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: 90
299
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I find it hard to believe that this thread has gone on for 89 pages and yet there are Obama apologists who either refuse to believe that the document was altered in the face of overwhelming evidence or are such die hard supporters of Obama that they would still vote for the man who is nearly single handed bringing our great nation to it's knees and openly trying to destroy it.




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by happykat39
I find it hard to believe that this thread has gone on for 89 pages and yet there are Obama apologists who either refuse to believe that the document was altered in the face of overwhelming evidence or are such die hard supporters of Obama that they would still vote for the man who is nearly single handed bringing our great nation to it's knees and openly trying to destroy it.


Please check this thread out and save yourself further embarrassment. It was determined to be non faked by one of the most right wing media publications on the planet:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by happykat39
I find it hard to believe that this thread has gone on for 89 pages and yet there are Obama apologists who either refuse to believe that the document was altered in the face of overwhelming evidence or are such die hard supporters of Obama that they would still vote for the man who is nearly single handed bringing our great nation to it's knees and openly trying to destroy it.


Please check this thread out and save yourself further embarrassment. It was determined to be non faked by one of the most right wing media publications on the planet:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



The National Review would be sorry to see Obama gone in the same way comedians mourned the end of the Bush Administration.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
If the document is a fake, who created it?

Someone who wanted to create a fake that could quickly be debunked?

Did some CIA expert create this to weaken Obama? Or just to continue to create noise around the BC instead of the Occidental College records and the alleged foreign student aid?

The oddest thing about the document to me is the most obvious. For an almost 50 year old document it looks brand new. Like it's been hermetically sealed in a climate-controlled vault. There's NO sign of aging to the document. Of course, maybe fifty years ago the State of Hawaii knew that Obama was going to be president one day and went to extraordinary measures to preserve his BC in grail-like perfection?

I don't know of any scanners that scan layers--how could it do that? And then present different font layers with different levels of resolution?

Personally I think somebody is controlling Obama with this (i.e., strike Libya now, etc.)--perhaps the same way that Hillary Clinton was controlled to bow out of the 2008 election and settle for Secty of State.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by amcdermott20
bryankeithnixon.com...

Stolen from a comment from this site:

Jamie on April 28, 2011 at 4:29 pm
There is no conspiracy. All they did was scan in the document and then choose “Optimize Scanned PDF” in Acrobat.

You want proof? by all means. Follow these steps:

1. Export the PDF as a JPG. Make absolutely sure you are satisfied that the file is now a flattened image (the way a scanned image would be.)

2. Save the new JPG as a PDF. Bring the PDF into Illustrator if you need to make doubly sure there are no layers in the PDF.

3. Now, open your new, non-layered PDF in Acrobat, and go to Document -> Optimize Scanned PDF. (You can just use the default settings)

4. Save the PDF, close it and open it up in Illustrator.

5. Well, what do you know! A whole bunch of layers and clipping paths, and the text is separated from the background — just like you saw in the White House version!

6. Apologize. (optional)

PS – if you want a higher-resolution (though black & white) scan of the document, WITHOUT the sharpening/optimizing, go to:
abcnews.go.com...


Could someone else verify, I can't do it because I don't have Illustrator and the demo is 1.2GB. To me this is currently the best theory out, and it came out pages ago, no one seems to have noticed it though.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elbereth
The National Review would be sorry to see Obama gone in the same way comedians mourned the end of the Bush Administration.


So let me get this straight. You are saying that a staunch conservative media outlet that professes to promote strict fiscal conservatism would condone the misdeeds of an arch political foe so they could use him as fodder in the same way as stand up comic?

Hilarious. Keep grasping:




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by Elbereth
The National Review would be sorry to see Obama gone in the same way comedians mourned the end of the Bush Administration.


So let me get this straight. You are saying that a staunch conservative media outlet that professes to promote strict fiscal conservatism would condone the misdeeds of an arch political foe so they could use him as fodder in the same way as stand up comic?

Hilarious. Keep grasping:



That is exactly what I am saying. And I am grasping at U K L LEEs, not straws.



note: this wasn't done with OCR
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
edit on 29-4-2011 by Elbereth because: why not



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
A few points which have already been addressed.

1) Africans from Africa in the 1960s generally called themselves "Africans".....not "black"
2) The Kenyan Census shows that "African" was used to describe race in Kenya.
3) Obama snr's self determination of race was recorded....not what was the racial "designation" in America...or Britain for that matter.


How many more times do you think you will have to repeat that?

Maybe you should just automatically post it on every page



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
the U K L Lee signature is hilarious. we did the mask separations in illustrator, found the inverted link info in the "NON" letters like that one video describes. it all seems pretty crazy. i'm not seeing how this would be an easily replicated artifact of any sort of scan, especially with odd source data showing 90 degree rotations on some of the "layers" and not on others.

it's also possible it's a real BC, but they went in and photoshopped some of it just for enhancement, but not all of it - just so it would be discussed enough for them to ridicule anyone who dares to question it.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
"It centers around the fact that two twins born in the same Kapi’olani hospital listed on the Obama document the day after Obama was purportedly born actually have birth certificate numberslower than Obama. The number should be lower on the Obama certificate if he was born before the twins. As Corsi explains, “Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. “Gretchen Nordyke, the second twin, was born at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.” “Yet, according to the Certification of Live Birth displayed by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign – and now according to the long-form birth certificate the White House released today – Barack Obama was given a higher certificate number than the Nordykes.” “Note, Obama was given certificate No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.”

Source


Just want to add, the Certification of Live Birth states: No. 151 – 1961 – 01064 while The Long Form No. 151 – 1961 – 1064, without the 0. Is this common?
edit on 4/29/2011 by EternalThought because: (no reason given)





ALSO, please see

--------->


AP 2004 article - "Kenyan-born Obama all set for senate"

See for yourself..

Source
edit on 4/29/2011 by EternalThought because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Elbereth
 


Yeah right. THE NATIONAL REVIEW which promotes all things conservative would squash the fake BC story rather than promote it so that their nemesis can get reelected for 4 more years.

Your theory works in an alternate universe where people wear their underwear on the outside and talk in reverse speech. Please stop, you're killing me.


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



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by EternalThought
"It centers around the fact that two twins born in the same Kapi’olani hospital listed on the Obama document the day after Obama was purportedly born actually have birth certificate numberslower than Obama. The number should be lower on the Obama certificate if he was born before the twins. As Corsi explains, “Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. “Gretchen Nordyke, the second twin, was born at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.” “Yet, according to the Certification of Live Birth displayed by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign – and now according to the long-form birth certificate the White House released today – Barack Obama was given a higher certificate number than the Nordykes.” “Note, Obama was given certificate No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.”

Source


Just want to add, the Certification of Live Birth states: No. 151 – 1961 – 01064 while The Long Form No. 151 – 1961 – 1064, without the 0. Is this common?
edit on 4/29/2011 by EternalThought because: (no reason given)


I'd like that to be the smoking gun but I don't think it is..
Just seems that they did the records of the previous births on the following Monday..

And Obama's BC may have been completed on the 8th but if you note the mothers signature it was started on the 7th when she dated it..
This is the same with the twins..

Maybe Mrs Obama wasn't available and the clerk simply addressed the other birth first..

What I do wonder is why Obama's BC states "Country & state" as Honolulu,Hawaii,
yet the twins BC states it as Honolulu,Oahu...

You would think they were typed up at the same time by the same clerk and the twins BC really is the incorrect one as neither Honolulu or Oahu are a state or a country..
To be honest, both BCs should have said Hawaii,USA.....



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
My theory:

This whole birther thing is to distract the general population. The bigger the controversy, the better.

After all, Barack is just a disposable black man.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by Elbereth
 


Yeah right. THE NATIONAL REVIEW which promotes all things conservative would squash the fake BC story rather than promote it so that their nemesis can get reelected for 4 more years.

Your theory works in an alternate universe where people wear their underwear on the outside and talk in reverse speech. Please stop, you're killing me.


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


Scoff away, but through Obama they best promote their rational self-interest. Observe the turnaround in circulation for the National Review since the 2006 mid-terms and the 2008 national elections.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Pew Research Center Article on the State of the Media




edit on 30-4-2011 by Elbereth because: clarity

edit on 30-4-2011 by Elbereth because: typo



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Elbereth
 


So in a thread discussing validity of Obama's recently released BC you are now derailing to prove decline of US magazine circulation?
There is a word for that....obfuscation.



Please keep 'em coming. Pure comedy gold.



edit on 30-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by Elbereth
 


So in a thread discussing validity of Obama's recently released BC you are now discussing decline of magazine circulation?
There is a word for that....obfuscation.


Please keep 'em coming. Pure comedy gold.



I provide a rationale for questioning the motivation of the National Review's conclusion that Obama's BC is legitimate and you consider it inappropriate to this thread and an obfuscation. Now who's wearing their underwear on the outside?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   


Boycott The Dunghead Media Demagogues




posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
299
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join