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.

 

More evidence Obama's new birth certificate is fake

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
His birth certificate is made up of more than one pixel size. A legitimate document that is scanned will only have one pixel size. Photo worth a thousand words:

i1239.photobucket.com...

In my opinion this is irrefutable evdience of the document being fake. Care to explain any other reason the same scanned document would have more than one pixel size? The difference between the two pixel sizes is stagering, look at the big pixels that make up the entire image, except for the black text which has much smaller pixels. Clearly whoever made this document didn't bother to make sure the font size matched the pixelation of the base image.

Not to mention that several letters are pixel for pixel identical. This shouldn't happen even if a type writer is used, the ink would absord a bit differently for each letter and when scanned each letter would not be 100% identical pixel for pixel.


edit on 13-5-2011 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Wow, 2 pages of random cr*p with some actual sentences in there. I mean that totally proves that....wait, what are those representing? How do we know those aren't old baywatch pictures?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I changed the opening post to focus on the pixel discrepency as i believe it is the strongest evidence.
edit on 13-5-2011 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaintdead
His birth certificate is made up of more than one pixel size. A legitimate document that is scanned will only have one pixel size. Photo worth a thousand words:

i1239.photobucket.com...

In my opinion this is irrefutable evdience of the document being fake. Care to explain any other reason the same scanned document would have more than one pixel size? The difference between the two pixel sizes is stagering, look at the big pixels that make up the entire image, except for the black text which has much smaller pixels. Clearly whoever made this document didn't bother to make sure the font size matched the pixelation of the base image.

Not to mention that several letters are pixel for pixel identical. This shouldn't happen even if a type writer is used, the ink would absord a bit differently for each letter and when scanned each letter would not be 100% identical pixel for pixel.
edit on 13-5-2011 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)



ZzzzZZZZzzzZZ

Already been brought up before.

Not new...so bored of these topics.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by zaintdead
 


I have stayed out of the 'birther' issue because I just don't know what to believe but am willing to keep an open mind.

However, I just saw the following video posted in another thread and I'm starting to perk up and believe the LFBC is possibly a fake:

www.youtube.com...

Confirming everything the video maker said right now after downloading the document and the programs he used.

Even if you go to the White House's PDF, just press 'refresh' and you will see the white blank outs being filled in with fake text as layers load.

This is all new to me since I haven't been keeping up with it. For those of you saying things like 'Yawn. This is old news!' Can anyone refute what is being shown here? Was this argument debunked?

Showing that the PDF was created in layers is rather damning since the WH claimed the document was scanned. If it was scanned, it wouldn't have layers. Then upon reviewing the layers, obvious tampering is shown to have occurred.

So for those of you saying this is old news, do you believe these discrepancies are valid in determining the BC fake or do you believe the BC is genuine?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

edit on 13-5-2011 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
um, try quitting your illustrator and then re-open it to a new blank document.
Now go to your actions palette, you will see these are DEFAULT actions, they are the same as the image you posted.
Much like the default brushes, it is the default of Illustrator.

here is a pic for you, yours is on the right, my blank new document "actions" is on the left, notice how they are the same? that is because they are the default actions.




edit on 13-5-2011 by ringing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ringing
 


ok good find, but that doesn't debunk the pixel issue.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
When people comment that they find this issue boring, what they are really revealing about themselves is that they don't want to accept such demonstrations as proof that the document released by the White House is a forgery but that they don't have the technical expertise to refute the analysis. They then pretend they are so unimpressed by the arguments that the issue now bores them, creating the illusion of having a vastly superior intellect that cannot be duped by birthers, whereas the sad truth, of course, is that they have no answer to the clever analysis but don't want to admit it - even to themselves!



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ringing
 


How does that overcome the 'layers' issue and the pixelated vs. non pixelated text?

Looking into all this for the first time so I am genuinely curious about all the ins and outs, by both 'birthers' and 'believers.'



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 



I agree. The identical B's is proof enough for me, that just wouldn't happen from a type writer. It does happen if you enter the text using modern word processing or copy and paste pixels however. It's not even just the B's that are identical, the pixels around them are also identical (look carefully at the gradient of the paper inside the letter B and surrounding), which leads me to believe it was a case of using the clone tool.
edit on 13-5-2011 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
yes, the pixel difference is because the conversion created some bitmap areas and some grayscale areas. The number 1 at the end of the cert number is still a grayscale area, the numbers in front are bitmaps, this happened during the scan/conversion process.

Now do I think the cert was altered? absolutely, the best would have been a scan, a straight scan period. This appears to be "cleaned up" for easier reading or whatever, who knows, but it isnt just a straight scan, someone, somewhere decided to convert the text to bitmap, may have been the scanner software itself, we will never know.

The reason some areas are bitmap as opposed to others is more than likely the scanner software, much like in photoshop you can use the magic wand to select an area or a certain color, now if the thresh-hold is set too low, it will select most of that color, but not all of it. Scanning software that is searching for black text can and will do the same in some cases.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ringing
 


sketchy and that doesn't debunk the identical B's pixel for pixel. Not to mention that converting some areas to bitmap using scanner software should not just give you black text, some of the surrounding white halo and paper gradient should also be smaller pixel if that were the case.
edit on 13-5-2011 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by zaintdead
 


agreed, there are too many things wrong with this certificate in my opinion, I was just trying to answer your questions/observations. I am not trying to debunk the whole "fake" certificate, simply trying to show the reason for some of the observations.
Many things simply dont make any sense, others are easily explained.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

This is all new to me since I haven't been keeping up with it. For those of you saying things like 'Yawn. This is old news!' Can anyone refute what is being shown here? Was this argument debunked?

Showing that the PDF was created in layers is rather damning since the WH claimed the document was scanned. If it was scanned, it wouldn't have layers. Then upon reviewing the layers, obvious tampering is shown to have occurred.

So for those of you saying this is old news, do you believe these discrepancies are valid in determining the BC fake or do you believe the BC is genuine?


I do believe that the LFBC is a composite. But scanned documents exported to PDF can have layers depending on the scan settings. Mostly that occurs when someone uses the recognize text feature for scanners. But the problem with this document is if that was used, then the text should show as text and not images.

Also another thing, I'm not sure if someone has pointed out, the PDF was created using Quartz PDFContext which is the program Mac uses in the print > save as PDF option. If I were to click print on this page right now and choose that option, the PDF created would be layered. The program sort of slices the page into layers which are images. However, that does not explain all of it. In the LFBC the layers are just that, layers. Images over images. Not just sliced images in layers. Hope that makes since, it's hard to convey.

Also another thing I noticed today when I zoomed in is the word "None".


Notice how the first 3 letters are a different color? They are their own layer. Also look at the bottom of the N & n, that is an awfully clean line, almost like they where clipped or cropped.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaintdead
reply to post by ringing
 


sketchy and that doesn't debunk the identical B's pixel for pixel. Not to mention that converting some areas to bitmap using scanner software should not just give you black text, some of the surrounding white halo and paper gradient should also be smaller pixel if that were the case.
edit on 13-5-2011 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)


actually yes it does, a bitmap is a monochrome image or "black and white" anything turned into bitmap image will be a monochrome image, as opposed to grayscale, which will have variations from black to white (levels of gray)
as for the B's? that is one of those things that defy reason regarding this certificate.
edit on 13-5-2011 by ringing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ringing
 


yes but the white surrounding the text does not have the same smaller pixels as the black text.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneisOne
Also another thing I noticed today when I zoomed in is the word "None".


Notice how the first 3 letters are a different color? They are their own layer. Also look at the bottom of the N & n, that is an awfully clean line, almost like they where clipped or cropped.


Yeah, there appears to be anomalies like that all throughout. The 'None' example is one the video linked above points out. Definitely looking into this.

From what I can see, this document has definitely, without a doubt, been tampered with.

Going to look into this some more. I can think of two explanations:

1). If the BC is genuine: Is it possible whoever did this was simply trying to make the text more legible? As in, upon scanning the BC, a lot of the text was faint and hard to read. So with issues like the signature of 'Dunham,' the 'D' was fine but everything else was so faint that they 'colored' over the 'unham.'



In other words, that is the innocent explanation.

2). If the BC is fake: This is clear evidence the PDF is a hoaxed composite.

Anyone know if the first explanation is plausible?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaintdead
I changed the opening post to focus on the pixel discrepency as i believe it is the strongest evidence.
edit on 13-5-2011 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)


yep more proof dont mind the naysayers no evidence will convince some...

and ya the whole document is a fake and not even a good one lol FnS



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


The scanning of the document actually creates layers in the document FOX News explains




He said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery. “I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

Tremblay explained that the scanner optical character recognition (OCR) software attempts to translate characters or words in a photograph into text. He said the layers cited by the doubters shows that software at work – and nothing more.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join