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

Originally posted by IamBoon

Originally posted by Elbereth

Originally posted by IamBoon
And people think that this IS the issue to be talking about.... pathetic. Even if true, there is nothing to be done as of right now compared to other issues at hand.

The brake in at the Watergate was a third rate burglary during the Vietnam War. I guess we should have just ignored that because there were more important issues at the time.

edit on 2-5-2011 by Elbereth because: clarity

The "break" in was documented on solid grounds by a whistleblower with a group with clear, succinct motives and documented governmental ties based on SOLID evidence.

I do not see your point.

Oops. Thanks for pointing that ("brake") out. How far back have you read this thread? You seem to be a recent poster to it, so maybe you haven't been able to review the mountain of eveidence the new Obama BC is faked or all the speculation on possible motives.

Oh look. I made a typo and spelled evidence "eveidence". Please disregard this post.

reply to post by awcgs


There are other Hawaii birth certificates from the same time that list the same hospital name as Obamas. I don't have the links to them but a few people have posted them further back in the thread.

reply to post by Elbereth


I see conjecture being spewed by those who cannot admit they have been duped by right-wing political rhetoric. How else would you expect it to look? You think that the government would hide something then put out something so easily "proved fake"?

I cannot count how much fallacious B.S. I hear in politics today.

reply to post by UcDat


I was wondering about some of the same things. I have over 10 years graphic design training, and admit for fun I've looked at documents to see how hard they'd be to forge - not for any nefarious reasons, but for the challenge. It's my mountain climbing, "Because it's there," thinking. Give me several copies of actual birth certificates from the right time period, the right paper and access to the right ink, and Adobe CS, and I could probably make a credible copy that would be less apt to be questioned that what was released last week.

My biggest question is simply why does the 'scanned' document appear to have a curved left side, but have a strange green patterned background all around? If the whole page was in a binder, the whole left side would be bent. What's with the strange inset look of the main body of the document? Why would they scan something and add a strange green underlay?

At this point, I really don't care if this is real or not (I have my doubts after looking at it) - enough people won't believe it either way to do anything about it. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue should his Presidency be declared invalid - every single act signed into law would be null and void (not really a bad thing, but a mess, nonetheless), and we'd be stuck trying to figure out the next in office - if he's invalid, does that make Biden ineligible since they ran on the same ticket? Would it go straight to the Speaker? Any way you look at it, it'd be terrible.

I think that regardless of its veracity, the President has lucked into a great way to blanket discredit anyone who doesn't like his policies or blisters under the idea he felt producing an acceptable document was beneath him with the term, "Birthers." This could be a great slight of hand, and has served him as a great distraction from valid disagreements with his policies over the last 2 years. Anyway, the majority of the country lacks the understanding of exactly how easy it's be to make any document you want - I could do this in a couple of days with the right equipment and some solid examples, copies of signatures, etc. So why, fake or real, did it take him over 3 years? Because in some way it was to his benefit.

Originally posted by WildWorld
reply to post by awcgs

 

There are other Hawaii birth certificates from the same time that list the same hospital name as Obamas. I don't have the links to them but a few people have posted them further back in the thread.

Thank you... i will go back and do some re reading.

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by Elbereth

 

I see conjecture being spewed by those who cannot admit they have been duped by right-wing political rhetoric. How else would you expect it to look? You think that the government would hide something then put out something so easily "proved fake"?

I cannot count how much fallacious B.S. I hear in politics today.

Try reading the thread. I know it's hellishly long, but to someone who has stuck with the thread from the beginning, your comment seems knee-jerk and uninformed.

i think maybe the graphic artist was a patriot. i think he did a bad fake, and left the bread crumbs on purpose.
definitely fake. no question. i'm surprised how some people absolutely CAN'T SEE what's right there in their brain. there is absolutely no reason to have layers other than to create a fake.
scanning images is as simple as pie, but "expert" editing takes time and effort. why would you edit something that is supposed to be "proof"?
i pulled it apart and copied all the edits into a new layer. what a messy job. however, it's not the first draft, as some parts of the text are actually part of the background image, like the "196" in 1961. you can see without illustrator, that the "1" is darker. "non" was added for mother's occupation, to make it "none". the "R" in BARAK is on the green background, while the "BA AK" is in the text layer. the white glow effect behind the text is cheesy. cheesy job, someone. THANKS!!

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by Stratus9

 

Obama is 50/50 Black/White.

So, your point is what?

I would kind of like to know what your point is.
2nd.

Originally posted by happykat39
Plenty of evidence has been submitted to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the released long form BC was manipulated in Illustrator or a similar compatible program.

By whom? When? Where? Who are the experts on ATS and what are their credentials? WND had a known expert look at and what did he conclude?

Conclusion
The following is a summary of my analysis:
1. The Hawaii Department of Health stated that they have a record of the birth certificate of Barak
Obama.
2. A certificate was produced by the State of Hawaii and copied onto green safety paper, as per
normal procedure.
3. The ‘Green copy’ was then scanned, presumably by the White House, to produce a PDF
document.
4. The PDF document was then modified in some fashion (e.g. layers, white halo).
All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone
enhancing the legibility of the document. It is possible that in addition to enhancing the legibility of the
document that the content of the document was also changed. There is no specific evidence of how or
why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was
changed .

I have yet to see any thing other than screen names "insisit" it has been proven a fake.
When? By whom? WND cant even get their own expert to do it.

Originally posted by awcgs
Originally posted by spacedonk
Hi Acetradamus, a new member, who does not have posting points to create a thread asks:

Funny this same post has been repeated in no less than 5 threads. I only had to go to the thread titled "ACETRADAMUS ASK HAS A QUESTION" or whatever to find an answer.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mayabong
I dont know is this the right site?

www.kapiolani.org...

In 1908, Albert and Emma Kauikeolani Wilcox donated $50,000 to start a children's hospital. The community, concerned that two of every seven infants in Hawai‘i did not live to see their first birthday, rallied to match the Wilcox's gift. A year later, Kauikeolani Children's Hospital opened. The two hospitals joined in 1978 to become Kapi‘olani Medical Center for Women & Children. Staying true to its mission, the non-profit hospital has played a vital role in the health of Hawaii's women, children and adolescents. It is staffed with highly skilled, compassionate physicians and nurses,

Picture of Obama's Birth Certificate Here.
www.foxnews.com...

Wow, looks like a pretty open-and-shut answer to the OP's question.


I wondered what took them so long to just go ahead and fake a birth certificate. And then to do this bad of a job on top of it? Maybe they made it this obvious on purpose?

I am confused how people can read the above and not realize it actually disproves thier BS rather than affirms it?

Here let's try this...Here's your quote...

www.kapiolani.org...

In 1908, Albert and Emma Kauikeolani Wilcox donated $50,000 to start a children's hospital. The community, concerned that two of every seven infants in Hawai‘i did not live to see their first birthday, rallied to match the Wilcox's gift. A year later, Kauikeolani Children's Hospital opened. The two hospitals joined in 1978 to become Kapi‘olani Medical Center for Women & Children.

See the " joined together" phrase?

Pres. Obama's Certificate: Kapoliani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital

+ (joined together in 1978)

Kauikeolani Childrens Hospital

= Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children

There is absolutely nothing inconsistant with Pres. Obama's Certificate specifying "Kapoliani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital"....it would only be inconsistant if it said "Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children"


How are people not seeing that? It is bizzare to me that they can read a paragraph that clearly explains it and then claim it says something completely different? It's right there...You cited it..

edit on 29-4-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-4-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

How hard did you look for an answer? You have been here a while. You know there are a lot of birther threads. Not only was your new friend answered directly, it has been gone over on ATS before. I am pretty sure it is in the 100 pages of this thread. How am I supposed to believe birthers really care about answers and not just keeping the water muddy?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

4. The PDF document was then modified in some fashion (e.g. layers, white halo).
All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone
enhancing the legibility of the document. It is possible that in addition to enhancing the legibility of the
document that the content of the document was also changed. There is no specific evidence of how or
why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was
changed .

So the expert is admitting the document was deliberately changed? That will throw water on all those who have claimed the apparent modifications were the result of OCR or the scanning process.

At the bottom of the short-form it states: "Any Alterations Invalidate This Certificate"
Are we to believe the long-form is held to a different, less rigid standard than the short-form?

Did you read the following from your expert:

"It is possible that in addition to enhancing the legibility of the document that the content of the document was also changed. There is no specific evidence of how or why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was changed."

Ummmm. Wow!

I hate WND, but you quoted it. Here is the link for anyone interested:

Online 'birth certificate' document 'was changed'

I have had to hire document examiners before, and this is a pretty darn strong statement for one of them to make. They are usually experts at hedging their assessments.

Originally posted by Elbereth

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by Elbereth

 

I see conjecture being spewed by those who cannot admit they have been duped by right-wing political rhetoric. How else would you expect it to look? You think that the government would hide something then put out something so easily "proved fake"?

I cannot count how much fallacious B.S. I hear in politics today.

Try reading the thread. I know it's hellishly long, but to someone who has stuck with the thread from the beginning, your comment seems knee-jerk and uninformed.

I have read the entire thread, plus every other birther thread for years. I have researched and researched some more...for years now. There is nothing knee-jerk and uninformed about IamBoon's assesment...it is spot on.

You make that painfully clear by not offering any evidence to the contrary besides the silly "read this thread"...what in this thread has not been debunked?

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by happykat39
Plenty of evidence has been submitted to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the released long form BC was manipulated in Illustrator or a similar compatible program.

By whom? When? Where? Who are the experts on ATS and what are their credentials? WND had a known expert look at and what did he conclude?

Conclusion
The following is a summary of my analysis:
1. The Hawaii Department of Health stated that they have a record of the birth certificate of Barak
Obama.
2. A certificate was produced by the State of Hawaii and copied onto green safety paper, as per
normal procedure.
3. The ‘Green copy’ was then scanned, presumably by the White House, to produce a PDF
document.
4. The PDF document was then modified in some fashion (e.g. layers, white halo).
All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone
enhancing the legibility of the document. It is possible that in addition to enhancing the legibility of the
document that the content of the document was also changed. There is no specific evidence of how or
why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was
changed .

I have yet to see any thing other than screen names "insisit" it has been proven a fake.
When? By whom? WND cant even get their own expert to do it.

edit on 5/2/11 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)

Are you kidding us? Clearly the article you linked states that the investigator concluded that the document has been changed so waht are you missing? We don't know motive anymore then he/she does but we are agree on the fact that the document was changed.

Am I missing something because that sure appears to defeat your argument completely.

Originally posted by Elbereth
So the expert is admitting the document was deliberately changed? That will throw water on all those who have claimed the apparent modifications were the result of OCR or the scanning process.

Yes but you seem to miss the bigger picture. While WND presents this expert as claiming that the document is fake due to alterations, that is not at all what he says. He says he sees evidence of standard procedures used to enhance the legibility and while alterations could have been made above and beyond that, he cannot find any to point out. See the twisting? He seems like a nice guy. Emailed me back at 1:30am and everything.

At the bottom of the short-form it states: "Any Alterations Invalidate This Certificate"
Are we to believe the long-form is held to a different, less rigid standard than the short-form?

No, you are to pay attention the to April 25,2011 stamp at the bottom. That is key there.

Did you read the following from your expert:

"It is possible that in addition to enhancing the legibility of the document that the content of the document was also changed. There is no specific evidence of how or why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was changed."

Ummmm. Wow!

Yes I did and I underlined the part that stands out to me.

I hate WND, but you quoted it. Here is the link for anyone interested:

I have had to hire document examiners before, and this is a pretty darn strong statement for one of them to make. They are usually experts at hedging their assessments.

edit on 2-5-2011 by Elbereth because: correct and add

edit on 2-5-2011 by Elbereth because: correct and add

Ah, see you very much miss the point. I would not trust WND if they told me to put water on a fire. They are the only ones that went and got an expert so that was the best I had. But...and this is a big but...WND very much twists his actual assessment. So...if he was an expert and hedging his assessment, they still had to stretch it to call the BC a fake. That is a bigger implication to me. WND gets their own expert and they cannot even get him to say what they want him to say. Set off any buzzers for you?

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Are you kidding us? Clearly the article you linked states that the investigator concluded that the document has been changed so waht are you missing? We don't know motive anymore then he/she does but we are agree on the fact that the document was changed.

Clearly. I did not deny that. WND says their expert claimed it was a fake. He himself says it was altered in a very standard way like any other old document to improve legibility. What are you missing?

Am I missing something because that sure appears to defeat your argument completely.

I guess so. What do you think my argument is?

Originally posted by maybereal11
You make that painfully clear by not offering any evidence to the contrary besides the silly "read this thread"...what in this thread has not been debunked?

Obviously we will have to disagree. I have no intention of synopsizing the evidence contained on this thread for your convenience. Do a little digging yourself. I won't hold my breath, however, as your mind is apparently already made up.

You are pretty quick and loose with silly labels, as if that adds anything constructive to the debate. I don't know what other "birther" threads you have read, but if you had acquainted yourself with this thread you would be aware that I am not on the right by a long shot or a "birther."

There is quite a bit of evidence on this thread that the Obama BC is a fake. Buck up and take a look before pompously spouting off.

reply to post by Sinnthia


I obviously need to go back and read that WND article again. Thanks for your analysis.

Layers happen all the time when you scan to PDF. I can't say 100% the BC is real or fake, but I am 100% positive of one thing... No one posting to this thread can either. Has this link been posted a 1000 times yet?

PDF Layers in Obama's Birth Certificate

Originally posted by SKMDC1
Layers happen all the time when you scan to PDF. I can't say 100% the BC is real or fake, but I am 100% positive of one thing... No one posting to this thread can either. Has this link been posted a 1000 times yet?

PDF Layers in Obama's Birth Certificate

How do you respond to this?

It was analyzed by Ivan Zatkovich of Tampa-based eComp Consultants, which consults on intellectual property for telecommunications, web publishing and ecommerce and has provided services for corporations such as McGraw-Hill, Houghton-Mifflin, Citicorp and Amazon.com. Zatkovich has 28 years experience in computer science and document management and for more than 10 years has been an expert witness providing testimony in federal court in both criminal and civil litigation.

He confirmed that the multiple layers of the PDF document are anomalous.

my bolding and italics


Analysis raises possibility content of text was altered