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: 65
299
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
This "document" they released is so obviously fake, it almost begs the question: did they release a blatantly fake document on purpose so the birther story will continue? Maybe they want the main stream media to continue with this story so they won't cover the demise of the dollar, Ben Bernanke's press conference, the shakeup in the leadership at the Pentagon and CIA (General David Petraeus moving to the head of the CIA), and all the other historically important decisions being made out of the public eye. They want us to look at Barry's fake birth certificate while they continue taking the USA into third world status and globalizing commerce, finance, and government. Wake up sheep!
edit on 28-4-2011 by Drew99GT because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Yes but if this is the case it still begs the question, why does THIS scan have multiple elements/layers???

I mean if the certified copy is a scan of the original and then printed on the newer green background and that copy was then scanned by the WH staff and posted, it should still be only ONE layer with ONE element, possibly two if they used OCR, which wouldn't make sense unless you were trying to edit the letters or dates, it's too much hastle...

Jaden



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TomServo
 


In it's defense, if the WH requested an official copy, they would have to sign and seal the copy, so it makes sense that they would scan the original and print it on new paper and sign and date it on the new paper, they should also seal it though and it still begs the question why is the WH scan of the certified copy with multiple layers. The only plausible explanation for this is that they sent a digital copy to the WH and not an official copy. I don't know if that would even be legitimate though. Can anyone provide any information on whether the state of Hawaii provides digital copies of BC's???

Jaden



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by TomServo
 


In it's defense, if the WH requested an official copy, they would have to sign and seal the copy, so it makes sense that they would scan the original and print it on new paper and sign and date it on the new paper, they should also seal it though and it still begs the question why is the WH scan of the certified copy with multiple layers. The only plausible explanation for this is that they sent a digital copy to the WH and not an official copy. I don't know if that would even be legitimate though. Can anyone provide any information on whether the state of Hawaii provides digital copies of BC's???

Jaden


You would have to say a digital copy is NOT a legal document anyway..



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Actually you make a good point. Why release it in a questionable state if it is real???

The answer to that is to use it to make people look foolish when the campaigning really starts. It is so blatantly looking like it is midified or fabricated. If they have the original copy and it IS the exact same, by making this one look manufactured they open up the potential for candidates to bring it up. Then when it is more convenient, they pop out the original that is exactly the same, making them look like fools.

This also creates a greater air of truth to the reasoning for not letting it out originally in a more convenient time frame for re-election.

It would be genius; however, I know enough about government idiocy to think it's also possible that whoever they had edit it is really just that incompetent, (if it was in fact edited or created to hide something).

Jaden

p.s. This post should illustrate that I am not just looking for any excuse to say Obama wasn't born here, for the ad hominemers....



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerohistory
You only proved that you have just discoved that JPG-formatted images do not retain layers like PNG and TIFF-formatted images do. That's all you've done. The rest of us who are familiar with image editing have known this information for years and years. Just saying.


edit on 28-4-2011 by zerohistory because: word

Exactly. This was most likely a PSD file, photoshopped, saved as a PDF, and never flattened. Of course JPG files don't retain layers. The claim is that the White House scanned this in, and then the layers "automagically" appeared. That doesn't happen with a JPG image, which is what I set out to prove. Plus other posters had claimed that the process of going from Illustrator to PDF is what caused it. Once again, I proved them wrong.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I see where you are coming from with the layers.... Same thing in Fireworks... Here's where I get kind of mad.... quick story; when I was born the nurses put the wrong day down on the birth certificate, they then had to go and write over it after deleting it... offsetting ONE number a little higher than the rest... When I went to get my drivers license the DMV wouldn't take it and called it forged...

I see MULTIPLE errors on that birth certificate that are worse then mine.... How did he get a drivers license, and a passport?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Take a close look at this birth certificate:



A long form birth certificate obtained by the Honolulu Star in 2009 from a female born one day after Obama and whose form was accepted three days after Obama’s document contains a Dept. of Health number that is lower, 61 10637.






Zoom in and look at the markings on the right, and the x's above the boxes about twins and tripplets. Exactly the same markings that obama's bc has. Box 7g for example, that gamma symbol is there, and the markings on the boxes bellow look the same. too These markings look like pencil scribbles, and i don't understand why they are almost identical to those on obama's.

Could it be that obama's bc was 'modelled' after this girls bc?
edit on 28-4-2011 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-4-2011 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaintdead
Take a close look at this birth certificate:



A long form birth certificate obtained by the Honolulu Star in 2009 from a female born one day after Obama and whose form was accepted three days after Obama’s document contains a Dept. of Health number that is lower, 61 10637.






Zoom in and look at the markings on the right, and the x's above the boxes about twins and tripplets. Exactly the same markings that obama's bc has. Box 7g for example, that gamma symbol is there, and the markings on the boxes bellow look the same. too These markings look like pencil scribbles, and i don't understand why they are almost identical to those on obama's.

Could it be that obama's bc was 'modelled' after this girls bc?
edit on 28-4-2011 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-4-2011 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)
You can also see the impression of a state seal on the girl's BC, but of course none on Obama's. Very curious, however I do not feel like the transfer marks are exactly the same as on Obama's BC.

How does one check the checksums as suggested earlier. Also, how does one find the meta data on the pdf file.
edit on 4/28/1111 by NoAngel2u because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Here's a blogger who claims to be Dr. Sinclair's daughter. She didn't know, apparently before this week, that her father (according to the birth certificate) delivered Barack Obama:

rebekahstudio.wordpress.com...

oops, editing this to add that the blogger is friends with the daughter of Dr. Sinclair.
edit on 28-4-2011 by DeusVult because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by zaintdead
 


did you also notice the registrars name is different?
Do they have different registrars using the same book on the same day?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NoAngel2u
 


Regarding that metadata, I asked a question earlier in the thread about this. In that metadata, there is a line that shows the file creation location which was this:

C:\Users\KARREN\Desktop

Who is KARREN? Is it a username or a real name? In my workplace, we use our first five letters of our last names plus the first letter of our first names as a username. For example, if my name was John Wilson, my user name would be WILSOJ. So I'm wondering who KARREN is...



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DeusVult
 


lol Would you please direct me how to find that meta data associated with the pdf so that I may see it for myself?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Definitely sounds fishy to me. What if this is a forgery?

Dire consequences I suspect. Or not... Mainstream will surely swallow this like anything else.
edit on 28-4-2011 by shadowhit because: Spelling



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Why doesn't the Obama Administration arrange to have non-digital, film photographs of the original taken while being videotaped with neutral observers present, a chain of custody for the negatives established, and then distribute the negatives to the major and at least some of the alternative media? If the document is legitimate, the certers will look like foolish wackjobs.

Unless, as some here have speculated, there are other agendas being driven apart from putting this issue to rest and moving on. This whole episode is very strange business.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NoAngel2u
 



edit on 28-4-2011 by Elbereth because: not quite right



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Just my 2 cents here.

I work for one of the oldest design firms in the U.S.A. and we have over 100 graphic artists in my office using CS5. While I've long been sceptical of the birther movement, and have found most related claims to be utterly baseless, this document was created and modified electronically. I don't much care what Adobe says, or what anyone can do with any PDF they may posses. Over 500 years of collective experience in my office have looked at this and agree that is is not an original scan of any document, but ratehr a modified document, and poorly done at that.

Whether or not Illustrator breaks an otherwise flatened PDF up aside, the color of the separate elements is different, and if you look closely you will see that the white area of the green background does not match the text in all places.

There is no question that this document is doctored.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
IMO the only thing this birth certificate did was create more " birthers".



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by atlguy
 



YOU ARE A VERY CONFUSED LITTLE DUDE - SERIOUS ISSUES WITH THE THOUGHT PROCESSING GOING ON THERE FELLOW..

Does this actually seem relevant in any way?
Even if the key point or GOAL of ALL writing about these problems - why would 1 year and 24 days not be good enough to catch what would be one of Americas most incredible political frauds - A purposely manipulated Presidental Birth Certificate (they said did NOT EXIST prior), manipulated by the Administration releasing it to the public.

Forget about your confused thoughts and internal Bias, just read the above and imagine it - the possiblities of the consequences - it might help you to consider what it would have been like, the same current long history and sets of scnarios, if it were Ronal Reagan, Sr. Jr. etc..

"Obama has one year left. Do you think the wheels of justice will move quickly enough to get him out in a year? "

"GASP" "REALLY" "Layering..?" Hello Planet retard, you seem quite intelligent to apparently believe that a modified State Document released to all of America being manipulated is a joke.

REALLY? Based on the fact that this certificate has *gasp* layering?!?!?

EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE FIELD ON THIS PAGE WAS %100 TRUE AND ACCURATE:

- ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE RELEASE OF THIS DOCUMENT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH FRAUD, MANIPULATION, DISHONESTY, AND DEEP IN THE MIDDLE OF PERPETUTING SOME TYPE OF POLITICAL SCAM - THE CHARACTER IMPLICATIONS OF DOING SO ALONE WILL LOSE THE ELECTION



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Adamo
Just my 2 cents here.

I work for one of the oldest design firms in the U.S.A. and we have over 100 graphic artists in my office using CS5. While I've long been sceptical of the birther movement, and have found most related claims to be utterly baseless, this document was created and modified electronically. I don't much care what Adobe says, or what anyone can do with any PDF they may posses. Over 500 years of collective experience in my office have looked at this and agree that is is not an original scan of any document, but ratehr a modified document, and poorly done at that.

Whether or not Illustrator breaks an otherwise flatened PDF up aside, the color of the separate elements is different, and if you look closely you will see that the white area of the green background does not match the text in all places.

There is no question that this document is doctored.


500 years of experience? Wow, please tell me then why they didn't merged the Layers before releasing a PDF? You really think they a re too stupid to do that? I mean 500000 years experience of CIA? REALLY?

Do you know how OCR works you "Professional" ?!? Why are some random letters are not on the text layer? Hmmmm?



new topics

top topics



 
299
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join