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

Originally posted by Elbereth
reply to post by grahag

 

What the hell is a vector based scan? I thought all scans were initially bitmaps.

Scans are either raster (bitmaps) or vector depending on the modes and functions that you want. Rasters are essentially images composed of dots and vectors are used to handle lines. Photoshop is raster-based and Illustrator is vector based using coordinates with lines drawn between them. Filtering a scan using vectors will sometimes make a document easier to read by creating multiple OCR layers that the software then uses algorithms to process into what it thinks the text is. It then can be flattened to produce a single document that is then searchable and accurate. Rasters can still be OCR converted, but the text tends to break up into it's constituent dots making some OCR programs choke.

This is all overly simplified, but works for the layman.

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by Elbereth
reply to post by grahag

 

What the hell is a vector based scan? I thought all scans were initially bitmaps.

Scans are either raster (bitmaps) or vector depending on the modes and functions that you want. Rasters are essentially images composed of dots and vectors are used to handle lines. Photoshop is raster-based and Illustrator is vector based using coordinates with lines drawn between them. Filtering a scan using vectors will sometimes make a document easier to read by creating multiple OCR layers that the software then uses algorithms to process into what it thinks the text is. It then can be flattened to produce a single document that is then searchable and accurate. Rasters can still be OCR converted, but the text tends to break up into it's constituent dots making some OCR programs choke.

This is all overly simplified, but works for the layman.

So your saying that scanners can output vector and raster data? That's news to me, but you would probably consider me a layman.

Why are people personalising this issue. We are talking about a document, so lets talk about it.
First off if you going to make a copy of an government document you do not use OCR software becuase that allows anyone to edit it. The correct way to scan a document like this is to scan it as an image, saved in tiff file format.
There are layers which is obvious, but there are many other things which also prove that this document is not a as innocent as it seems. This does not prove it is fake, but it does prove editing software has been used in creating this document. Isn't this what the OP is arguing? If so he is correct.

What happened to all the other youtube links which also supported this?

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Can't you see people? The green background was added... The document was knowingly modified. They are not trying to hide anything.

The long form was never meant to be an exact copy.... and you people are erroneously assuming it was supposed to be...

I'm with you on this one.

If the document was modified........its likely its was done for both security and clarity of print to make it more readable, rather than to illicit fraud.

And if you wanted to illicit fraud.........you're not likely to want to do it on line for millions of pairs of eyes to scrutinise over!

Obama's people could quite easily just allowed the press to photograph the hard copy of the certificate and leave it at that.

reply to post by grahag


It is impossible for this to be a document scanned from a single piece of paper.

If it is as you say microfilm laid over a green background then all of the original birth certificate microfiche file would be in monochrome. it is not. There are a myriad of lines, letters and numbers from the birth certificate in color on the green background. Those black letters, numbers and lines are multicolored when looked at close up. How then is this supposed monochrome micro phish file broken into color bits and monochrome bits and the color part fused to the green back ground?

It is impossible without manual manipulation.

ITS A PHONEY!

reply to post by Bonified Ween


Much ado

About Nothing.

Originally posted by Elbereth

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by Elbereth
reply to post by grahag

 

What the hell is a vector based scan? I thought all scans were initially bitmaps.

Scans are either raster (bitmaps) or vector depending on the modes and functions that you want. Rasters are essentially images composed of dots and vectors are used to handle lines. Photoshop is raster-based and Illustrator is vector based using coordinates with lines drawn between them. Filtering a scan using vectors will sometimes make a document easier to read by creating multiple OCR layers that the software then uses algorithms to process into what it thinks the text is. It then can be flattened to produce a single document that is then searchable and accurate. Rasters can still be OCR converted, but the text tends to break up into it's constituent dots making some OCR programs choke.

This is all overly simplified, but works for the layman.

So your saying that scanners can output vector and raster data? That's news to me, but you would probably consider me a layman.

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

Not the scanners. The software on document server which processes scans. It's scanned as a raster and then converted (depending on settings) to vector. At my company, we have OCR processing our scans which have been converted to vector to make the OCR more accurate. We rarely use the OCR, but when we do, it's very important that accuracy counts. Throughput is a little slower due to the conversion initially and it requires better hardware on the back-end, but overall the delay is worth the accuracy.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Justice2012

 

The long form was never meant to be an exact copy.... and you people are erroneously assuming it was supposed to be...

Obama did ask for copies. Perhaps he should have specified "exact copies."

"In a letter from the White House dated on Good Friday President Barack Obama officially asked the Director of Health in Hawaii for two certified copies of his "original certificate of live birth." The letter was signed Barack Obama."

President Obama’s birth certificate delivers news to doctor’s family

reply to post by grahag

Originally posted by grahag
Not the scanners. The software on document server which processes scans. It's scanned as a raster and then converted (depending on settings) to vector.

That's what I thought, but when you mentioned "vector-based scans," I thought maybe I was behind the times. Thanks.

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
The long form was never meant to be an exact copy.... and you people are erroneously assuming it was supposed to be...

I'm with you on this one.

The mistake both of you are making is that you’re assuming birthers are capable of understanding logic and care about the facts.

These people are emotionally committed to their preconceived belief that Obama can’t legitimately be President, so everything that gets in the way of that belief is discarded.

It doesn’t matter if Obama presents a short or long form. Doesn’t matter if it’s in digital or paper format. It doesn’t matter that you can, with any scanned document, replicate the ‘artifacts’ the OP is claiming is proof of forgery. They have decided Obama can’t be President and they’re too emotionally involved to ever admit they’re wrong.

If they didn’t came up with this nonsensical forgery theory they would still be whining about the name of the local registrar, claiming the hospital wasn’t named like it was back when Obama was born, or any other easily debunked lie.

Originally posted by 2ndFUTURE
reply to post by grahag

 

It is impossible for this to be a document scanned from a single piece of paper.

If it is as you say microfilm laid over a green background then all of the original birth certificate microfiche file would be in monochrome. it is not. There are a myriad of lines, letters and numbers from the birth certificate in color on the green background. Those black letters, numbers and lines are multicolored when looked at close up. How then is this supposed monochrome micro phish file broken into color bits and monochrome bits and the color part fused to the green back ground?

It is impossible without manual manipulation.

ITS A PHONEY!

The green background is probably the paper and again, any inconsistencies can come from the scanning process. Looking VERY closeup, it's easy to see that this is a color raster scan of whatever was printed out. I think I can see what you mean by "colors", but it's not an indicator that it's a forgery. That's like taking a picture of the Mona Lisa and trying to say that inconsistencies in the photograph PROVE that it's a forgery.

For those who are struggling to understand this.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by aptness

If they didn’t came up with this nonsensical forgery theory they would still be whining about the name of the local registrar, claiming the hospital wasn’t named like it was back when Obama was born, or any other easily debunked lie.

Or that Kenya didn't exist before 1963!

reply to post by Elbereth


I am talking about the .pdf in the original post... not the document itself.

Look here is the "exact copy" of the "original" long form from MSNBC with no green background:



See, it is just black and white.

The White House had someone modify/add a green pattern background to the above form.

There are several processes available to remove the white background and add a green background, and some of those processes could have been responsible for all the layers and artifacts people seem to be finding.

So to sum it up, again, the .pdf document from the OP is KNOWINGLY MODIFIED, so there is no conspiracy here....

Or that he has spent millions on hiding the "real" documents.

Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy
For those who are struggling to understand this.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Everything in those videos were debunked. Read through the thread. It's not really a struggle if you just read through the thread.

I'm more than willing to help people understand, but I'm not going to explain over and over again why this is not a likely forgery. The process that people are using to find that this is a forgery is flawed and is reproducible. It's not IMPOSSIBLE, but it's so unlikely that I would bet my life savings that it's not a forgery. I'm not an expert on document fraud, but I make a living knowing how the technology used to make this PDF works. JUST knowing this makes it unlikely that it's a fake.

Looking at the number of stars being given to both sides of the argument in the first page, I can say that this topic is indeed polarizing with people happily giving stars to the posters expressing the same point of view as them.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
The long form was never meant to be an exact copy.... and you people are erroneously assuming it was supposed to be...

I'm with you on this one.

The mistake both of you are making is that you’re assuming birthers are capable of understanding logic and care about the facts.

These people are emotionally committed to their preconceived belief that Obama can’t legitimately be President, so everything that gets in the way of that belief is discarded.

I'm somewhere to the left of Mike Malloy, aptness, and I think something stinks with this document. You need to come up with some newer condescending characterizations more apt for those like myself on the left who fail to fall in lockstep with your positions, and not pretend the only questioning is coming from inherently anti-Obama commenters. Based on what I have seen on this thread, I am ashamed that so many of my political fellow-travelers are coming across as such all-knowing, self-important blowhards.

Originally posted by vjr1113
jesus christ

there is no distraction

obama himself said we should focus on bigger issues and lay this whole silly thing to rest.

like it or not he's president, lets let this silly debate die already. birthers ARE the distraction

I am relieved to see that barry is focusing on getting himself re-elected.

That's like hearing the termites have taken a break from gnawing at the timbers of the foundation because they've ran out of wood to chomp. At least they're doing nothing, for the moment.

Hell, guess I'd be reaming the nuclear lobby a new one, but that's just me. Has obama heard of thorium? Just wondering.

Originally posted by starless and bible black

Originally posted by DerekJR321
In 1961, Kenya was not called Kenya. It was called "British East Africa Protectorate". It was not known as "Kenya" until 1963. So how could it have been listed as "Kenya" 2 years before it was even known as such?

I'm glad you pointed this out. More proof that the powers that were want a revolution? We know they would control it from beginning to ashen end. Only a love of God and individual sovereignty is going to set things right.

Here is a map of Africa from the 1960 atlas...Notice...KENYA!!!!

www.greatnorthroad.org...

Here is the site it is from..

www.greatnorthroad.org...

Would you like me to google up a dozen more atlas images from 1960 that show KENYA on a map?

Could you not find the answer yourself? It took me 60 seconds....You are looking for answers aren't you????

Perhaps you can pass this along to the others out there apeing this same horsesh*&.