Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 110
299
<< 107  108  109    111  112  113 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by wardk28
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?


Of course its racist and religious.

Denying this is ridiculous.




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Wow great argument...Yeah something said to the birthers... Just keep saying it, it will have to be true.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by StargateSG7
 


in illustrator, the history of the editing is clearly shown in the history window, and the individual elements can be separated. it is not "segmented", it is "layered", and no program can fill in the blank behind a segmented picture when you take an element out, there would be nothing but blank space behind it.

this was not enhanced for legibility. that would be better done in photo shop, and it would also be silly, because a good scan wouldn't need any "enhancement". obama zombies.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I just downloaded the pdf from whitehouse.gov. I opened it with Libre Office (it's free). I can confirm that the text is clearly in a different layer than the background. I can enlarge or move the text with Libre Office without altering the background. In my humble, non-expert opinion, this birth certificate was created in a PDF editor. Since this is in at least 2 layers, it is definitely not a scanned copy which was converted to pdf. I can't think of a reason for the PDF to be in multiple layers unless it was created by a PDF editor, which would suggests a forgery or alteration. If someone truly accidentally forget to merge the layers after creating, I'm not sure why the layered PDF is still available on the website. Are they trying to advertise that it is an obvious forgery or alteration for a political reason? Who knows?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
As a Professional Graphic Designer with over ten years experience dealing with Adobe Products, and quite extensively with both Illustrator and pdf files, I can give my honest, sincere, and professional opinion that the file as presented, while not conclusively being proven as a forgery, it does show signs of tampering. It is common practice in offices to scan a document which would create an image file, and then to convert the image file into a pdf document for archival purposes, but this is usually black text on a white background. Upon downloading and examining the document for myself, I see no evidence of layering in the document (if the original poster is honest, then the document must have been 'cleaned'), but I do see evidence of alteration in the image itself. Most evident is the white areas around the text, this concludes in my opinion that the text of this document was lifted from a document with a white background and placed on the present background. It is somewhat difficult to remove all the white pixels around an element in an image without leaving some trace that they were there beforehand, but due to the rough nature of the text in this image, it might be a bit easier to achieve. In some areas there even appear to be sharp cuts and right angles of the white areas, clearly indicating they were cropped. Also, the area on the left side with sharp right angles and straight lines indicates cutting and pasting.

I would also state that if there was intentional tampering to this document, the tamperer is incredibly sloppy. I feel wholly confident I could do a far better job.

I cannot conclusively state whether the information presented in the document is false or not, however it strikes me as being odd that the information would be moved from one background to another? Moreover, I don't think that the information was printed onto the present background, because a common printer cannot print white, and furthermore because the current background contains no white. If the document was printed onto the current background there wouldn't exist the white space in and around the text. Even if the document were printed though, it seems strange a person or persons to first find the physical document, print it onto the current background, then scan it, and then covert it to a pdf document?
edit on 12-5-2011 by Royalkin because: Clarification of Statements



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by prizim
 


DONT MATTER...ITS CLEARLLY FAKE..IF HE HAD THE STUPID THING THE WHOLE TIME WHY WOULD HE NOT JUST GIVE IT UP...LIKE CMON USE UR HEAD



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royalkin
but I do see evidence of alteration in the image itself. Most evident is the white areas around the text, this concludes in my opinion that the text of this document was lifted from a document with a white background and placed on the present background.
And it was.

The Department of Health made photocopies of the original record and presumably someone at the White House added the security paper background from Obama’s short form certificate to the PDF for the public.


I would also state that if there was intentional tampering to this document, the tamperer is incredibly sloppy. I feel wholly confident I could do a far better job.
It seems sloppy because no one is trying to hide anything. The information on it is accurate.


I cannot conclusively state whether the information presented in the document is false or not
The Department of Health stands by the document posted on the White House website.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by prizim
The problem here is that you do not know how a scanner works.

Sorry, you are incorrect.

Apparently neither do you, nor how a PDF or a GIF, JPG, PNG, TIFF, BMP, etc. works



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 15FORreal
reply to post by prizim
 


DONT MATTER...ITS CLEARLLY FAKE..IF HE HAD THE STUPID THING THE WHOLE TIME WHY WOULD HE NOT JUST GIVE IT UP...LIKE CMON USE UR HEAD


This entire argument seems to have slipped into some deep crevasse where logic can no longer reach. The document itself comes into question because of how some people feel toward their misunderstanding of the PDF version of it.

Please take part in the following experiment. Take out your driver's license and scan it at 36 dpi. Add a subtle blur filter and save it as a jpg with max compression.

The first person that can prove to me that your license has been invalidated by scanning it and manipulating the scan will surely win me over.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I was checking out the birth certificate posted on the whitehouse website.. not too sure if someone has already posted this. However.. i right clicked the pdf. file and copied image onto paint. The birth certificate is completely forged u can see the background layer that the editor has edited into the bc.


Did not tamper with anything .. all i did was right click copy image from the whitehouse website and pasted it in paint and this is what i came up with

Here's the link to the birth certificate that i pasted onto paint.
www.whitehouse.gov...


and here's what it looked like on paint



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by againstallodds
 


This
is a picture of a cheeseburger. I can separate this image into layers of multiple distinctions yet amazingly enough, it will do nothing to alter the reality of the cheeseburger in the photo. Likewise, were I to draw poison on the picture, it will not make anything actually poisonous as it is an image of a cheeseburger. You have successfully proven that an image of something else has been separated into layers as has been explained on pages 27-85 of this thread. An image. I am afraid the reality of that has slipped far and away.

Perhaps someone can explain to me what they think layer 1 of the .PDF file actually proves. Without resorting to empty talking point accusations, could a real explanation be forth coming? Is the suggestion that the document was manufactured in layers and then left in said layers to be found? Is that a more realistic suggestion than just printing one up from scratch would be?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Runaway1977
 


lol lol...you dont need all of ur fancy technology...the only thing u need is a thinking brain..if that was his real card he would have gave it up as soon as people asked...not make up stupid reasons why he cant give it up..then all of a sudden have it for all to see



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Runaway1977
 


if you remove a portion of the hamburger with an image editor, there will be blank space behind it, not more layers of cheeseburgers, or tomatoes and lettuce. not unless that cheeseburger image was BUILT with layers, will any be revealed by removing the foremost layer
reproducibility is the essence of science.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 

Birthers accept what the WND posts as gospel, I wonder why you didn’t accept this one: Graphics pros challenge Obama birth certificate

While there may be other challenges to the document's authenticity that bear further scrutiny, it appears that the "layer argument" can be easily explained.

Graphic artists who addressed the issue on blogs and Web forums point out that the format in which Obama's document was released, Portable Document Format, or PDF, is composed of multiple images.

A contributor to the conservative Web forum FreeRepublic.com who goes by the moniker Cartan, explained that the Obama birth certificate was compressed with a software program that "takes the scanned image, and then tries to separate the foreground text from the background into different layers (or objects), which are then compressed independently, using different compression algorithms."

Cartan said it appeared that compression operations known as Flate and DCT were used for various parts of the scanned image.

The PDF viewer, Cartan explained, "then takes the different objects, decompresses them, and reproduces a fairly accurate copy of the original (much bigger) image again."

"None of this is an indication of forgery," Cartan said. "They just wanted to save a few bucks for the bandwidth, it seems."

Nathan Goulding, National Review's chief technology officer, confirmed that "scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home."

He explained that the layers seen in PDF images "are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container."

"They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage," Goulding said. "They're not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human."



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

A contributor to the conservative Web forum FreeRepublic.com who goes by the moniker Cartan, explained that the Obama birth certificate was compressed with a software program that "takes the scanned image, and then ..."
I searched the site freerepublic.com in Google for the words "takes the scanned image" and got one result:

www.freerepublic.com...
Obviously that's not the same article quoted by WND. I was trying to find out if Cartan revealed what software program was meant by "a software program". If he said what it was, then we could test his claim, but if it's not specified his claim can't be tested.

In fact later in the article when the claim is tested, the result doesn't look anything like the White house version of the birth certificate.

Cartan's claim may be true, but without specifying the name of the software, it's difficult to test. The tests I've seen so far don't duplicate what we see on the white house version, though I'm sure there are plenty more programs that I haven't seen tested yet. It would have been nice if they had mentioned the software program so we could test it.
edit on 13-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by Runaway1977
 


if you remove a portion of the hamburger with an image editor, there will be blank space behind it, not more layers of cheeseburgers, or tomatoes and lettuce. not unless that cheeseburger image was BUILT with layers, will any be revealed by removing the foremost layer
reproducibility is the essence of science.


But the cheeseburger that was actually posing for the photo will not suddenly have an invisible chunk in the middle of it because the image of it was altered. Are many people confused about the difference between a real item and a picture of a real item?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by 15FORreal
reply to post by Runaway1977
 


lol lol...you dont need all of ur fancy technology...the only thing u need is a thinking brain..if that was his real card he would have gave it up as soon as people asked...not make up stupid reasons why he cant give it up..then all of a sudden have it for all to see


I would like to see your birth certificate.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Obviously that's not the same article quoted by WND.
What? The WND posted something inaccurate? That can’t be!

The point was to ask why do the birthers accept, at face value, one WND article over another. It’s obvious that it’s the birther confirmation bias at work.

When WND publishes something that reinforces their beliefs, they don’t even question it at all. When it publishes something that contradicts their beliefs, they suddenly do some work and find out what the WND published wasn’t accurate or credible.

If you only had done that simple due diligence with regards to other WND articles and claims we’d be on the same team.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
To begin a new thread or not?

This is about suspected fraud on Obama's part, because of his birth place and foreighn aid for his education. Whatever, because it is about his birth I posted it here. Perhaps it should be a new thread but last time I thought I had some news my thread was dumped.


Until 1980, all foreign and domestic births recorded here received a COLB from Hawaii. In 1981, Hawaii started to issue a certificate of foreign birth for babies brought here from another country. I know a woman who came here from the Philippines as a 15 year old in 1982 and she has a COFB from Hawaii. This is why Maya, who came here in the 1970s has a COLB from Hawaii. I think Obama may have been born here and is hiding the rest of his records because he attended Punahou, Occidental, Columbia and Harvard as a foreign student receiving US government aid. If he did, he defrauded the US government out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.



www.sodahead.com...

...and just keep reading.....



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
You guys do realize that there was no possible way that they were going to make the source document available to you or anyone else....right?

It's illegal to scan anyone's long-form birth certificate - even yours. They had to protect the document itself, and even made sure that everyone knew they'd done so by how odd it's presented as "emerging" from that green background template.

I've worked with pdf files for years, and they did a hell of job making it impossible for anyone to access the source document. I think they had some serious graphics pros involved in "shredding" the original scan and reassembling it in the manner that they did. Pretty sophisticated work.






top topics



 
299
<< 107  108  109    111  112  113 >>

log in

join