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: 87
299
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by atone98
reply to post by Vickie3021
 


Of course I believe what I wrote, I support Obama 100% and nothing will change that. I cannot believe people are going this far to discredit a great president. This is total BS and should not be stood for. ALl these racists that hate the idea of a black president are trying to ruin his reputation and bring down a great man. Would you rather still be stuck with Bush? OR worse yet Mccain?

Wow seriously people


Don't take it so personal. I think for most people it is just about knowing the truth.
If he is a great man then you have nothing to fear.
No worries.
If it is proved he is a fraud, do you really want a fraud running your country?
Only you can decide that.




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy

Originally posted by Shadowalker
Now where are all Obama's Xs located?


All over the place.
I don't have a manual type writer so I will have to take your word for it. Is this for real?
I already know this is made to look fake, but it is interesting to see just how obviously fake it is becoming.
Nice work.


Yes lol. all the file cabinets got boxed every 2 years and the worthless paper forms were sent to a warehouse contractor. Right before I took a different job our warehouse burned down from people smoking. Because you could smoke inside back then.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowalker
I would believe your statement to be an outright lie. I too filled file cabinets full of forms up through the late 70s.

Print it out and prove me wrong. All govt forms were laid out according to a specific spacial requirement. I remember throwing away boxes that were not printed properly.


Oh Spacial. I misread what you said.

Yes - they were. I thought you meant that each typed key would be exact. As some on here claimed if a specific key hit higher - - it would hit higher every time.

Sorry


EDIT: one job I had - I had to make forms. Such a pain - making sure they lined up correctly.
edit on 29-4-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden


There weren't three options; however, there are only three scientific distinctions between humans, that of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. The PC days have eliminated references to them, but those are the only differentiations between classes of human.

Jaden


The point is.......that many here seem to want to overlook, is that In Hawaii the parents are asked to self determine their "race".

Now it's natural that when asked about race, the parents would have filled in what they were use to filling in as "Race" on other official forms like the census.

The Kenyan census back in the 60's instructed :

"Race.- Write European, Arab, Somali, or African, etc. Asians must write Indian or Pakistan."

In other words. on official documentation Kenyans classified themselves as "African" not "Negroid"
edit on 29-4-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by atone98
 


I'm so tired of hearing the race card played, all of my black friends would love to hear you call me racist, or my mexican wife...lol...

Barry's being questioned because he was born to a foriegn national father, and maybe a very FEW are questioning because he is half black...

I'm certainly not, and I doubt the vast majority are either.

JAden



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden

I am a computer professional by trade, a network administrator, hardware expert with more certifications than you can shake a stick at, don't try and tell me about computer tech. OCR would do exactly that, make characters recognisable and editable, It wouldn't make sense to not make absolutely sure that there could be no question as to the editability of the document if the goal is to put this issue to rest and to move on to more important matters. The easiest way to do so would be to scan it in a raw format and to NOT make any modifications that could be construed as potential manipulation of the document. It doesn't make sense not to make certain that there are no questions when it is easily accomplished.

Jaden


This video proves that the document was edited with software.
You can see that text is inserted and positioned using commands. OCR does not produce this sought of thing.

Anyway please have a look and test it for yourself it is very easy to do. The document is freely available if you don't already have it.


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



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by atone98
reply to post by redwine425
 


First of all why should a President HAVE to show his birth certificate? What does it have to do with anything?

Why would he even be allowed to run for the presidency if this wasn't already checked out previously?

Why is the first black president being harrassed so much? Even now by that idiot Donald Trump.


I haven't seen this brought up yet in this thread but just after the election there was a flap about the vetting forms that are required to be submitted to the party leaders or electoral college leaders of each state being faked even back then. AND - the form sent to Hawaii was different from the ones sent to the other states.

Those forms are supposed to provide proof that the candidate is eligible to run for office and that includes the birth cert. If I remember right the form was sent by the democratic national party to the states to ascertain that they had actually seen the necessary documents. For all of you claiming that no other president has had to show proof; this vetting procedure and the forms of compliance have to be sent to the states for every candidate for any national office where there is a requirement to be met for eligibility.

I will try to google search this for more documentation or one of our ATS members could as well.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by atone98
reply to post by redwine425
 


First of all why should a President HAVE to show his birth certificate? What does it have to do with anything?

Why would he even be allowed to run for the presidency if this wasn't already checked out previously?

Why is the first black president being harrassed so much? Even now by that idiot Donald Trump.


I swear I used to think along the same lines as you, I even argued with my father about it.

But once it was released the other day, I can't argue with all the criticism of it... I'm sort of leaning the other way...



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


No sorry, The WH announced that someone flew to pick it up. So Two copies were made, a WH staff member, flew to pick it up and a WH staff member scanned and posted the copy on the WH website. That is the WH's version of what went down.

No digital copy was sent from Hawaii to the WH according to the WH.

It would make ZERO sense for the WH to put this document out, the way they did, KNOWING the type of srutiny it would be given.

Jaden



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Sorry.
edit on 29-4-2011 by 2gd2btru because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy
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)


Thoroughly debunked here...by the National Review no less..

www.nationalreview.com...


Not even close... and I will make sure the Sysop knows it to.

So the Magic algorithm took the "non" 90' predictably from somewhere and vertically aligned and rotated and scaled it to fit................?

The the video I watched said generic layers are composed. Not clipping masks showing layers have transform history.............

Also, has anyone seen this one www.liveleak.com...
that goes so much further with his dissertation into the clues related to scan vs non-scan of the same doc. This guy does indeed call the debunk bluff and does it. Not even close to the same thing.

www.liveleak.com...



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Why does text from the short form released in 2008 appear faintly in the long form? (If you have not noticed this, reduce the brightness and increase the contrast in an image-editing program). If it were due to bleed through from the short form being pressed against the long form for some reason during scanning, why does a chunk of illegible text appear in the "signature of attendant" box that was not in the short form? The bleed through theory does not explain this. Yet the legible words appear exactly where they should had they been copied from the short form whilst the long form was being scanned! It suggests TWO different birth certificates were the backing for the long form when it was scanned and both bled through. But why? My only explanation is that this document was deliberately made to look as forged as it undoubtedly is. Then the question again is: why? Because the forger wanted you to know that it was forged. Again, why? Either because the document was released to defuse the political damage to Obama by Jerome Corsi's new book and to torpedo Donald Trump's ambitions, at the same time raising two fingers to birthers, assuming that it would be the last word on the issue, OR because the forger wants the issue to continue raging in order to undermine Obama's chances at the next election. Could it be that the document was so badly faked in order to turn many non-birthers into birthers and to strength their campaign? If the forger had wanted this truly to end the issue, he would have created a document without so many obvious errors and mysterious anomalies.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Opspeculate
Not even close... and I will make sure the Sysop knows it to.


If you can convince jeffduff he is wrong please let me know, and show me the posts.
edit on 29-4-2011 by ZeroPointEnergy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Obviously this whole birth certificate game is a distraction. Obama was selected not elected just like all the other recent presidents. Find out what is really of importance, I can tell you it's not Obama.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by redwine425

But once it was released the other day, I can't argue with all the criticism of it... I'm sort of leaning the other way...


But what specific criticism of it makes you lean the other way?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by Annee
 


No sorry, The WH announced that someone flew to pick it up. So Two copies were made, a WH staff member, flew to pick it up and a WH staff member scanned and posted the copy on the WH website. That is the WH's version of what went down.


Oh OK - - Obviously I'm not interested enough in this "birther" thing to follow closely.

Still doesn't mean who ever scanned it - - knew what they were doing. Kind of stupid though.

I am no expert - but I did work for a small print company. Other then a couple college classes - pretty much self-taught by trial and error.

I fully admit - - I had a few embarrasing moments. Fortunately - mine were small scale



new topics

top topics



 
299
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join