Originally posted by userid1
I was hoping that a dedicated "Birther" would bring it up - but oh well.
I'm a dedicated "truther". Does that qualify?
2 - Please notice the bottom border of the one and five (15) in the date between the two. Notice that on my example they are equal or very close to
it. But on your example the five is noticeably lower than the one?
This can be explained by the resolution of the documents. The one that clearly
says 2011 is 612x800 pixels and the other one is 344x450 pixels.
Comparing the two jpegs is really impossible. It's the same thing with looking at Obama's CoLB on the Internet. discrepancies are everywhere, but can
be explained by different scanners, sizes, photo software, etc.
I know I'm not a birther, but it's important to be equally critical about any evidence that is brought up in this argument. I was very critical of the
Obama certificate when it first came out, and I joined in the 'movement' to determine whether or not it was real. I zoomed in and compared and I was
meticulous about what I found. And I came to the conclusion that NO ONE can verify a jpg document as real or fake over the internet. Looking at pixels
and misshapen text in a file is a fruitless endeavor, IMO.
However, I do notice that the purported 2011 document:
1. Has no apparent raised seal
2. Mother's Race is : Hawaiian/Chinese/Korean/German/English/Portuguese
but "African" is not a race?
3. I don't even see a space for a doctor's signature.
Yet birthers are willing to accept this jpg like it's the freaking Holy Grail, without ANY checking it out AT ALL.
I may not know whether or not this is real, but birthers know it's real and PROOF, without ANY of the scrutiny that they focused on Obama's COLB. That
tells me all I need to know. They don't care about the truth. That's the difference between "birthers" and "truthers".
edit on 4/20/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)