It's official: the long form was COMPUTER-GENERATED, not SCANNED

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
Those are pixels, if you look you will see they are inside letters like 'a' and 'o' etc, it's something digital imaging does, it doesn't mean forgery.

There are obviously strong feelings in the US regarding this, though a few green pixels on a CG BC doesn't prove anything.

Digital imaging adds pixels underneath? Really? Explain this to me, please.

How can a computer know what color should be behind the text? Do you understand what you are saying here?

Take an image, any image, and erase or remove a part of it, and tell me what you see behind it.

Originally posted by Riposte

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
Those are pixels, if you look you will see they are inside letters like 'a' and 'o' etc, it's something digital imaging does, it doesn't mean forgery.

There are obviously strong feelings in the US regarding this, though a few green pixels on a CG BC doesn't prove anything.

Digital imaging adds pixels underneath? Really? Explain this to me, please.

How can a computer know what color should be behind the text? Do you understand what you are saying here?

Take an image, any image, and erase or remove a part of it, and tell me what you see behind it.

it isn't behind the text, it is how a computer has interpreted a digital signal, like the centre of the 'a' or 'o' being small has some darkness of the text and is digitally interpreted as a dark pixel.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
it isn't behind the text, it is how a computer has interpreted a digital signal, like the centre of the 'a' or 'o' being small has some darkness of the text and is digitally interpreted as a dark pixel.

It's not just the center. Look closely, it is behind every single part of the text. And some of it is green.

It should be white. There shouldn't be anything behind the text. It is supposed to be a flat image.

reply to post by Riposte


It's a CG image, it's just the nature of pixels.

How would a few pixels mean anything when it's a gov document from a gov agency, they create them digitally from archives, it could have trillions of pixel anomalies and it wouldn't mean it wasn't created by a gov agency.

Perhaps seeing the real nature of gov's would be more appropriate.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
It's a CG image, it's just the nature of pixels.

How would a few pixels mean anything when it's a gov document from a gov agency, they create them digitally from archives, it could have trillions of pixel anomalies and it wouldn't mean it wasn't created by a gov agency.

Perhaps seeing the real nature of gov's would be more appropriate.

It's supposed to be a photocopy of a document though, directly scanned. That is what the White House is telling us though.

reply to post by Riposte


the green copy isn't a photocopy, the white copy with the text underneath is a media photocopy. It was photocopied with a letter and SFBC underneath and this shows through when image altered.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
the green copy isn't a photocopy, the white copy with the text underneath is a media photocopy. It was photocopied with a letter and SFBC underneath and this shows through when image altered.

I know the white copy from the Associated Press is a photocopy. But the White House is telling us both are photocopies.

reply to post by Riposte


even if the green LFBC was a photocopy of an original CG LFBC, the pixels mean nothing, a gov agency has claimed it as legit, if it was created from a fake entry then that would be something to research, but pixels in an original or photocopy proves nothing.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


Ok hang on, don't go off on tangents here with red herring arguments about the reliability of government agencies.

I'm trying to say that the pixels prove that the document was forged. I don't understand how they can appear beneath an area that is supposed to be empty. Do you know how that can happen? Because I seriously don't, nor can I understand how that could happen from a photograph or a scan.

reply to post by Riposte


The pixels could occur due to the imaging or photocopying process, the same effect could be recreated from any non forged document.

You claimed a possibility of forgery, then the culprit of such a forgery is not a tangent, and presumably as a gov agency has claimed it to be from their office, then you are suggesting forgery by a gov agency.

No court in any land would hold some pixels as proof of a forgery under the nature of these images. If you think of forgery as a possibility then perhaps looking to something more tangible and whom, when and where would be more appropriate.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


Well there you go again with red herrings.

Anyway, there are pixels showing up on a layer that is underneath places that are completely covered by text. Apparently people are claiming this is done by a compression algorithm. I don't understand how pixels could be added to an area that should be empty.

reply to post by Riposte


Seemingly you do not understand the concept of 'relevant'.

Anyhow, compression is probably the most likely cause of these pixels and is NORMAL, it doesn't indicate forgery of CG document, photocopied or original.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
Seemingly you do not understand the concept of 'relevant'.

Anyhow, compression is probably the most likely cause of these pixels and is NORMAL, it doesn't indicate forgery of CG document, photocopied or original.

It's not relevant when we are talking about the way images are created and compressed. You're not going to prove the pixels are there by telling me the State of Hawaii says it's ok. That doesn't make any sense at all.

The question is, where did this green background come from? Was it from Hawaii, or from the White House?

It's official... you people are off the deep end. He gave you what you wanted and now you are so buttbutt hurt that you were proven wrong that you now make excuses about computers generating, or photoshop... get real. He has released a long form birth certificate that anyone with a sane mind (including the tea baggers that started this mess) have now adknowleged is legitimate. I know it hurtshurts your pride, but this is over. Get ready folks.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by micpsi

www.staradvertiser.com...
This explains all those layers and anomalies indicative of editing. Or does it?.....

The question now is:

Does the information inserted into the NOW ADMITTED computer-generated document accurately reflect what is on the original document, WHICH WE ARE STILL NOT BEING ALLOWED TO SEE?

The answer to your question is provided within your own link:

On Monday, Fuddy made an exception to state policies regarding the release of birth certificates and witnessed the copying of the original certificate and attested to the authenticity of the two copies, which were certified by state registrar Alvin Onaka, Abercrombie's office said.

Oh and you inadvertently neglected to include the title of the article:

Born in the USA, certificate proves

Just an oversight, I'm sure.

reply to post by syrinx high priest

there has to be at least one lawyer in DC looking to make his mark, looking for his ticket to fame, who might point out that obama is illegitimate

Apparently you have missed the the numerous lawsuits that have been filed for exactly that reason.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

there has to be at least one lawyer in DC looking to make his mark, looking for his ticket to fame, who might point out that obama is illegitimate

Apparently you have missed the the numerous lawsuits that have been filed for exactly that reason.

Anyone can file a lawsuit, just ask Orly Taitz.

Having a case tried on merit is entirely another matter.

Originally posted by micpsi
And look, I will prove that this document is computer-generated. It is very, very simple.
i53.tinypic.com...
See those green pixels behind the text? Why would a computer ADD green pixels, the same green pixels that are seen all over the background security paper, behind black text? How could it even know what would be behind the text if it is supposed to be a flat image?

IT COULDN'T.

They added the text ON TOP of a green background. It was manufactured; it is a forgery. There is no other way you could get those green pixels behind the text.

That is the smoking gun.

I'm not getting it. Why wouldn't the green pixels be behind the text? That's the background of the paper the certificate is printed on. A certified birth certificate isn't printed on plain white paper with the computer generating the green lines. What am I missing here?

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

there has to be at least one lawyer in DC looking to make his mark, looking for his ticket to fame, who might point out that obama is illegitimate

Apparently you have missed the the numerous lawsuits that have been filed for exactly that reason.

Anyone can file a lawsuit, just ask Orly Taitz.

Having a case tried on merit is entirely another matter.

You just asked why isn't there one lawyer, when it fact there are many. Your assertion of any lawsuit being without merit simply shows your bias and back peddling when caught not knowing what you're talking about. Just because some Judge deems a case without merit does not mean it is so. Judges in today's judicial system are among the most corrupt on earth. They have ruined more lives and imprisoned more people who have harmed no one then anyone on the planet. But I bet you would trust them in your ignorance just like the congressmen, SC, and others.

I know it's a very long read, but let's please continue discussion in the ongoing thread:

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

Thanks.