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

To all the visual graphics managers -- "Don't hire someone that just got fired from the whitehouse!"

Wow, I never knew that Adobe has such powerful products...

Originally posted by atlguy

Originally posted by Justice2012
reply to post by atlguy

 

How do we know that now? Why did it come from microfiche and not the actual long form hard copy?

Why do the news media have unofficial microfiche?

I believe the original records were destroyed by the Department of Health as they converted over to digital

Ok here we go.....

We will never see his original Birth Certificate, your saying it was destroyed?

reply to post by coppo808


Exactly, and my thought is...

Why did Obama release the short form with the "official" green background which I believe did come from the state of Hawaii without alteration (which we have seen individuals online holding up showing the official Hawaiian seal in their hands) whereas for this version, the long form We see an original without the green background? It seems very odd.

Originally posted by atlguy

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by atlguy

 

That I get, but why does the copy of the green form look like it was scanned from a book like the white form?
Why add that photo effect if it was just a tranfer onto grren offical paper.

Good point... Looking at it now, I would guess that the original was scanned from a book of records - same as the Nordyke records

That is likely the file they print it from when you order a copy, to help identify it as official. Most stationaries used by government offices are unique to the office to make it easier to tell a scan from the original copy. The original certificate was likely scanned to their official stationary and what is posted is a scan of it. Then it was put through the OCR and I'm assuming Acrobat Pro, because I know for a fact the US Gov buy massive licenses for it.

Originally posted by imitator

We will never see his original Birth Certificate, your saying it was destroyed?

According to the State of HI, it was... Again, I am not an Obama fan - just presenting facts. FWIW, it's fairly common practice to destroy original media when converting to digital storage. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose of digital storage

Originally posted by Justice2012
reply to post by coppo808

 

Exactly, and my thought is...

Why did Obama release the short form with the "official" green background which I believe did come from the state of Hawaii without alteration (which we have seen individuals online holding up showing the official Hawaiian seal in their hands) whereas for this version, the long form We see an original without the green background? It seems very odd.

It's not altered, it's put through an OCR to make it searchable. The searchable text is then placed over the read character leavings its appearance the same. PS and AI are simply removing that layer, leaving the background color in it's place. That is if the user of the software knows how and what it means.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by Justice2012
reply to post by coppo808

 

Exactly, and my thought is...

Why did Obama release the short form with the "official" green background which I believe did come from the state of Hawaii without alteration (which we have seen individuals online holding up showing the official Hawaiian seal in their hands) whereas for this version, the long form We see an original without the green background? It seems very odd.

It's not altered, it's put through an OCR to make it searchable. The searchable text is then placed over the read character leavings its appearance the same. PS and AI are simply removing that layer, leaving the background color in it's place. That is if the user of the software knows how and what it means.

You keep saying this over and over....but you are failing to see what is being said

Read again www.abovetopsecret.com...

I personally give up. I don't like Obama anyway. I'm afraid though that the craziness and false info will help him. I know Trump is helping him and I pray he gives up the charade soon.

Originally posted by Warpthal
Wow, I never knew that Adobe has such powerful products...

Are you kidding? I wonder if Gimp could of been used to make this.

Originally posted by atlguy

Originally posted by imitator

We will never see his original Birth Certificate, your saying it was destroyed?

According to the State of HI, it was... Again, I am not an Obama fan - just presenting facts

Well so much for seeing an original Birth Certificate, an microfiche can be easily modified etc....
The conspiracy will never end.....

reply to post by Bonified Ween


Obama not the first to have Presidential Eligibility

CHARLES EVANS HUGHES’S FATHER WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT, JUST AS OBAMA’S WAS; THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS, HE LOST
by Sharon Rondeau


Was this presidential candidate from 1916 a "natural born Citizen"?
(Apr. 5, 2010) — The year 2008 is not the first time a presidential candidate’s eligibility has been questioned based on the “natural born Citizen” requirement of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) served on the Supreme Court, was elected governor of New York, and was nominated as Secretary of State under President Warren Harding from 1921 to 1925. He was later nominated Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Herbert Hoover. His appointment to that position overlapped Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s presidency, during which time Hughes sometimes voted in favor of Roosevelt’s New Deal policies and sometimes against them. However, he opposed FDR’s attempt to reorganize the Supreme Court in 1937, also known as “court-packing.”

In 1916, Hughes resigned from his first Supreme Court appointment to launch an unsuccessful bid for the presidency against Woodrow Wilson, the incumbent. The electoral vote count was extremely close, 277 to 254.

During his presidential campaign, Hughes’s eligibility for the presidency was questioned because his father remained a British citizen. Breckenridge Long, an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR, examined the issue in an article entitled “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ within the Meaning of the Constitution?” Published in the “Chicago Legal News,” Vol. 146, p. 220 in 1916, the article begins:

Whether Mr. Hughes is, or is not, a “natural born” citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, so as to make him eligible, or ineligible, to assume the office of President, presents an interesting inquiry.

He was born in this country and is beyond question “native born.” But is there not a distinction “native born” and “natural born”? At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England. His father had not then been naturalized.

Long was a Democrat and large donor to FDR’s 1932 presidential campaign, and Hughes ran for President as a Republican against Wilson.

In discussing the difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen,” Long stated:

The Constitution of the United States puts a particular qualification upon those who shall become President and Vice-President. For all other offices it requires that they be “citizens of the United States,” but for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency it requires that they be “Natural Born citizens.”

Long’s definition of “natural born citizen” was “one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society;…It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection.”

The citizenship of the father is the determining factor for a child’s citizenship, according to Long. He states that in the case of Hughes, his father was a British citizen when Hughes was born, which precluded him from qualifying as a “natural born citizen”:

If the father becomes naturalized before the birth of the child and is at the time of the birth of the child a citizen of the United States, then the child is a ‘natural born’ citizen. But in the case of Mr. Hughes the father was not naturalized at the time the son was born and was at that time a subject of England. How could the son be a “natural born” citizen of the United States?…There can hardly be…any dispute that Mr. Hughes was at the time of his birth an English subject. If he was at that time an English subject, he became a citizen of the United States by a process of naturalization, and is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States.

Long also analyzes the matter of dual citizenship:

It must be admitted that a man born on this soil, of alien parents, enjoys a dual nationality and owes a double allegiance. A child born under these conditions has a right to elect what nationality he will enjoy and to which of the two conflicting claims of governmental allegiance he will pay obedience. Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States…The doctrine of dual citizenship and of double allegiance are too well known and too well founded in international law to be doubted or disputed.

Long discusses various examples of children of foreign parents who, although born in the United States, received protection from their parents’ home countries once taken there by their parents. He cites a case from 1866 in which a 19-year-old young man born in Massachusetts to French parents who had returned to France with them and was called to military duty by that country. The young man disputed his obligation to serve by appealing to the American Embassy in France. The Secretary of State at the time, Thomas Bayard, instructed the American Embassy to “to use ‘its good offices’” to secure a release from French military service for the young man. However, according to Long, Bayard issued the following admonition: “You will, however, advise him that his remaining in France after he becomes of age may be regarded as an election of French nationality and that his only method of electing and maintaining American nationality is by a prompt return to this country (December 28th, 1887).”

The author then provides a detailed but seldom-discussed account of how the term “natural born citizen” was placed in the Constitution by the Framers:

It was originally proposed in the Constitutional Convention that the presidential qualifications be a “citizen of the United States.” It was so reported to the Convention, by the Committee which had it in charge, on the 22nd day of August, 1787. It was again referred to a Committee, and the qualification clause was changed to read “natural born citizen,” and was so reported out of Committee on September the 4th, 1787, and adopted in the Constitution. There is no record of debates upon the subject, but the Federalist contains a contemporary comment on it written by Alexander Hamilton.

Hamilton is then quoted as having said:

Nothing was more to be desired, than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of Republican government, might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils…(Federalist, LXVIII).

Long’s final argument against Hughes’s eligibility for the office of president states that in 1862, which happened to be the year Hughes was born, the United States declared that certain people residing in the country were exempted from military service, described as “All foreign born persons who have not been naturalized;” and “All persons born of foreign parents and who have not become citizens.” Long argues that because neither Hughes nor his father could be called upon to “defend the flag” of the United States, Hughes could not be considered a “natural born citizen.”

As if reaching almost 100 years into the future, Long then states, “The government he now aspires to preside over classed him under the general head of “Aliens” the year he was born and drew a line of distinction between him and “natural born citizens…”



Breckenridge Long served as Ambassador to Italy and also presided over immigration and visa issues during World War II. He was severely criticized for denying visas to Jews attempting to escape the holocaust.
If Breckenridge Long was correct that the citizenship of a father determines that of the son, then Obama was never eligible to run, much less serve, as president. Long uncannily raised the three major factors which preclude Obama from being a “natural born Citizen”:

his father was not a naturalized citizen of the United States before Obama’s birth;
Obama had been taken to Indonesia and reportedly made a citizen of that country;
on his campaign website, Obama admitted to having been born with dual citizenship.
Obama’s actual birthplace and original citizenship remain unknown.

Is Obama a “natural born Citizen”? If not, why was he allowed to seek the presidency? What were the influences at work in promoting a candidate with so many challenges to the “natural born Citizen” requirement? Have foreign powers seized control of our government, the possibility of which had been predicted by Alexander Hamilton?

If so, why has Congress allowed that to happen? Why will the courts not order discovery about Obama’s citizenship status?

Must be said, some of the replies on this thread are somewhat dumb to say the least (no offense people).

Putting aside whether you are pro/anti birther - the op has made some very valuable points regarding PDFs, Illustrator and the use of layers. As someone with a degree in graphic design and 10 years working in the industry, this type of work would be easy. Basically if you scan an image, it is by all intensive purposes - 1 image.

What we have here on display is several layers of images, layers being separate entirely from the other layers, or potentially completely different images placed on top of one another to create said effect.

I won't go into my own personal beliefs, but the op raises valid points!

reply to post by boondock-saint


I think I heard that the hospital released the birth announcements to the newspaper. Does not have anything to do with the bc or the registrar.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Wow you have a lot of posts... Is there a reason you seem so determined to clarify everything and restate your expertise?

You are falling off a cliff right now in your defense of this form...

Here you go: The original as another gentleman has stated "microfiche" copy is not on the official green background and does not have the similar degradation as the .pdf released on the white house website. The main push of this topic is that the image is layered because it was altered and you came up with some complex cataloging system to excuse this... However, if you step away and think about this very simply...

What is the purpose of using a cataloging system to release President Obama's birth certificate??? Why does the white house need the formal text stored for ease of access?

If the original Hawaii document image was not subjected to this process, was then transferred to an "official" green background, what is the purpose of subjecting the image to some complex database scan splitting up the layers when the entire use of the image is not for some database but to quash the Birth movement??

You have totally lost me.

Originally posted by Bonified Ween

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by Justice2012
reply to post by coppo808

 

Exactly, and my thought is...

Why did Obama release the short form with the "official" green background which I believe did come from the state of Hawaii without alteration (which we have seen individuals online holding up showing the official Hawaiian seal in their hands) whereas for this version, the long form We see an original without the green background? It seems very odd.

I certainly do understand. People are unwilling to deal with real facts. Believe me, I hate Obama and don't want him reelected but refuse to follow along with misinformation or theories based on wrong idea's.

Take Obama on on the issues and the mountain of lies he's told we have on video in context. Take him on based on those he surrounds himself with. There is enough there to destroy his career without the madness. This nonsense and Trump are getting him more votes, not less. I'll go away with my facts and honesty.

It's not altered, it's put through an OCR to make it searchable. The searchable text is then placed over the read character leavings its appearance the same. PS and AI are simply removing that layer, leaving the background color in it's place. That is if the user of the software knows how and what it means.

You keep saying this over and over....but you are failing to see what is being said

Read again www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 27-4-2011 by Bonified Ween because: (no reason given)

This is Obama doing the Kansas City Shuffle.

Look left, they go right... look right, they go left.... it's classic propaganda tactics.

Obama even said himself that this wouldn't satisfy certain "groups" of people, because he knew that it was going to just provoke more spin on the subject and keep people distracted from what is really going on, which is exactly what they intended.

I commend the OP for the find, and even more so to the person who, like most, was convinced that this was just another lie in a never-ending series of lies and corruption and decided to dig a bit into it.

S&F OP.

For the record.... I'm not a fan of either left or right, I think the two party-system is retarded. But, in the search for TRUTH, which is all that really matters, we must look at FACT and not speculation. The OP has presented some pretty earth-shattering facts. Along with them, someone who has time should look into 2 things:

1) Does Adobe Illustrator automatically create masks when importing files from PDF or other formats? This is know to happen when there are digitized images, like photos, mixed in with content and vector based drawings in a document since the software has to treat them differently.

2) Are there scanners or scanning software that will segment portions of a document into layers at the time it's exported to PDF? I know that with many scanners I've worked with, the software will highlight different elements of a scanned document as individual items so that they can be selected as scannable areas. This is very common, but I can't say for sure what the effect would be at the time of export.

Hmmm... I hope I didn't just give the White House an alibi...

~Namaste

What Obama has done is provide more fuel for the birther's fire. I suppose he thought maybe this BC would put the issue to bed. Instead, it has provided a whole new set of information that people can pick over and investigate.

But given what the OP has pointed out, I guess we see why Obama decided to release this now instead of just before the election. It's clearly not a simple document that will put an end to a debate.

To resolve the issue, we need a decent hypothesis about why the information is in layers. The best I've seen so far is that the data is stored in a scan of the original white paper document that has been processed with an algorithm that tries to detect text.

I don't think the example of the text document automatically being broken into "layers" by Adobe software was relevant. We need to see what happens when an actual scan, known to have come from an actual scanner, is automatically broken into layers by Adobe's program.

What I don't understand is why it (or whomever) picked up half a signature. I think I can understand that the stamps, etc., were added later. But why is the signature cut in half between the layers. Did the OCR think the first half of the signature was a smudge? If so, why does it get added in a later pass?

Anyhow, someone posted a birth certificate from the same location the day after Obama's. Was it on ATS? Maybe that will just be a scan of an actual printout of a pdf, rather than an original pdf. But at least some comparative analysis can be done to try and determine if all the BC's are probably reconstituted in the same way.

I certainly don't care if Obama was born in Hawaii or not. I've numerous issues with the way his administration has handled various important issues. And as far as I'm concerned, the BC has nothing to do with any of them. This whole issue is a distraction, at best. And even if the US didn't have Obama, does anyone really believe the alternative would be any better?

reply to post by Logical one


Regarding Trumps hair.
Its a real mess.

Originally posted by Rising Against
So people continually ask for the Obama Birth certificate and then when It's produced, It's still rejected.

Sigh.

Couldn't this have been done 2 years ago though ?

That is a question which has yet to be answered.