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

page: 4
299
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
+15 more 
posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I found the story of Barry releasing the Birth Certificate, and for a split second, my propaganda-infused sheeple wit made me think t it was the real deal.

Then my ATS instinct kicked in, and I thought... "Wait a minute...."

Sure enough, it seems that something doesn't smell right...

Seems to me that the whole scanner thing absolutely proves that the Birth Certificate has been tampered with. I don't care what any of you naysayers say, but when you can separate an image into 3 different layers, it most certainly was NOT scanned and posted.

Scanned, edited, then posted is what happened.




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


this is smart. good job.

I am wondering if the optical character recognition (OCR) can account for bumping out all of the separate layers?

IMO, the fact that this is such a mess is a real problem. they should have flattened the layers. it should have been perfect. this is still suspect.


ETA: nevermind...there is no selectable text. no OCR. even more suspicious.
edit on 27-4-2011 by tgidkp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by DJW001
 


this is smart. good job.

I am wondering if the optical character recognition (OCR) can account for bumping out all of the separate layers?

IMO, the fact that this is such a mess is a real problem. they should have flattened the layers. it should have been perfect. this is still suspect.


That's what I was thinking too. Whatever dolt they had do this with the document could have flattened the image so all the layers would have been one and we wouldn't even have this forum post.


+2 more 
posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
This is so obviously fake it's painful that anyone would actually believe otherwise. From first glance, I could tell something was not right, and this thread brought more light to the fact. I'm not a birther, but come on ...



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
OK another unsolicited reply.

I suspect MANY of you aren't old enough to remember Microfilm or Microfiche. They were an early means of photographic document archival. (Some may recall from library research of old newspapers etc.)

It is my firm belief the images were sourced and then printed on tamper proof paper. Perhaps you all were expecting to see a 50 year old piece of paper. Not likely.

Case closed. My .02¢


+3 more 
posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
OK another unsolicited reply.

I suspect MANY of you aren't old enough to remember Microfilm or Microfiche. They were an early means of photographic document archival. (Some may recall from library research of old newspapers etc.)

It is my firm belief the images were sourced and then printed on tamper proof paper. Perhaps you all were expecting to see a 50 year old piece of paper. Not likely.

Case closed. My .02¢


If this was "printed" then it would be a solid holistic bitmap. It is not. This was an electronically manufactured document. That in itself is not the issue.. the issue is how is is pieced together.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
If this was "printed" then it would be a solid holistic bitmap. It is not. This was an electronically manufactured document. That in itself is not the issue.. the issue is how is is pieced together.


Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I'm suggesting the old microfilm was electronically captured, then layered on to the paper.

Here is such a device

Not sure why image wasn't "flattened" or "merged" to a myriad of formats. (.jpeg, .tiff etc.) This is just another dog chasing tail attempt to discredit newly released document. IMHO, of course.


+42 more 
posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Having worked with graphics I can safely state that a scanned image will NOT break down into 5 layers, it is one continuous layer. This is an altered document and that begs another question, why?

Not why would they fake it, but why would they fake it so badly, the only thing I can think is that whoever did the editing, sent it for approval to someone else, leaving the layers active in case they needed to make further alterations, and then it went straight into Adobe because they either forgot or the person they sent it too didn't check the layers and they published it.

For all you anti birthers, you have just had the biggest set back ever, this has to be FAKE, there is no other logical explanation, there would never be a need to edit it if it was just scanned from the archive. This has been loaded into editing software and altered, it is fact.

People should download the original and save it, because I suspect the PDF will be altered very soon and the layers merged, no doubt those then that bring the matter up will be called frauds and accused of faking it.

Excellent post OP well done S&F for you



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The green patterned background is on the paper that the scan was printed on. The signature on the lower right is to certify that the scan is authentic. These are not part of the actual birth certificate, which is on white paper in a bound volume. This is why the pattern is continuous even though the shading and distortion show that the edge of the page curves towards the binding. Please learn to understand what you are actually looking at before you subject it to further "analysis."


We learn to understand by asking questions and pointing things out that don't currently make sense to ourselves so others can respond with their understandings. Would you rather people never ask questions and just sit there assuming forever? Have you never made an error before ?

Thanks for your response!

Namaste



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 



It still captures in a single image and not in layers, layers are only ever created when using editing software, when you build images up, placing one image on top of another



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Somebody in an earlier post suggested that the document was broken into layers after scanning the original. But that raises another question, why did they do that???

I don't know if it is possible to do that in Illustrator or Inkscape since I don't use either program. But assuming that it is possible then the only reason I can think of for creating separate layers is to alter the document. And that makes it a fake in my book no matter which part was altered.

It also seems that the person given the job of "scanning" the document was not too tech savvy. The right way to do it would be to print a final copy of the altered document and scan that. Then there would be no layers to separate in any program.

BTW and FYI - I can create layers from a single image in Photoshop so I know that at least one program is capable of doing that.


+5 more 
posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
This just doesn't make any sense, really.

He's the friggin' President, for God's sake... he's got access to all kinds of resources....

WHY release a document they -know- is going to be subjected to intense scrutiny in such a state... fake or real?

If it's real... why release it in a state that makes it appear forged... and in an amateur fashion? From what I'm gathering, all of this could have been avoided if they'd simply printed the darn thing out and scanned the printed document into Adobe.

And if it's fake... why release, effectively, the 'chimera' document? It's like forging your parents' signature by cutting it out of another permission slip and taping it to the front of another... if you send someone -that- permission slip, (instead of making a scan/copy of it) it's a dead give-away that you are up to no good.

Usually, you can pick these things apart from a risk/reward standpoint or a functional standpoint... like why would BP blow up their own oil rig line of questioning to counter those related conspiracies.

But this... just makes no sense from any standpoint. On one hand, if they used some post-process software, it may account for some of the noted effects... but it seems like quite a bit of a stretch. I'm not seeing any 'normal' explanation for the noted features... which logically reduces the possible explanations to forgery... but that doesn't make sense because the risks of releasing a rather blatantly forged document are massive by comparison to the resources necessary to make a more convincing forgery - or compared to the risks of continued silence on the matter.

It really doesn't make that big of a difference in the long run - even if he wasn't born in the U.S. - there would have to be a court hearing simply to determine the intent behind the constitution (a born citizen is rather vague - while we grant citizenship to anyone born within our borders... that is a relatively recent precedent)... and then a hearing to see the evidence for him not being born in the U.S. (presuming there was a case)... and it'd be 2020 before all of that insanity was through.

I just can't reason this one out. Yeah - some of the quirks are akin to "did we really go to the moon" silliness - but the whole layering thing is just unreal. Either we're completely misunderstanding why that is in the document (and there may very well be some kind of logical explanation that does not involve forgery) ... or someone -really- dropped the ball.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by happykat39
BTW and FYI - I can create layers from a single image in Photoshop so I know that at least one program is capable of doing that.


Yes you can in Illustrator to, the point is you have to load it into Illustrator and start cutting the sections into layers for masking ect. But you are still loading it in to editing software and altering it..

I just cant comprehend why they made such a basic error when publishing it, they didn't even have to print and scan they could of just merged the layers, it baffles me. Unless they want the POTUS impeaching, or some people at the White House really are that dumb.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by DJW001
 


this is smart. good job.

I am wondering if the optical character recognition (OCR) can account for bumping out all of the separate layers?

IMO, the fact that this is such a mess is a real problem. they should have flattened the layers. it should have been perfect. this is still suspect.


ETA: nevermind...there is no selectable text. no OCR. even more suspicious.
edit on 27-4-2011 by tgidkp because: (no reason given)


That's what I was thinking too.

I know that with the HP scanner I have the user can select several different scan types in a PDF. Image only, Image over text, text over image, text only. So I thought that maybe it was scanned using a text over image setting. But, you are correct. The text is not selectable, it shows as image only.

I tried scanning a check I received recently that has a green back ground and I tried each one of the save settings on that scan. In every setting that involved text, the end product had editable text layers.

There is something odd about the document that was released today.

The only thing that comes to mind that could explain the layers, is that the OCR was confused by the old smuggy text type & used the wrong letters. Someone then went in and cleaned it up. But then that begs the question, why not just save the scan as a .jpg? Or as a image only PDF.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Mothers Rase = Caucasian.
can any one tel me if some thing it funny about that?

the people who do birth forms
Never use the word "Caucasian"
edit on 27-4-2011 by buddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
Mothers Rase = Caucasian.
can any one tel me if some thing it funny about that?


The S is next to the C on the keyboard


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
After seeing the long form this morning I thought that was the end of it but now seeing that its in layers makes me lean more to the "birther" side of it. There is absolutely no reason for that to be in layers in adobe unless it was put together or edited in layers. All they had to do was make a copy of the orig. and then scan it, or scan it directly and then post it. Neither one of those ways would have it be in layers. Whoever did it was an idiot, why on earth would they not merge the layers?
The white around and inside the text also makes it look like it was edited.
edit on 27-4-2011 by WildWorld because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
not only did the hospital lie about his birth
government officials did too
two newspapers
his whole family

And

A sitting president, who was smart enough to fool the whole world is stupid enough to release a fake document,
just to appease a fringe minority who were on their way to sinking their political prospects anyhow...

"He's a ,he's a, he's an ARAB!" - "He's not?"

Birthers, meet your nutty Granny




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
After further investigating this document its actually possible - literally, not joking. To create your OWN version of this birth certificate. It is that poorly done. I will be posting my findings on this thread in a bit, but this is beyond unreal. There is new text and old text in the document as well, for example the R in Barrack along with many other screw ups by whoever did this.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 


I am really trying to reason this one out... I mean... we have newspaper articles from the time announcing Obama's birth to his parents. That doesn't completely rule-out a foreign place of birth... but that means they were either in good contact with people back in the U.S. - or we venture into the tinfoil hat zone and make the claim they were plotting for him to be president and had the resources to get him into the presidency and cover up his foreign birth (but not to actually be here when he was born).

The only thing I can think of is that Hawaii officials were being pressured for a document, and perhaps found a partial document and attempted to reconstruct this document. Or just decided to make an impromptu document. In either case - they passed along a file, perhaps prematurely or to someone who didn't understand that it was not ready to be published, and in the rush to try and resolve the issue - it got published without resolving these issues.

It still doesn't explain what happened to the original....

Though it does not necessarily mean Obama is lying or commissioning the construction of a forgery... someone else could have said "sure... here's a digital copy of your birth certificate, careful who you show it to." - "Awesome, now I can finally get Trump and the others to leave me alone, and maybe get him to eat his hat!"

But... heck... none of it makes any sense.





top topics
 
299
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join