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: 78
299
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeroPointEnergy
 


Thanks for the video link. Anybody who zooms in on the document and looks at it carefully, even if they know nothing about scanning, OCR or Adobe Illustrator, can see that the birth certificate "looks funny" in places, as if things have been changed on it.

This thing could have been faked easily using old fashioned forgery methods to create a document from scratch, but in order to do so, the circle of those with "need to know" would have had to get significantly and dangerously bigger.

Jerome Corsi, whose book on the birth certificate controversy is coming out on May 17th, predicted that they would either own up to the lack of a document or try to create a forgery and if they did try to forge one, they would be caught.

Despite all that, I don't think this is going to make a difference. The American public doesn't really care about this, just as they don't care about so much else. I wish it weren't so.

Alternatively, is it possible that racism will tip the balance so that in this exceptional case, justice is actually done, and the constitution upheld?

edit on 29-4-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
There is absolutely no doubt now. The document was not innocently scanned using OCR software it was digitally edited using software.

This opens up a whole heap of questions?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I want to make absolutley sure everyone sees this.
This is a present for the blind naysaying OCR fanboys.
This is absolute proof that can't be denied.

The document was not innocently scanned using OCR. It was created and edited digitally using software.


edit on 29-4-2011 by ZeroPointEnergy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeroPointEnergy
 


This is all debunked pretty convincingly. Look here....

Next theory please....



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard
 


That is a totally different topic/document. This is in reference to layers etc which Bonified Ween discussed.

I wonder if you even know what we are talking about here.


edit on 29-4-2011 by ZeroPointEnergy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy

Originally posted by D377MC
The birth certificate lists:
Stanley Ann Dunham's race: Caucasian.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr's race: African.

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.
Can anyone argue with that?
Yes. This has been addressed ad nauseam.

If you had read my post back on page 73, you wouldn’t be asking this same dumb question again.

The short answer is: the race of the parents was supplied by the parents themselves, and the Department of Health accepted whatever they identified themselves to be.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
there are different sized pixels all over
www.henrymakow.com...



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Thank you for that info. It is irrelevant now anyway.
This document has now been proven to have been digitally edited using software.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy

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.



Can anyone argue with that?
edit on 29-4-2011 by ZeroPointEnergy because: (no reason given)


Hawaii like Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, The Northern Marianas Islands, The Outerlying Islands and The US Virgin Islands never used the term Negro as the term Negro as race on a bc was only prevelant and restricted to the states that stretch from Texas to Florida and include The Carolina's, Kentucky, Oklahona, Arkansas, Tennessee only. A New Jersey or California bc issued during that same period read African so to say that Negro was a national standard is sorely mistaken and is directly responsible for peddling disinformation. Hence why a bc issued in Puerto Rico will have a race listed as Hispanic and not Puerto Rican.

The only states that used it was the ones that made up of the now defunct The Confederate States Of America

Hook, line, sinker, SUNK!

Zero,
I believe I just did!

It's like how when you scan a photo to put it on Facebook it scans as a gif file by the cpu but when you edit it it changes the type to a jpeg. People do not understand how this works. This declares any document edited to change the extension and type so that the cpu, isp and photohouser can all read and play the file in q.
edit on 29-4-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy
Thank you for that info. It is irrelevant now anyway.
This document has now been proven to have been digitally edited using software.
What’s irrelevant is whatever you believe about the certificate or the pdf file even.

The Director of the Department of Health is on record saying she was present when the copies were made. The information you are looking at is the information on Obama’s original records in the Department of Health. That’s what his original records say.

If you’re looking at it on paper, or pdf format with flowers and a rainbow added to the background is completely imaterial.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Nevermind that is totally irrelevant now.

The proof is undeniable that the document was edited using software not scanned with OCR.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 





If you had read my post back on page 73, you wouldn’t be asking this same dumb question again. The short answer is: the race of the parents was supplied by the parents themselves, and the Department of Health accepted whatever they identified themselves to be.


Really, You say that with some authority.....Was you the clerk ?

There was 3 options to put in that box, Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid.!!!

Do you honestly think Obama's Mum told the clerk ....." I'm Caucasian"



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 



The Director of the Department of Health is on record saying she was present when the copies were made.


Wow, one person said so so it MUST be true..

Who is this ONE person?
Who do they vote for?
What are their affiliations?
Are they involved with the Dems or Obama in any way?
Who hired them and pats their wages?

Why would you believe ONE person without asking some questions?????



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pcrobotwolf
Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital and according to the information there, the name of the hospital at the time of his birth should have been Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital. ... So how could his official long form birth certificate that was generated in 1961 have the name of the hospital that wasn’t created until 1978?
Because it didn’t. The hospital already had the name “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” long before Obama was born.

If you did just a tiny bit of research you would know this, but instead you continue to spread lies and make yourself look like a fool.

Here’s a 1960 obstetrics and gynecology paper published in 1960, on the first footnote, on the left side of the page, can you read what it says? It says “From the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, Honolulu, Hawaii.” On another medical paper, this one from 1955, the exact same name for the hospital is used in the first sentence.

How about this lawsuit from 1936. Can you tell me what’s the name? Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital v. Ernest H. Wodehouse and James P. Robinson.

Will you admit you are wrong and stop lying?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by aptness
 





If you had read my post back on page 73, you wouldn’t be asking this same dumb question again. The short answer is: the race of the parents was supplied by the parents themselves, and the Department of Health accepted whatever they identified themselves to be.


Really, You say that with some authority.....Was you the clerk ?

There was 3 options to put in that box, Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid.!!!

Do you honestly think Obama's Mum told the clerk ....." I'm Caucasian"


And lets note that the "African" part was typed in, not written..
Did Mr Obama stand next to the typist to answer questions?
Where did the typist get the answer from???



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I would really love for people to specifically comment about this video. This proves Bonifide Ween was right and that the document has been created digitally and edited using software. It was not the result of using OCR scanning as many people have tried to argue.
Here is the proof


edit on 29-4-2011 by ZeroPointEnergy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Would they have just wrote what she told them to write if she told them she was from the alien race? I can't imagine they can just put whatever the parent tells them to put, there has to be some guidelines. Anyone could tell them anything they want.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Lets say that the document was digitally altered and is in fact as phony as a three dollar bill. And with all the new studies of the document coming out this is starting to look like a dead certainty.

Then why such an amateurish job? Of course several of the government agencies have experts who could have faked the document so that it would look real to the point that what little discrepancies were found could be easily dismissed.

But someone in an upthread post said that they may have had to keep the circle of people with need to know clearance as small as possible. And that inner circle of people may not have had anyone expert enough with the software to do the job right.

What I think, as I continue to ponder the situation, is that they did have someone who they, or the person(s), thought could do the job. But in the vein of the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing; that person(s) Could have had very little knowledge of forensic science and thought that "if it looked good it was good". A couple of the things showing up also attest to them not doing near enough research. Taken individually any one of the questionable items could have been laughed off; but there are now too many discrepancies popping up to dismiss all of them as just glitches in the "real" document.

I also think that as soon as enough time goes by to keep suspicion down to a minimum someones head is going to roll over this one. And considering what they must know if they were directly involved in the faking of the BC that head (or heads) may just do a Vince Foster roll.

Now to what I think personally...

The issue of the falsified BC, whether intentional or not, is going to distract people from the real issues of what Obama has been doing to screw this country at every chance he got.
edit on 29-4-2011 by happykat39 because: Typo



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
There was 3 options to put in that box, Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid.!!!
Why are you lying? Show us the box then.

Just 3 options huh? Can you tell me what it says on box 12a and 13a of this 1978 certificate? “Race — Caucasian, Japanese, etc (SPECIFY)


Originally posted by backinblack
Why would you believe ONE person without asking some questions?????
Yeah and what questions did you ask? You didn’t ask any. You just keep repeating and spreading the same old debunked lies and unfounded nonsense on a website.

In the real world the word of a state official speaking in their official capacity trumps the word of nuts like you on forums and anonymous blogs.

Until you prove otherwise all you have is your completely unfounded ‘suspicions’ and ‘feelings.’ You birthers are pathetic.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


It's a little like the people who keep saying that Kenya wansn't called Kenya in 1961, when there is a National Geographic map from 1959 with that place marked Kenya, on the map.

www.ngmapcollection.com...



I still think the document was faked but some aguments supporting that have obviously been debunked.




top topics



 
299
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join