It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy
Ok this is crazy story but hopefully it illustrates a point. Imagine if you were in court because a female school teacher had enticed your 12 year old son to have sex with her, and you had photographic evidence of this.
The teacher on the other hand no evidence to prove her innocence.
Now imagine if the defense lawyer said "Anyone can make fake photographs" but was not able to prove the photos were fake.
How would you feel if they found the teacher not guilty.
A common attack on digital evidence is that digital media can be easily altered. However, in 2002 a US court ruled that "the fact that it is possible to alter data contained in a computer is plainly insufficient to establish untrustworthiness" (US v. Bonallo, 858 F. 2d 1427 - 1988 - Court of Appeals, 9th
Nevertheless, the "more comprehensive" foundation required by Scholle remains good practice. The American Law Reports lists a number ways to establish the comprehensive foundation. It suggests that the proponent demonstrate "the reliability of the computer equipment", "the manner in which the basic data was initially entered", "the measures taken to insure the accuracy of the data as entered", "the method of storing the data and the precautions taken to prevent its loss", "the reliability of the computer programs used to process the data", and "the measures taken to verify the accuracy of the program". 7 American Law Reports 4th, 8, 2b.
Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy
reply to post by imitator
I am not sure if I understand what your saying, or if you understand what I am saying.
Just for clarity. The point is the OP has provided evidence to support his claim, the debunkers have not provided evidence but only what is possible (ie here say), yet everyone believes the debunkers.
Regardless of what the truth is I don't agree with the practice of valuing here say over real evidence.
In the case of digital editing, Grimm cites a commentator who suggests an eight-step foundation process for establishing the authenticity of the digitized version of a film photo via a witness who (Lorraine v. Markel, pp 55):
1. is an expert in digital photography
2. can testify to the process for creating a digital photograph and explain how visual information is presented (e.g.density of pixles) as well has how a computer can manipulate this information
3. testifies to the validity of the process
4. can state that research into enhancement technology is adequate to support claims about the image
5. can testify that the software used to manipulate the photo was developed from sound research
6. has received a film photograph
7. digitized the film photograph using the proper process and then enhanced the digital copy using the correct procedure
8. can identify the trial exhibit as the product of the conversion and/or enhancement work s/he conducted
Originally posted by D377MC
The birth certificate lists:
Stanley Ann Dunham's race: Caucasian.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr's race: African.
Nothing exceptional there unless one happens to notice that it is an official document filed in 1961. Having noted this there is a nasty little detail that won’t go away, namely that up until 1968, the standard term for all Africans was 'Negro', in keeping with the distinct classification of races as one of either Mongoloid, Caucasoid or Negroid. It wasn’t until the late 60’s and the Black Revolution that 'Negro' was deemed a pejorative term and was replaced by ‘black’.
It wasn’t until the late 70’s that political correctness came into vogue, and the beginning of the 80’s that the term African was chosen to describe all blacks.
Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by Bonified Ween
In 1961 this certificate would have been typed on a manual typewriter.
Maybe not many on ATS can remember or have even seen a manual typewriter.
The "K" in Kansas is higher then the other letters of that word.
This irregular letter height was a common feature of manual typewriters.
This should mean that every "K" should be higher than the other letters in the words where it is used.
So in Barack the final "K" should be higher than the other letters and similarly in every other word where "K" is a letter.
This simple error is proof that it may indeed be a forgery.
There is also the name of the hospital, apparently it was not called that in 1961.
Someone could check that out.
His mother not writing her proper name (Stanley) is also unusual and seeing as his parents were not married at the time, her insertion of the Obama name in hers is unusual, unless she wanted to hide the fact she was not married.
Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy
This confirms it. The document was created digitally and was not innocently scanned from the original document using OCR
What are you sceptics going to say now?edit on 29-4-2011 by ZeroPointEnergy because: (no reason given)edit on 29-4-2011 by ZeroPointEnergy because: (no reason given)
You have are among the few that has the big picture in mind,I believe this is going to do more damage than they thought.First of all before this long form was released a majority of the public either didn't pay attention to the birther issue or didn't want to hear about it now I believe even they(the naysayers) can see that there is something terribly wrong with this document it has come to the attention to 90% of the public and they cannot deny the discrepancies,just reading all the threads on ATS i've seen readers converting.I think that tbtb are worried about the Corsi book that is coming out soon(damage control). I really believe that there must be something in that book that is going to question his legitimacy big time.I can't imagine that this birth certificate,in any way,is going to put this issue to rest.it has in fact made it worse.
Originally posted by drifter1109
All this argueing over is the BC real or not. Try to take things logically. Think about it.. Obama spends almost 4 years and lots of money to refuse to produce his BC. Why? No matter what his lame reasons the fact is by producing it he could have saved alot of bad publicity. This birth debate has cost him. Maybe not alot but it has cost. Then he produces one that is proved to have major discrepancies. A short form that clearly was intended to appease the masses. The masses being those who had heard about the great BC debate and were distracted enough to begin following the story. The plan, produce the short form and majority will say " See there, he did produce his BC, silly conspiracy people. Thereby narrowing the group who were not fooled and ,since the masses never want to be bothered thinking for themselves for very long, were more than happy to move on. The group left that still did not buy the fraud wouldbe labled nuts and soon the issue would disappear. A good plan. After all it has worked so many times in the past. Only something went wrong this time. The BC issue did not die and actually continued to gain momentum. Other revelant questions begin to arise. Questions that may have been overlooked if not for the BC debate. Now it is election time again. The powers that be do not want this BC thing hanging over Obamas head. It must be put to rest now. So what happens? Miracle. The BC is released. Think. Why now? After all this time? the answer election time. Is it real? I don't know but I do know I would not put it past "them" to attempt to defraud the public. In fact the BC all of a sudden showing up tells me to look closely, it's to obvious.