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: 109
299
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Actually common sense would dictate to release BOTH to stunt any argument or confusion on the issue.
One - a straight copy scan and Two - the fixed up version just for comparisons.

I don't think it's too much to ask for an ISSUE that has been going on for this long.
It seems they want to keep the arguments and confusion going for as long as possible by deliberately obscuring and hampering with what should be such a straight forward thing.

edit on 7-5-2011 by Flighty because: (no reason given)


This is a sensible opinion. I think Obama has done all he needs to on this issue myself, but I admit releasing the non-enhanced version beside the readable version would mitigate some of the hand-wringing on this thread. Of course, then there would be something else for people to claim is fake, but it would certainly pull a few of the fence-sitters to the ground and drive one more nail in the coffin of the most ridiculous conspiracy theory of the 21st Century... and honestly, it's come to the point I'm enjoying seeing the multitude of nails driven in this particular coffin.




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
im downloading illustrator will take a look for myself.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I don't understand why he had to release a fake one...



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaintdead
I don't understand why he had to release a fake one...


109 pages later and people still don't get it!

State Seal does not sit on the Vault copy and is typically not required for the VAULT COPY which a copy was released of. The State Seal sits on the cover of the book and is about 4 1/2 ft tall and about 3 ft wide, and about 6 in thick and full weighs north of 25 lbs.

He is a legal born American citizen by birth and for those that still don't get it you have also forfeited your right to complain when things don't go your way. Remember we tried that way and look at where it got us!


edit on 9-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaintdead
I don't understand why he had to release a fake one...


He didn't.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SKMDC1

Originally posted by zaintdead
I don't understand why he had to release a fake one...


He didn't.


Why is the PDF released CLEARLY the result of editing, with several sized pixels visible (the result of PASTING in a graphic image) and multiple layers - both impossible if it were the PDF version of the photocopy the Hawaiian Health Dept. official said it was?

You see, fakery is possible once evidence appears that the document was not just the product of photo-copying but was edited as well. And there is plenty of evidence for the latter if you are willing to either open your eyes or learn a few things about editing documents in Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator. Simply denying that there is a problem does not cut it here.

edit on 9-5-2011 by micpsi because: typo corrected



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
You see, fakery is possible once evidence appears that the document was not just the product of photo-copying but was edited as well.
The Department of Health did photocopies, and photocopies only. It was the White House that scanned and created the PDF.

You, and the other birthers, haven’t, however, shown what exactly was digitally altered if anything at all. You just keep repeating the PDF was digitally manipulated and want this to mean it’s proof of forgery. Nonsense!

The fact that the Department of Health stands by the information shown on the PDF speaks louder than your baseless accusations of forgery.

Where’s your proof of forgery? What was altered?

Put up or shut up.


Simply denying that there is a problem does not cut it here
There’s a problem alright, and it’s with birthers’ minds.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Your link satisfied me that the document is legit, however, it has been enhanced. Otherwise, it is hard to explain the identical "B"s in Obama.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I've seen it in the news today so i thought i could drop a line or two on this.

There is a "CGI reveal" software developped by a French company originally designed for the french secret services two years ago but is now accessible to corporations (professionnals working in the press etc... It cost some money though but if ATS has the means i say why not. Work for photos and soon videos.Name of the software: Tungstène.
More infos Here
Official website of the company Here


edit on 9-5-2011 by themaster1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2011 by themaster1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by micpsi
You see, fakery is possible once evidence appears that the document was not just the product of photo-copying but was edited as well.
The Department of Health did photocopies, and photocopies only. It was the White House that scanned and created the PDF.

You, and the other birthers, haven’t, however, shown what exactly was digitally altered if anything at all. You just keep repeating the PDF was digitally manipulated and want this to mean it’s proof of forgery. Nonsense!

The fact that the Department of Health stands by the information shown on the PDF speaks louder than your baseless accusations of forgery.

Where’s your proof of forgery? What was altered?

Put up or shut up.


Simply denying that there is a problem does not cut it here
There’s a problem alright, and it’s with birthers’ minds.




I think this post illustrates the main issue which is that the PDF file
BECAUSE IT APPEARS TO BE SEGMENTED, IS THUS CONSIDERED PROOF OF EDITING!

Because of my programming background, I personally believe that the PDF file represents
an export of a document from a word processor, a desktop publishing system or an
imaging/scanning system that, because of JPEG compression issues, turns a multi-stripe
scan into separate elements that APPEAR TO BE EDITED...BUT... are in fact ARTIFACTS of
the scanning process and PDF image compression process which breaks apart a large image
into easy-to-compress segments and then groups those small image objects into areas that
are similar in colour (i.e. hue) and brightness (i.e. luminance) which can then be compressed
more easily to fit the size limitations of PDF file downloads off of web servers.

When ANY of those scanned PDF files are IMPORTED into an image editing program
such as Adobe Illustrator or Corel Draw...those individual segments are kept separate
because that is what was originally saved in that PDF file. Those of you that DO import
the PDF file read FAR MORE than what is intended because you THINK that the fact that
the PDF export function segments large images into smaller bitmap objects is EVIDENCE
of TAMPERING when all it really is, is evidence of software doing its job to turn a big 600dpi
(Dots per inch) bitmap that would normally be 134,640,000 bytes (134 megabytes =
11.5" x 8.5" paper at 600 dpi on the X and Y axis at 32 bits RGBA colour per pixel)
into a small, manageable and easy-to-download PDF file that is only 2 megabytes
at the most.

And if anyone wants further proof, goto one of the Hawaiian islands and look for a newspaper
from that 1960's era, which MANY public libraries SAVE in their original paper form and search
for the original Obama birth announcement...it'll be THERE !!!!!! It's kinda hard to refute and fake
an actual printed newspaper from MANY LIBRARY SOURCES with the original birth announcement
that is stained yellow with age.

If you really want to dig deep, many hospitals in that era took ink footprints of newborns
for identification purposes, thus if Obama's baby footprints show up on their aged
microfiche films, then that is also pretty good indicator he is a
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the USA!
edit on 2011/5/9 by StargateSG7 because: text formatting issues fixed



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elbereth
Your link satisfied me that the document is legit, however, it has been enhanced.
Doing my best Dick Cheney impersonation: “So?”

You’re satisfied the document is legit but you’re arguing... why, exactly? Because “it has been enhanced”? Or you’re not arguing anything at all?

If you have accepted the document as legit I don’t understand what else is there to argue, namely in a thread that claims Obama’s birth certificate was proven fake.



edit on 9-5-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaintdead
I don't understand why he had to release a fake one...


Because he's hiding something.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


When you claim that no one has proven that the LFBC has been altered I don't think you are correct. I pointed out the duplicate "B's as only the most obvious proof of an alteration. Because the Hawaii DOH has said the version posted online by the White House is certified as per your link, I personally no longer think its legitimacy can be reasonably questioned.

What can be questioned is the management and decision making of the document release itself in light of the apparent enhancements.

And what are you aptness, the self-appointed thread Nazi?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elbereth
When you claim that no one has proven that the LFBC has been altered I don't think you are correct. I pointed out the duplicate "B's as only the most obvious proof of an alteration.
The “duplicate Bs” being “obvious proof of an alteration,” is your opinion, contested by many, including myself, who believe most of the artifacts, being alleged as proof of alteration by the birthers, are byproducts of the PDF format and conversion.

There is no doubt what we are looking at at the WH website was digitally processed. That’s a long way from claiming it’s proven something has been altered.

Not to mention that this theory that they digitally forged the certificate is beyond retarded.

Here we have the Department of Health, the entity that issues the certificates, who has the original and empty forms, that could have easily written down the information they wanted on them, but instead — according to yet another absurd birther theory — they used someone else’s birth certificate and digitally altered a few things to make it seem like it’s Obama’s certificate, including Obama’s mother’s own signature — as per the birthers’ interpretation of ‘layers’ and ‘alterations.’

The birther movement is possibly the most absurd, illogical and ignorant conspiracy movement ever.


What can be questioned is the management and decision making of the document release itself in light of the apparent enhancements.
Unrelated to the legitimacy question, which was and is the basis for this thread and most birther claims here.


And what are you aptness, the self-appointed thread Nazi?
Since you admitted my arguments convinced you as to the legitimacy of the certificate, I was expecting you to be thanking me, but I guess I will settle for being called a nazi.



edit on 9-5-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
So you reject Ivan Zatkovich's conclusion that the document was likely altered to enhance readability? And the idea that PDF generation software would randomly duplicate letters is laughable. Are you resurrecting the OCR boondoggle?

I do thank you for pointing out that my argument that "Any Alteration" to the document rendered it invalid had a fatal flaw due to the implied certification of the PDF version by the DOH.

'Thread Nazi" is a mild pejorative that has been around almost as long as the web, but I will edit it out if it's not too late as perhaps it was in bad taste and apparently offended you. You yourself do not hesitate to throw around the term "birthers" indiscriminately and as a means to preemptively discredit a commenter's argument.

How about "thread nanny" instead. Don't be so thin-skinned.

I have no doubt that you will respond point-by-point. I have yet to see you admit any error whatsoever in 109 pages of argument.

Odd thing, that, but maybe you are perfection incarnate. I bow down to your lotus feet.
-------
Just tried to edit previous post but didn't get to it in time.
edit on 9-5-2011 by Elbereth because: update



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elbereth
So you reject Ivan Zatkovich's conclusion that the document was likely altered to enhance readability?
No, I said I believe “most of the artifacts, being alleged as proof of alteration by the birthers, are byproducts of the PDF format and conversion.” I don’t see that statement as excluding Ivan’s conclusion as possible as well, or incompatible together with the “automatic and unintentional” artifacts, so to speak.


'Thread Nazi" is a mild pejorative that has been around almost as long as the web, but I will edit it out if it's not too late as perhaps it was in bad taste and apparently offended you.
It didn’t. Especially since I am apparently a nazi for passionately caring about the facts. I would venture to say that’s one of the better reasons for being called a nazi



I have no doubt that you will respond point-by-point. I have yet to see you admit any error whatsoever in 109 pages of argument.
I will gladly and promptly admit to “any error whatsoever” you see I have made, if it is indeed an error. Can you tell me where you believe I erred?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by micpsi
You see, fakery is possible once evidence appears that the document was not just the product of photo-copying but was edited as well.
The Department of Health did photocopies, and photocopies only. It was the White House that scanned and created the PDF.

You, and the other birthers, haven’t, however, shown what exactly was digitally altered if anything at all. You just keep repeating the PDF was digitally manipulated and want this to mean it’s proof of forgery. Nonsense!

The fact that the Department of Health stands by the information shown on the PDF speaks louder than your baseless accusations of forgery.

Where’s your proof of forgery? What was altered?

Put up or shut up.


Simply denying that there is a problem does not cut it here
There’s a problem alright, and it’s with birthers’ minds.


A majority of Government docs are made into pdf's because everyone and their mother has Adobe Acrobat Reader on their systems and is considered to be the industry norm which is where pdf's are readable through.

Anything requires modification when going from bitmap to gif to jpeg to pdf. Everytime the medium changes the doc slightly changes.

It's like when a movie is playing on tv, a little screen comes up that reads as follows :
"This movie has been reformatted to fit your screen". This is the internet's equal to a tv.
edit on 9-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
It was proven to my satisfaction that the only editing was the apparent attempt to make the thing more legible... I stand very corrected and withdraw my objection.

I still feel something's fishy, but not with that document..



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


can you please provide proof that this issue is fueled by racism? Has anyone in this thread made a racist statement? If so, did you notify ATS?



new topics

top topics



 
299
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join