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: 70
299
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by zaintdead
 


Yo zaintdead i like your style.

I'm not sure if anyone else has picked up on this yet but this thing is way too big for me to give too much of a damn to check


I like many others downloaded the file, imported it into Illustrator and checked it out. Yes there are layers or many 'clipping masks' which is odd but why is anybodies guess. The numbers and little marks across the document were very interesting but i noticed an almost identical check to the left of 7.a. to what we see in 11. Not sure what was to the left of this BC maybe another BC or a checking column of some sort?

Noting the fact that all the numbers and marks look like they are done by the same person and quickly. I can only assume that the numbers and marks are from some poor soul having to go through the whole damn book and do a little census of some sort checking foreign birthplaces and other interesting/useful stats. Like Caucasian gets a 1, African gets a 9, Date last worked 0, Male 1...etc.

You can see on the other CB supplied by zaintdead from the same time period that the marks correspond to the different sets of data. On that note i feel for the person who had to do that!!

To Berts BC! If it MUST be looked at as a fake then there is only one thing that stands out to me as an erroneous bit of data other than the layers and fake background!
The crosses above the Birth (box 3)...i can't explain that
my super logic powers go on strike when i see that. If someone is running through this book then why mark that box as X - X when there are three possible marks? Does that mean yes to twin? as you can rule out single and triple birth. On Susan's BC it looks like an X - X as well and that was a twin birth. But we'd really need to see a bigger pic or maybe some more BCs from around that time to make sure of the schema for the marks.

Now...if indeed it is a mark for Twin then there should be a mark in 4 but there isn't. Now to change this bit of data in this BC to read single you only have to move the boxes around in 3. Easy my 7yr old niece could do that in paint! But in box 4 you need to copy a box as the printed cross renders the box useless for reuse. Being master forgers they wouldn't dream of just copying a box! Ah Hem...1st and 2nd mark boxes are pixel perfect in section 4. Whoops!


Given that fact that the chances of two squares being pixel perfect are bonkers to 1 due to the scanning and any post production processes i'd say yup, this dude has/had a brother or sister.

Even given this amazing discovery!!!! What does it matter? Obama lied? And those in power don't lie!!


Just what i saw that night.




posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Only if a single typewriter was used to complete the document. In many cases, these documents go through several passes to be completed by different people when it was a manual document.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Non issue? The constitution is a non issue?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Bonified Ween
 


We have missed the simplest flaws.

1. Fathers country of origen in 1961 Kenya, Kenya didn't exist until 1963!!

2. Hospital name is wrong, it states newer name of hospital. It merged with another hospital in 1978, that name
is on the birth certificate!!

Maybe Obama's parents were Psychic? Just giving them the benefit of the doubt. It is fabricated by an idiot.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndFUTURE
There is no way....absolutely NO WAY for this document to scan two different ways at once. the layers are scanned differently. All of the layers are monochrome except one. The color scan of course is the one with the green back ground and various black letters and numbers on it. Monochrome only has two colors period. There is only black and white with no gray. Interestingly, there are two of the layers that have no black at all. They are in fact only white splotches where a seal would have been on two parts of the document. Scanners don't scan white. This was painted over with white once in a photo editing software. OCR theory is total bunk. OCR wouldn't change images to white nor would it take half of a signature.

Obots are grasping at straws and anyone who is unfamiliar with photo editing are getting confused and off track. It's not possible people. This was scanned, cut, rotated, changed to monochrome, edited and put back together in pieces.

Face it. It's a fraud.


I configure and use enterprise scanning software every day and there are all kinds of options to rotate/crop/normalize/invert/span/etc whatever gets scanned so that it appears proper in the final document. It's a color scan, so I'm not sure what you're talking about in regards to the monochrome issue, but this also might easily be a scan of a scan of a copy, which would explain quite a few of the inconsistencies and it doesn't require a conspiracy to happen.

Usually the least complicated explanation is the correct one. I COULD be wrong, but I doubt it.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Hotjimarificson
 


Also if he does have a brother or sister and want's to keep them a secret who says its negative? He might just be being good brother at his siblings request. I know i would.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxzen2004
Fathers country of origen in 1961 Kenya, Kenya didn't exist until 1963!!
Kenya wasn’t independent until 1963. There’s a huge difference between not being independent and not existing.


Hospital name is wrong, it states newer name of hospital. It merged with another hospital in 1978, that name is on the birth certificate!!
No, it’s not.

Besides being the exact same name listed on the Nordykes’ certificates, certificates the birthers told were legitimate, it’s absolutely false the hospital didn’t have that name when Obama was born.

On an obstetrics & gynecology paper published in 1960, on the first footnote, on the left side of the page, we can read “From the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, Honolulu, Hawaii.” On another paper, this one published in 1955, the exact same name is used in the first sentence.

Will you stop lying now? I doubt it.


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



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
First off, I will say that I never considered myself a birther. I have always thought that Obama should have shown the long-form of his birth certificate a long time ago when he was running for office. With that being said I do have a few questions about the birth certificate that was shown. Here is an image that is a real Hawaii birth certificate from August 5th, 1961.

www.theobamafile.com...

1) Why was Obama given a higher file number than someone that was born a day after he was? In the image, the twins are given file numbers 10637 and 10638. Obama\'s file number is 10641. Obama\'s birth certificate was accepted by the local registrar 3 days prior to the twins.

2) Why is his mother\'s name and the registrar\'s name in noticeably darker ink?

3) What is the other document that you can see on the left hand side of the paper?

4) Why does student receive a zero next to it, but University receives a nine? Shouldn\'t the business or industry field have been left blank? It\'s not like Obama\'s father was working at the University.

5) Is the doctor or registrar that signed the document alive today?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawaii50th
Who was the Hawaii State registrar in August 1961? Compare this to what was presented as Obama's COLB.
There is only one registrar at one time working for vital statistics.
Here is a link to a photo of a woman that had twins before Obama was suppose to be born in that same hospital. Notice the registrar's signature, and compare it to Obama's COLB.


OK, and now have a look at the below. Different birth certificate, same registrar's name. I think everyone is ignoring the obvious here, that this person's parents had a sense of humor. Surely you've heard of Ima Hogg, a very famous and wealthy woman who lived in Texas. Sometimes people get a little too "cute" when naming their kids.




posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 


Yes it is possible his parents had an odd sense of humor. Just look at some of the babies of celebrities names like Frank Zappa's daughter "Moon Unit One" which she shortened to Moon Zappa as her stage name.

But if you go over all the "queer" aspects of this birth certificate that have been posted in this thread I still stand by my rotten barrel of fish statement. In fact the one that piques my interest the most is the claim by one of our members that the name of the hospital on the cert was not what it was known by at the time of Obama's birth. And that it was not known by that name until several years after his birth. If true then someone didn't do their research very well before forging the cert.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusVult
Another story detailing the process whereby the documents were picked up by hand in Hawaii:

www.hawaiinewsnow.com...


That day President Obama's personal lawyer Judith Corley flew to Hawaii and picked up the birth certificate copies. She paid ten dollars for the first copy and four dollars for the second. The fees were paid in cash. Corley then flew back to Washington DC to deliver the copies.



edit on 28-4-2011 by DeusVult because: spelling


Pure speculation but a possible scenario: Corley retrieves it, brings it back, and then hands it off to another lawyer named Karen Richardson (our meta-KARREN?) in the White House Office of Public Engagement for reworking. She is not so hot as an image manipulator but can claim attorney-client privileges if things go wrong. Loyalty and secrecy trump technical skills, and then someone disastrously fails to properly vet the finished product, or mistakes a draft for a final version and releases it. Stranger things have happened.

Karen Richardson White House Office of Public Engagement



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rhino5
1) Why was Obama given a higher file number than someone that was born a day after he was? In the image, the twins are given file numbers 10637 and 10638. Obama\'s file number is 10641. Obama\'s birth certificate was accepted by the local registrar 3 days prior to the twins.
This has been addressed numerous times, but I don’t mind pointing out again the flaw in your bither ‘suspicions.’

CNN did a piece on the birther issue recently. They went with Stig Weidelich, a man born hours after Obama, on August 5, and whose birth announcement shows up on the same page on the newspaper as Obama’s, to the Department of Health to get his birth certificate.

As expected Weidelich got the same short form birth certificate that Obama got and initially presented. But the relevant information is that Weidelich’s certificate number is 151-1961-010920, even though the file date of his certificate is August 8.

Obama — born on August 4, filed on August 8, certificate #151-1961-10641.
Nordykes — born on August 5, filed on August 11, certificate #151-1961-10637 and #10638.
Weidelich — born on August 5, filed on August 8, certificate #151-1961-010920.

The Department of Health most likely didn’t number or archive the certificates as soon as they were filed. Instead, they probably went through the process once a week, or some other period of time, and did so alphabetically.

That would explain the reason Obama’s certificate number is higher than the Nordyke sister’s, even though Obama was born one day earlier, and Weidelich’s certificate number is higher than the Nordykes’ and Obama’s.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Rhino5
 


This has all been discussed and explained in the thread. Please read through it before posting.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 



A color scan does not EVER create monochrome bitmaps. NEVER. It would have bits of grays and odd colors on the fringes. These layers are not color. If you go into edit them you can only use black and white to edit. You would have to convert it to color in order use color. These layers were either never scanned as color in the first place or cut apart and converted to monochrome after the fact.

It's impossible without deliberate manipulation of the file.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxzen2004


We have missed the simplest flaws.

1. Fathers country of origen in 1961 Kenya, Kenya didn't exist until 1963!!


Incorrect......Kenya DID exist BEFORE 1963 ..........it was a British colony from 1920-1963

In 1963 it gained its independence from Britain.
edit on 28-4-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
This has all been discussed and explained in the thread. Please read through it before posting.
If the birthers cared about factual information the birther threads wouldn’t have more than a couple pages. You think they actually read the posts that don’t confirm or reinforce their delusions?

ATS doesn’t seem too concerned about these people spreading false information either. I guess traffic is always traffic, even if it’s “crazy traffic.”



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


You don't indicate where this image came from.


edit on 28-4-2011 by Elbereth because: clarity



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 


I'm certain if you grab a random sampling of similarly styled documents from different people you would have approximately the same number of "inconsistencies" if you knew enough about the person now. My birth certificate wouldn't hold up to this scrutiny and I would be labeled a foreigner by the birthers because of the inconsistencies, yet I use it as a legal document all the same.

People are jumping and gasping at shadows because they MUST have a reason for him to be an invalid president. He's the president and you should probably find better reasons because I'll bet he's going to run for President again and he'll be vetted by the powers that be and the birthers will just look more crazy for questioning it. I'm sure there are some theories out there that have some solid ground, but this one will never pan out and the lunatic fringe will look even have more lunacy added to it.

It's certainly entertaining to watch people connect the dots to the picture when really it's just a collection of dots.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
What I can't figure out is if the folks here promoting this nonsense REALIZE they are perpetuating a distraction manufactured by the very same PTB they rail against, or if they are ALL paid disinfo agents.

Honestly, I hope ya'll ARE paid disinfo, because if you're promoting this distraction for FREE, then your just a pawn yourself...



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Elbereth
All you Cert Trusters, are we supposed to just ignore "U K L LEE" as Local Registrar? If nothing else whatsoever were amiss with this freakish document, "U K L LEE" alone would scream for an official explanation.
Did you bother to check other Hawaii birth certificates? No. Expecting birthers to do any research before they open their uninformed mouths is asking too much.

Here’s someone else’s birth certificate from 1962 with the same local registrar signature. Do you think this person’s certificate was forged as well?

It was funny at first, but you people are beyond hope.


Hi aptness, I realize it was already funny, but perhaps you can illuminate what's really going on with the "U K L Lee" thing.

You seem to accept the Nordyke comparables, and yet, we do not seem to see the name of the infamous Hawaiian musical instrument anywhere.

I do think it's possible of course for someone to be named all sorts of things, and apparently, the following year, there might have been a registrar with that funny name.

BUT, in August of 1961, that's not yet the case, by all appearances, according to links YOU posted.

I'm entertaining the idea that there is a "joke" somewhere here, in spite of real people, and real (odd) names being employed.

Will this joke be on Obama and the American people, when all is said and done?

JR



new topics

top topics



 
299
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join