It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's NEW Birth Certificate proven to be fake hours after release

page: 100
299
<< 97  98  99    101  102  103 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elbereth
How do you respond to this?


It was analyzed by Ivan Zatkovich of Tampa-based eComp Consultants, which consults on intellectual property for telecommunications, web publishing and ecommerce and has provided services for corporations such as McGraw-Hill, Houghton-Mifflin, Citicorp and Amazon.com. Zatkovich has 28 years experience in computer science and document management and for more than 10 years has been an expert witness providing testimony in federal court in both criminal and civil litigation.

He confirmed that the multiple layers of the PDF document are anomalous.

my bolding and italics


Who says that is what he confirmed? Ivan or WND?

All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone
enhancing the legibility of the document.
It is possible that in addition to enhancing the legibility of the
document that the content of the document was also changed. There is no specific evidence of how or
why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was
changed .
- Ivan.


I would be happy to discuss any information I provided to ABC and WorldNetDaily that is currently appearing on WND. I did not state that any document was ‘fake’. But I did provide specific evidence that the document was modified /enhanced. I would be happy to provide the same report to you as I did to ABC.

Even though the WND article seems to somewhat sensationalize the information I provided, there is no speculation here. Just simple forensics.

If you have any other questions you may call me directly.

Ivan Zatkovich
Principal Consultant
eComp Consultants

edit on 5/2/11 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 2 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Who says that is what he confirmed? Ivan or WND?


It was Ivan. I just cut and pasted and added the italics and bolding.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elbereth

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Who says that is what he confirmed? Ivan or WND?


It was Ivan. I just cut and pasted and added the italics and bolding.


Ivan refered to himself as "he?"
Can you provide the source of that quote? I have spoken with him twice now and he does not seem like the type to refer to himself as "he." Thanks.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Elbereth

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Who says that is what he confirmed? Ivan or WND?


It was Ivan. I just cut and pasted and added the italics and bolding.


Ivan refered to himself as "he?"
Can you provide the source of that quote? I have spoken with him twice now and he does not seem like the type to refer to himself as "he." Thanks.


The quote is directly from WND. I can only assume "He" is referring to Ivan Zatkovich in the previous paragraph. I don't know how else to read it. If Ivan Zatkovich is willing to provide the forensic document analysis to you, that would be a great new resource if he (Ivan Zatkovich) would allow you to post it, helping all of us get at the truth in this matter.

That is the only thing I am interested in. Hats off for actually going to the horse's mouth.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elbereth
The quote is directly from WND. I can only assume "He" is referring to Ivan Zatkovich in the previous paragraph.


Right, which would mean he never actually said that. WND says he said something like that. Again, from the man himself.

Even though the WND article seems to somewhat sensationalize the information I provided, there is no speculation here. Just simple forensics

Knowing WND outright lies, I am not that interested in what they claim he meant to say. I only cared what he actually said. He never phrased it in such a way so as to attribute it to him is less than honest, no?


I don't know how else to read it. If Ivan Zatkovich is willing to provide the forensic document analysis to you, that would be a great new resource if he (Ivan Zatkovich) would allow you to post it, helping all of us get at the truth in this matter.


He sent me the same PDF sort of posted in the OP. I am not sure how to upload a PDF to ATS but if I can figure it out, I will be more than happy.


That is the only thing I am interested in. Hats off for actually going to the horse's mouth.


He has been more than receptive and offered to entertain any further inquiries.
edit on 5/2/11 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Is Ivan Zatkovich specifically denying that he said the layers in the Obama BC are anomalous?



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elbereth
Is Ivan Zatkovich specifically denying that he said the layers in the Obama BC are anomalous?


Are you suggesting I ask him if he denies saying something we have no quote of him ever saying to begin with?


Conclusion
The following is a summary of my analysis:
1. The Hawaii Department of Health stated that they have a record of the birth certificate of Barak
Obama.
2. A certificate was produced by the State of Hawaii and copied onto green safety paper, as per
normal procedure.
3. The ‘Green copy’ was then scanned, presumably by the White House, to produce a PDF
document.
4. The PDF document was then modified in some fashion (e.g. layers, white halo).
All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone
enhancing the legibility of the document.
It is possible that in addition to enhancing the legibility of the
document that the content of the document was also changed. There is no specific evidence of how or
why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was
changed .


Just does not sound all that mysterious to me.

Then, "possible" and "no specific evidence" just does not sound very confirmed to me.
edit on 5/2/11 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Here is more proof that Obama long form is fake....

RT Anchor Thom Hartmann interviews Orly Taitz. In this interview Taitz states that Obama is using a stolen social security number and provides proof to back it up. Obama graduated from Columbia University in nine months, not two years, as he claims.

This Social Security number says Obama’s draft registration begins with the numbers 042, which would be issued to someone born in Connecticut, not Hawaii....





If Obama was born outside the U.S. that makes him ineligible to be president, because the Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen.
edit on 2-5-2011 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Elbereth
 


Here is more that leans away from anomolous

An enlargement shows that there is a white halo around most of the printing on the Certificate. It has
been suggested that these “suspicious white borders” indicate that items were pasted into the image.
The pasting of content itself does not necessarily create a white border. A more likely reason for this
Halo effect is that the text was enhanced.

It is a common practice when enhancing a document with text on a dark background to set off black text
with a white border to increase the contrast.
If we look at the base layer, that appears to be exactly
what has occurred. The base layer of the document has a separate white outline for most of the text.


Seems pretty cut and dry that no proof of actually editing any text was done.
edit on 5/2/11 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/2/11 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Elbereth
Is Ivan Zatkovich specifically denying that he said the layers in the Obama BC are anomalous?


Are you suggesting I ask him if he denies saying something we have no quote of him ever saying to begin with?


Maybe this whole thing is just beginning to make my head spin, and I am therefor not following your logic, but as I see it, Ivan is being quoted in a very straightforward way in the WND article as saying he thinks the layering of the PDF is anomalous.

Let me re-post the WND text again with no enhancements on my part:


It was analyzed by Ivan Zatkovich of Tampa-based eComp Consultants, which consults on intellectual property for telecommunications, web publishing and ecommerce and has provided services for corporations such as McGraw-Hill, Houghton-Mifflin, Citicorp and Amazon.com. Zatkovich has 28 years experience in computer science and document management and for more than 10 years has been an expert witness providing testimony in federal court in both criminal and civil litigation.

He confirmed that the multiple layers of the PDF document are anomalous.

"When a paper document is scanned on a scanner and saved as a PDF file it normally contains only a single layer of graphical information. The PDF that appears on the White House website however, contains multiple layers of graphic information. Multiple layers usually appear in a document like this when it is being edited or modified in some fashion. "It is possible to take a single layer PDF and inadvertently create multiple layers, without changing the image in any fashion.

But that does not appear to be the case here. The multiple layers in the PDF document are a result of changes made to the image," his report said. Read more: Online 'birth certificate' document 'was changed' www.wnd.com...


Please help me to understand how you come to the conclusion from reading the above that Ivan is not clearly saying that the layering of the PDF is anomalous?

You're not pulling my leg are you?

Maybe the question for Ivan should be "Were you mis-quoted by WND, and if so, please give us your actual conclusions?"



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elbereth
Maybe this whole thing is just beginning to make my head spin, and I am therefor not following your logic, but as I see it, Ivan is being quoted in a very straightforward way in the WND article as saying he thinks the layering of the PDF is anomalous.


Where is that quote then?


Let me re-post the WND text again with no enhancements on my part:


It was analyzed by Ivan Zatkovich of Tampa-based eComp Consultants, which consults on intellectual property for telecommunications, web publishing and ecommerce and has provided services for corporations such as McGraw-Hill, Houghton-Mifflin, Citicorp and Amazon.com. Zatkovich has 28 years experience in computer science and document management and for more than 10 years has been an expert witness providing testimony in federal court in both criminal and civil litigation.

He confirmed that the multiple layers of the PDF document are anomalous.

"When a paper document is scanned on a scanner and saved as a PDF file it normally contains only a single layer of graphical information. The PDF that appears on the White House website however, contains multiple layers of graphic information. Multiple layers usually appear in a document like this when it is being edited or modified in some fashion. "It is possible to take a single layer PDF and inadvertently create multiple layers, without changing the image in any fashion.

But that does not appear to be the case here. The multiple layers in the PDF document are a result of changes made to the image," his report said. Read more: Online 'birth certificate' document 'was changed' www.wnd.com...


Please help me to understand how you come to the conclusion from reading the above that Ivan is not clearly saying that the layering of the PDF is anomalous?


The complete lack of him saying that anywhere in the article for starters. Why do you still think he did say that? All we need is the quote of him saying it.

Further, as I have posted twice now, he explains that it is a perfectly normal part of standard procedure and analysis shows that while the content was enhanced, the substance appears to have not been changed. I posted all this in his own words. Where are his words stating he "confirms it is anomolous?"


You're not pulling my leg are you?


Just discerning the difference between what he said and what the writer of the article said.


Maybe the question for Ivan should be "Were you mis-quoted by WND, and if so, please give us your actual conclusions?"


Misquoted where? I still do not see this quote you are taling about. Are you pulling my leg?



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Elbereth
 


It sounds to me like this Ivan person said that



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 



"It is possible to take a single layer PDF and inadvertently create multiple layers, without changing the image in any fashion. But that does not appear to be the case here. The multiple layers in the PDF document are a result of changes made to the image," his report said.


I would think that is the quote that is the smoking gun no? He says the multiple layers here are a result of changes made to the document.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Thanks for making the effort to explain your thinking to me. For some reason, I still don't get it. No worries, sometimes typing words into a keyboard and shooting them around the world leaves something to be desired as a means of achieving a common understanding.

Again, thanks for trying, but your argument just isn't sinking through my thick skull.
edit on 2-5-2011 by Elbereth because: word choice



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
I would think that is the quote that is the smoking gun no? He says the multiple layers here are a result of changes made to the document.


Perhaps if you stop reading there and ignore what he goes on to explain those changes actually do indicate. You know, the important part where he says that the actual content was not CHANGED, just enhanced. No words or numbers or letters were added or deleted. So what kind of smoke comes out of that gun? How many times do I need to post this?

An enlargement shows that there is a white halo around most of the printing on the Certificate. It has
been suggested that these “suspicious white borders” indicate that items were pasted into the image.
The pasting of content itself does not necessarily create a white border. A more likely reason for this
Halo effect is that the text was enhanced.

It is a common practice when enhancing a document with text on a dark background to set off black text
with a white border to increase the contrast.
If we look at the base layer, that appears to be exactly
what has occurred. The base layer of the document has a separate white outline for most of the text.





Originally posted by WildWorld
It sounds to me like this Ivan person said that


All I am asking for is the quote where he said that.
edit on 5/2/11 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elbereth
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Thanks for making the effort to explain your thinking to me. For some reason, I still don't get it. No worries, sometimes typing words into a keyboard and shooting them around the world leaves something to be desired as a means of achieving a common understanding.

Again, thanks for trying, but your argument just isn't sinking through my thick skull.


I am not sure what is confusing you. If you think he actually said something, then show me the quote of him saying it that leads you to believe he said it. If you cannot find that quote, then I guess maybe he never said that.

What is confusing about that? Where am I losing you? I have read all you posted and not once does he "confirm it is anomolous" I even did a word search on the article and his pdf and he never used that word. He straightforwardly explains exactly what would lead to the problems people are finding. I am not sure what is so anomolous about his explanation but if you can just quote him saying that, then cool. If not, then perhaps you just come to the realization he never actually said it. I am not sure how else to help you out.
edit on 5/2/11 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I haven't seen this video posted yet. It has supposed proof that the original COLB (Certificate of Live Birth) shows that he was born in Kenya and registered in Hawaii.

www.westernjournalism.com...

Apparently the White House has taken down the first cert it posted and replaced it with another different one. Somebody is playing games with this issue. Here is another video I haven't seen posted here yet.

www.youtube.com...

The evidence just keeps mounting. There is way too much smoke for there not to be a fire somewhere.


edit on 2-5-2011 by happykat39 because: To correct a bad link

edit on 2-5-2011 by happykat39 because: typo



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
nvmd
edit on 5/2/11 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Yeah, it's pretty obvious.
Changed document = changed document



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

edit on 2-5-2011 by Elbereth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
299
<< 97  98  99    101  102  103 >>

log in

join