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: 46
299
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebestusername

-- The background hash pattern would be separate from the other objects (text, halos, etc. - people are calling these layers, but in CS5, there only shows one layer, with several objects, but the difference is probably mere terminology...). In other words, you would expect to be able to move the text, and any other objects off and see a contiguous hash background, even in areas which would have been covered up by text. This is not the case. This file as-is would not be easily modified because the white "halos" would have to be cloned out - doable, but defeats the purpose of the "layers." They could delete a word or change a date, but they'd have to touch up and redo the halo area.


When you EXPORT (rather than save) a file from Adobe Illustrator, any masked images or anything covered by another layer is lost, this is to lower the end file size. The mere fact that there is more than one object in this file is proof that it was created in Illustrator but there are 11 or 12 separate objects in the file I downloaded.
Before concluding anything about this I suggest you consult a trusted friend who is fluent in Illustrator. It is a clear as day that when you open this file you are dealing with 'work in progress' so to speak because all the pieces and parts are still separate objects. This is not subtle, it is the most obvious photo fraud I have ever seen. I am sorta stunned. I expected a bunch of ambiguous claims about tiny dots or fonts, but this...
edit on 27-4-2011 by RedPill because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Here I am repeating gossip which I don't do, but I've heard from a republican that everyone knows that Obama is an American, it was never a question. They want to reveal that the birth certificate was faked maybe twice so that someone could get in-state school tuition rates or something like that, and it may not have been Obama at all, it may have been his cousin or something. I don't know if this rumor has any weight and I agree that in-state tution rates are what most people want, some people will even change their permanent address to get their tuition lowered. I don't know how a birth certificate could get you in-state tuition rates though? so maybe this republican story is what it usualy is, something to distract you from what you really need to do. I hope that Obama doesn't fall for it.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
The shadow on the left side of the document is a gradient. Just looking at it I think it would not be possible to replicate it using a single linear gradient, it is fading away to transparency a little bit too smoothly.

I think it is two gradients, one that stops at the vertical black bar, and another that starts from it, to fade away to transparency at a slower rate than the first gradient.

But, of course, the give away is the letters above the shadow (STA..., 1a., 2a. 6a., etc...), they should be merged into the shade, but are not. They cast a white shadow on the dark shadow. Not possible!

Thank you and good bye.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
How about instead of arguing we all become proactive and do something ourselves. I don't live in the US, but surely someone was born in the same year as Obama at the same hospital, correct? So if we can obtain a birth certificate from someone else born at the same hospital and same year of which there would be thousands, it would prove if it's real or not.

Arguments such as the hospital not being called what is printed on the birth certificate can be proven true or false by someone else born the same year/same hospital showing a birth certificate.

Then someone would need to scan a version of the birth certificate using a standard scanner, and then use a scanner with OCR capabilities to see if it turns out the same. My question to everyone without being called racist or a "birther" is: is it normal for a scanner to scan to a propriety format such as a PDF file without having to install an Adobe related program like Reader or Acrobat?

I would have though scanning to a PNG file would have been easier and the norm? I'm not trying to say it's fake, but it would be great if everyone tried doing a little sleuthing as opposed to the empty mouthing that appears to be happening in this thread.

Some of you need to grow up. No wonder this site has such a bad name in a lot of circles, half of you people can't have a debate without playing the race or birther card. What's the point of having an opinion when yours is never right?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
O'Bummer supporters...your RIGHT I will NEVER be convinced that a REAL AND TRUE birth certificate for this criminal that is dismantling our country from the inside out exists!!



Nuff said!! And for anyone to believe otherwise is to be a FOOL! WAKE UP SHEEP!!



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DigitalSea
Arguments such as the hospital not being called what is printed on the birth certificate can be proven true or false by someone else born the same year/same hospital showing a birth certificate.
It already was proven as false.

But it’s much more fun to keep spreading lies.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LosLobos
reply to post by Byteman
 


Okay...

This is for the mods. I'm out for tonight as I am getting really really upset. Even I know my limitations unlike the birthers.

I just want to say this. If anyone thinks this is not about race then you are either naive or blind to the facts. I am not race baiting. The bait has been thrown by the birthers. I'm just biting on the bait. And they don't like what they are hauling in. So they try to throw it back but the fish keep biting. Now they want to derail the thread. I want no part of that.

Stop throwing the bait if you don't like the type of fish it snags!

I'm out guys. PS...I love every American because I think it takes a nation to raise a world. We are that nation if we can just get rid of the lunatics.


Well its not about race to me, I am not a birther but if I see something thats odd I usually would like to know a little more about it, such as Obama signing an executive order as soon as he became president stopping any of his past information from getting out, including his precious BC, so no to me its not about race, never has been, its about blatant in your face lies that we have had to deal with for the past 18 months, lies like....

1, the short form that was released was "The only copy of Baracks BC", that's what the administration said, NOW there was another, wtf???
and
2, He said he had his BC but lost it when he was younger, contradicts the first lie doesn't it.

I hate when people say its race, for a lot of people its not about race, its the fact that they think the majority of this country are stupid people who cant see whats directly in front of their faces.

If it were any other president, white, black, yellow, red, green, purple, mauve,
and they had two past names, signed an executive order stopping any records from being released hell I would have my suspicions against them too.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Newbomb Turk
Not sure if this has been addressed yet or not but while listening to Michael Savage on the radio this afternoon on my way home from work, this guy called in to say that apparently the name of the hospital on the released birth certificate wasn't named that until like some years later...I think 1965, yet there it was on THAT birth certificate in the year 1961



Very true....

Then what about Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, I wonder why they changed his birthplace to Kapi'olani...


www.wnd.com...

"Obama described his birth at Queen's Medical Center in Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961,."



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



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Having a look at this Wikipedia image of a birth certificate



and comparing it to the layer with Barack Obama birth certificate:



I think that the Obama certificate is not faked, but instead edited to have a green background rather than the original black, possibly to make it look better. The only problem I see is that some letters are missing.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by welshbeliever
i can see what you mean dude, good work!
just out of interest how long would it take an ats member to knock up a dodgy birth certificate simular to this one?



I made the one for release in my own presidential campaign, presented in this post, from the old one. A knock off of this one would take a bit longer, since I'd have to simulate the old style typewriter font.

In reference to Rogerstigers' post about it being dodgy to remove the background of the original to put it on the greenbar background, that's how they do it nowadays for new copies. The original is scanned, then the background (usually blank whit) is made transparent so that when they re-print the copy it just prints the old letters and lines on the new security background. Most of the original documents aren't stored on paper any more, just scans (PNGs with a transparent alpha channel), which are stored electronically and printed anew on demand.

With that said, the stored scans aren't layered as this one is - they're one single image with a transparent alpha channel. This one appears to have been hashed out by a professional who took his time, but for some odd reason forgot to merge the layers into a single image. A sloppy ending for such meticulous work.


edit on 2011/4/27 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 




McCain never disclosed his birth certificate.


You only have proof (maybe) that someone took his BC without permission. That is not proof that he never showed his own voluntarily.



The purported McCain birth certificates floating around on the internet were disclosed by private parties that had nothing to do with McCain. In fact, the alleged McCain long form birth certificate was disclosed by Fred Hollander when he annexed the birth certificate in his lawsuit against McCain (Hollander v. McCain).


Ditto.



These McCain birth certificates were never vouched by US or Panamanian authorities. Nor by fact checking organizations.


I never actually said anything about Mccain getting vetted, so you are going off the reservation.
However the senate did pass a non-binding resolution that he could be president, so he was vetted.



But I’m willing to change my mind if you have the sources to back up your claims. I have to back up mine.


So show your source. I can only wonder why you did not just do it in the first place.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
You guys did actually read the certificate right? it clearly says in the bottom right hand corner it is a true copy OR an abstract of the original... It is obvioulsy a fake in terms that it isn't an original but as long as the information is correct and that signature from Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D is verifyable then it is as good as an original....

With that said absolutly nothing has been proven here. So I can see why the birthers are still up in arms. I personaly do not think any evidence shown would be good enough though. Even if the original was shown it would still be called a fake.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Look, im not a birther or anything like that. I think this country has many more problems than worrying about this.

With that being said, I brought up the "Kenya" on the birth certificate for a reason. If that certificate was exactly from the time of his birth, it would NOT be referred to as "Kenya" because it wasn't known as Kenya until 1963. It is referred to as Kenya now, and history points to it as Kenya now because that is what it is known as now.

And what about the Hospital name? Why does it have a name of a Hospital, that wasn't even given that name until 1978?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 


The answer is political. I have no expertise here. Read between the lines. BO was coached for what was the best possible outcome for this kind of scenario. He can hold on to an iron clad tailcoat here, and that is what has legs because this is a reality component that is known by the movers and shakers.

Its all about interpretation of the future and knowing and ACTING UPON the possible challenges. This is what makes a leader. Like I say, he has me still, but I am not a stagnant observer.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Where is the direct line to these so called leaders of ours. Why is it that anyone who wants to get a straight answer is sent to "beat around the bush." I have thousands of questions for the president, congress, the senate, govenors, and sherrif chiefs. Who do these people think they are fooling with there lies and half-ass efforts. You should be able to call these people directly and tell them what they should be doing. The certificate that was just "produced" is a FAKE and it should've been there even before his election. What is happening to this country? I'm telling you all that the "Army of the People" needs to be called and remove these false leaders from our presence and in prison for treason!



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Bonified Ween
 

Hello Bonified Ween and others!

I don't usually get involved in the discussions here but rather sit back and take in the different sides of the argument. This is different for me though cause I work with Adobe CS everyday. I like to think I have an experienced eye at image re-touching or alterations.

This official document has been tampered with. I'm not a so called "birther" but after seeing this document it has my eyebrow perma-raised. They should not be re-touching this document, especially under it's current scrutiny! Here are some technical observations to go with my raised eyebrow.

Layers aside, lets look at the typed letters.
Almost all the letters were digitally painted in, from the looks of it pixel by pixel with the pencil tool or a hard edged paint brush with this color value: C:77, M:55, Y:77, K:69. There are a few letters that are not painted in which makes the retouching even more obvious. Take the P in triplet (box 3) for example, the color range in the pixels ranges from C:74, M:65, Y:68, K:86 (that's pretty dang close to black for print) to C:69, M:52, Y:64, K:39 (a lighter gray/greenish color). Ranges like this for scanned documents are normal as is the the blurred edge around the letter P. Which brings me to my next observation.
What kind of typewriter in 1961 has the capability of adding a glow effect behind the letters? I mean it's not impossible, you'd have to have a double set of letters with the hammer hitting with a white under layer followed by the black over layer. Amusing to think about the size of the thing. This glow was an obvious and recent addition.
As for the signatures and writing, the same applies. I.E. The D in Dunham is normal while the unham has been painted over.

An argument percolated in my head while I was trying to figure out the rational side of these changes. "Maybe they did it for clarity's sake? You know, so you can see everything better." This is possible, on the other hand it's MUCH easier to adjust the DPI of the scanned image and release a higher resolution image than it is to go through and paint in every single letter.

Anti-birther or birther it would be nice to see a straight answer come from this situation. Hope I've offered some insight into this "official" document.

Stay cool,
Coldblade



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
I never actually said anything about Mccain getting vetted, so you are going off the reservation.
Your insinuation was that McCain did something that Obama didn’t, when actually, it was only Obama that publicly disclosed his birth certificate.


However the senate did pass a non-binding resolution that he could be president, so he was vetted.
It’s incredible how the high standards of the birthers suddenly get lax when applied to someone other than Obama.

As far as I can tell McCain didn’t show his birth certificate to anyone in Congress. A non-binding resolution has no legal weight, it’s merely informative of the Senate’s opinion. Congress can’t declare or make someone a natural born citizen otherwise the clause in the Constitution is meaningless.

And this non-binding resolution argument is really weak. As if you birthers would accept a non-binding resolution as proof that Obama had been vetted. Just another birther double standard.


So show your source. I can only wonder why you did not just do it in the first place.
You can wonder, just like you have demonstrated that you can conjure up these fictional scenarios about Obama and his birth certificate, but, just like in those cases, you would be wrong.

From Hollander’s sur-reply in objection to the motion to dismiss (p. 1)—

Plaintiff respectfully submits this Sur-Reply in order to address new arguments presented in defendants' Reply and to submit Senator John McCain's ("McCain") birth certificate in support of plaintiffs claim that McCain is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

Citizen McCain (Washington Post)—

The McCain campaign has declined to publicly release his birth certificate, but a senior campaign official showed me a copy.



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



new topics

top topics



 
299
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join