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: 40
299
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I have been trying to duplicate what the OP did with Illustrator and haven't read all the postings since I last posted.

I can't get the image from the .pdf file to split into layers. I downloaded it from the whitehouse.gov site.

Has anyone duplicated the OP's experiment? Has the .pdf been changed at the Whitehouse site to cover their mistake? Is this a hoax? All help appreciated.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by againuntodust
I'm extremely disappointed at the lack of moderation in this thread. 38 pages, and I'd wager 35 of them are bickering and off-topic. I can't spent 2 hours wading through this crap, but the first couple pages made some very compelling points.

Until someone creates a thread debunking the fact that the pdf document WAS edited, with the layers still existent in the document, and explains why, I'll have to stop reading about this issue - because the debunking can't be found in this thread. No one who isn't intent on bickering has the time to sift through nearly 40 pages of a thread.

Name calling such as birther or racist should not be allowed on this forum. It's almost as if its on purpose, that certain threads get filled up like this with pages and pages of mindless content. It's a conspiracy in and of itself.


Oh your disappointed. I havn't done any of the things you listed there got hammered anyway because somebody had a tear hit the floor. On top of that I can't even gain an audience for one G- D question. And your disappointed!?


If my Mom had to send for my original B.C.just so I could play little league why oh why arn't politicians required by law to do the same at the onset of their nomination?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard
 


You said we were squabbling about a BLACK man in the whitehouse.

You are trying to paint us as having problems with a Black man in the whitehouse.

That is slander, you are trying to slander us as racists.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedonk
reply to post by mudbeed
 



I agree being a non US citizen means my incite is far less than it could be. My issue was merely with the poster calling everybody racist who questioned Obamas integrity. I see entirely where you are coming from in your arguments, hopefully I am also allowed to have my own scepticism in the matter.

I personally always like to think in 'birther' terms of the Governator in such matters. Apparently he has given up his dream of being US president because of the constitution and now wants to be the President of the EU/ Europe - 'gawd help us Tiny Tim'. I am not sure we are ready for cigar chomping US style politics in my neck of the woods (Austrian bastard
))))))) - sarcasm!!!! ).

P.S. there is plenty of white on white racism here, but you can be sure you missed the Brixton Riots in the 80's if you missed the black hatred. Enoch Powells 'Rivers of Blood' speech and even good old sitcoms like Love thy neighbour . this country is # racist and always has been.


Rememeber this.

UK Conservatives are way different than US ones.

At the end of yours you will see fiscal conservatism....insert laugh track here, but they mean well.

Ours has become neo-con which is (in it's darkest moment) fascism.

You can correct me if you would like, I only learned from talking with folks across seas via my job, etc.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by d. duck
 

I don't get why the people saying this is OCR aren't understanding this. If it was from OCR the text would be text, it would be searchable as text, it would be editable. This is not the case. It is layered as images not text. This does not confirm that it is a forgery but it does bring up the question as to why this is in layers. OCR is a reasonable explanation if the text was saved as text but it's not.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LosLobos
 


Attacking Libya without congressional consent.

That's a violation of the War Powers Act.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard
 


You said we were squabbling about a BLACK man in the whitehouse.

You are trying to paint us as having problems with a Black man in the whitehouse.

That is slander, you are trying to slander us as racists.


Its libel, not slander.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
If my Mom had to send for my original B.C.just so I could play little league why oh why arn't politicians required by law to do the same at the onset of their nomination?


What state/association requires a long form BC for that?

You are talking about the take home BC aren't you?...the one with foot prints.

Tell me what state and/or league you played so I can look this up.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlguy

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard

No, they are squabbling about a black man in the whitehouse

Funny if it wasn't soooo true.

I really don't think anyone on this thread has said anything regarding his race, other than the "non-birthers".

Remove race and personal attacks from the discussions or it will never go anywhere productive


It's quite clear that reason won't prevail here. It's not a discussion or a debate when one side holds on to theory based on disinfo, faulty research and propaganda. Therefore civilized rules go out the window.

I'll stick around for more dimwitted theories to evolve. It's more entertainment at hhis point.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mudbeed

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
Found this on yahoo
The green form
WHY IS IT MADE TO LOOK AS IF IT WAS COPIED THIS WAY OUT OF A BOOK WHEN WE KNOW THE ORIGINAL WAS ON WHITE FORM.
WHY.
news.yahoo.com...


Hawaii official Doc thats why.

DUH!?


I was just wondering this as well. Again, not a "Birther". Just would love to see some things cleared up. Maybe I missed this somewhere in the thread. This was scanned from the binder these are kept. And the original in the binder would have been black and white. First off, the green background was added after the scan was taken. You can clearly see the square (text/lines) that was the actual scanned part. Putting "layers" aside, the green background was not part of the original scanned document. Therefore the original would have been scanned, and then placed on top the green background, in a PDF creating/exporting program. So at this point you would have the original text, placed onto the the green background. Which from what I understand, the greenback ground is today's standards. Next the document would have been saved as/exported as a PDF. The one you see. Re-read that again. When this was published to a PDF, and that PDF was not "Flattened", "grouped" whatever.. you would have layers. One layer of text/lines,(the original scanned document), and one layer of green, with the new seal, ect. These would be separate. There would be no way for these two layers to intermingle or combine as PDF layers save/export the same exact way they are created. The text/lines (original scan) could be in multiple layers, as in this document. But, none of the original scan could be part of the same layer as the background. When you import the document, parts of the text delete along with the green background. Meaning they are on the same layer. Not possible if the layers were made by the scanning process, as the green background was not part of the scanning process. The only way this would happen is if the green background was scanned at the same time with the BC place on top while scanning. Either way, this PDF is not, and can not be a "scanned directly from the binder copy". The original was scanned into a program, and placed on top of the green background. And because of that, the layered text being a part of the background signals a real question about the creation of the provided PDF.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
To all the folks accusing birthers of being racists. Are you people xenophobes? Don't you think a Kenyan could have what it takes to be President?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by WildWorld
reply to post by d. duck
 

I don't get why the people saying this is OCR aren't understanding this. If it was from OCR the text would be text, it would be searchable as text, it would be editable. This is not the case. It is layered as images not text. This does not confirm that it is a forgery but it does bring up the question as to why this is in layers. OCR is a reasonable explanation if the text was saved as text but it's not.


OCR Program style, not necessarily saved as OCR format. All objects could have been treated as a bitmap, including the text. Look up OmniPage.

(I think I've posted this on each page so far)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WildWorld
reply to post by d. duck
 

I don't get why the people saying this is OCR aren't understanding this. If it was from OCR the text would be text, it would be searchable as text, it would be editable. This is not the case. It is layered as images not text. This does not confirm that it is a forgery but it does bring up the question as to why this is in layers. OCR is a reasonable explanation if the text was saved as text but it's not.


Like I said, the white house IT folks are not stupid. If they allowed people to hack away at this PDF then it would be posted on other websites as a FAKE.

The government can listen to ants talking pig latin. Why couldn't they prevent nuts from hacking away at a PDF file?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logman
Of couuuuurse it's fake. If you a conspiracy theorist it doesn't matter what someone tells you, you will never believe otherwise. You can only come to the realisation yourself. Funnily enough, the same thing applies to religion and politics. Yes, all the dumb things.


I see you got a lot of stars for this comment. Interesting, because the fact that the BC is found in layers and not a single image means IT WAS FORGED. And if it was forged, it was NOT as some jolly.

And then there are people who come in here and take a look at evidence and, rather than dispute it, merely flame those who see the evidence and understand.

Those people are either not very bright at all - or have a shillish motive, I suspect.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LosLobos

Originally posted by Elbereth
reply to post by LosLobos
 


As opened in Photoshop 5. Text only. Background? Doesn't make sense to present anything but a non-layered PDF to the public.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


So his computer is jacked up or he was lying right? Either way, strike three for the birthers on here.

----------------

Not quite sure what your point is. I am a lifelong Democrat and voted happily for BHO. He has morphed into Bush Lite since '08 and become yet another willing tool of the oligarchy, leaving me nonplussed to say the least. That really shouldn't be relevant, however. The issue is this murky document BHO has released.

Something is rotten in Denmark. Text does not magically leap off the page. It takes deliberate work to end up with a text only layer from an original document. If this curious document has a reasonable explanation, I would be very happy to know what it is.

edit on 27-4-2011 by Elbereth because: fix

edit on 27-4-2011 by Elbereth because: typo



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
What is your source that he spent $5 Million in lawyers fees? Seriously. It keeps getting said and yet no one has a source. Doesn't this site have mods that take down unsupported allegations?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Oh your disappointed. I havn't done any of the things you listed there got hammered anyway because somebody had a tear hit the floor.


No, you got smacked because you let your emotions get the best of you and incurred a T&C violation in the process. Nobody reported you - I would wager a guess that a mod is worming their way through the thread weeding out the chaff.

Originally posted by randyvs
On top of that I can't even gain an audience for one G- D question. And your disappointed!?


If my Mom had to send for my original B.C.just so I could play little league why oh why arn't politicians required by law to do the same at the onset of their nomination?

Perhaps you "can't get an audience" because your question is irrelevant and has no answer due to that particular policy not existing? (I can't say for sure, I've not looked into it...) We're not the ones creating policy here.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaineLen
I was just wondering this as well. Again, not a "Birther". Just would love to see some things cleared up. Maybe I missed this somewhere in the thread. This was scanned from the binder these are kept. And the original in the binder would have been black and white.


Yes it was added. I am sure it is a standard background for official documents after being scanned into the system.

So you have a template (at a business)

You scan, import, make sure it's readable, save file.

Rinse and repeat.

Sorry I said Duh, when you really had questions.

Thats how it works at my job, but I deal with customer information for orders that have been placed, not BC's



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaineLen


I was just wondering this as well. Again, not a "Birther". Just would love to see some things cleared up. Maybe I missed this somewhere in the thread. This was scanned from the binder these are kept. And the original in the binder would have been black and white.


Why do you assume the original in the binder is black and white?

Maybe I missed that somewhere. Please set me straight if I did.



new topics

top topics



 
299
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join