The Smoking Gun outlines descrepencies of Obama Birth Certificate: Photos

I posted on the other thread - the "layers" argument is completely bogus.

Illustrator does this to EVERY pdf file you open. It breaks down the file into as many editable parts as possible. I opened the long-form b.c and then several PDF files I happened to have on my computer, just to test them - and they all did this. Screenshots on my other post.

It's an artifact of Illustrator, not a sign of tampering.

It's good to see the Smoking Gun's sarcasm wasn't lost you guys.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
I hope ATS can debunk all these, so we can finally close this case once and for all.

Yeah I can't wait for someone to debunk that last one.

• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: It is spelled “Ukulele.”

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?

August 4, 1961 was a Friday. Makes sense a paper pusher wouldn't work weekends. August 8th 1961 was the following Tuesday. No idea why it wasn't processed on Monday, but considering it wouldn't have been filed on Saturday or Sunday, 4 days doesn't seem that big a deal.

MODS,, can we delete this thread.

Seems to be legit stuff that I'm seeing here.

I feel bad for bringing it up,

reply to post by JoshNorton

August 4, 1961 was a Friday. Makes sense a paper pusher wouldn't work weekends. August 8th 1961 was the following Tuesday. No idea why it wasn't processed on Monday, but considering it wouldn't have been filed on Saturday or Sunday, 4 days doesn't seem that big a deal.

The mother signed it on the monday unless she got the date wrong..

I am not a "birther" and I find the term insulting, so i would be grateful that all you pseudo sceptics do
not use this term in response to my questions.

The PDF document when loaded produces "layers".as shown in the countless You Tube videos floating about.
In one of the layers I see solid black ? bit mapped regions of handwriting which lack the tell tale anti aliasing
which shows to me that the regions are from a straight scan. This tells me the document has been retouched or edited.. (There are mixed sections of anti aliased and solid - why the mixed types?)

I have not seen any evidence showing that a scanned bitmap (from a birth cert) can be automatically layered by the software and produce these solid black regions.

Could someone please supply evidence that these solid black regions can be created automatically by the software? (A video perhaps?)

If this can be produced then I will be satisfied that the original document was not retouched as I believe it was.

Thank you
Limbo