matrix. It doesn't fit with the fonts that the state of Hawaii uses, nor is it a printer default font. As I am sure you have printed using a default font, it would stick out worse than this. The scanner can change or alter the picture but it will be somewhat consistent. These are all printed using a template... The spacing will be the same under each category unless the original is moved. However if the original was moved during printing you would see stretched letters. The same thing can be said for the scan. The problem is thtat the green background is out of whack where the print is over it. It is definately a possibility to see a manual or digital stretch but it would have encompassed the letters in his name where it occured also. If it had been in an isolated place that could be explained as well, but this is not the case here. The green background is messed up under his name. For it to be an error those letters would have to be messed up as well. These are printed on bleed resistant paper. The green would not smear under the name unless a powerful agent was placed on it and if that were the case the bleed would occur on the letters as well as the ink (or plastic) is not as resestant to tampering as the paper is. If you need me to enlarge and circle the spots that I am talking about, just let me know.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by K_OS
 


If you can look at the blue picture above of two pictures the same area of the same _/b] taken with 2 different cameras and not realize how the font might look slightly different from an actual BC to one scanned and printed as a jpg on the Internet, nothing will be able to convince you.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Research Islam's Barry Soetoro.

As for these last days, trust no one but the Lord and His Word. For time and freedom is fleeting. You will soon know the realization of this quote from Eric Blair (aka George Orwell):

" In a time of universal deceit , telling the truth is a revolutionary act."



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
firstly i would like to say i dont care where obama was born, and i personally dont think it matters, he has some of the best counterfiters, spys, informants, etc that money can buy, i think if he wanted to fake it he could do it VERY easily.

that said heres my opinion

most of those pictures all look exactly the same, they look like someone took the first pictures (document 1) and totally unnaturally and unnecessarily blurred the images to make it look fake.

the only fakeness i see in those pictures is the blurs the author of those photos created.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by primoaurelius
 


Just FYI, they are the very same document, taken with 2 different cameras. Everything else was exactly the same. No unnatural blurring, no manipulation, etc.





top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join