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.

 

Awesome Example of How Easy It Is to Fake the White House's Downloadable .PDF of Obama's Birth Cer

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuantumPhysicist
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


What does that have anything to do with the fact that a scanned-in document should appear grayscaled, not perfectly pixelated and able to be easily replicated on photoshop with regular font typing


It should? Why should it? That is just an empty claim.

The OP's is about how you can fake a birth certificate. I already knew you could fake a birth certificate. The people at the DOH can do it all day long if they like. I was simply reminding the OP that being able to fake something is not even slightly evidence that that thing actually is fake. Otherwise Jurassic Park proves dinosaurs never existed. It is faulty logic is all. Your point seems more pointless. What does it have to do with the OP?


Originally posted by QuantumPhysicist
I am just simply pointing out how the .pdf that the government supplied could have easily been altered from an original


Nevermind, I do not really care.
edit on 10-6-2011 by Antiquated1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuantumPhysicist
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


What does that have anything to do with the fact that a scanned-in document should appear grayscaled, not perfectly pixelated and able to be easily replicated on photoshop with regular font typing


They had to scan it into a computer so that it could be emailed and deceminated for release! No one is denying this fact but the fact it had to transfer from one medium extension to another to some proves manipulation for which there is none.

You scan a doc and it appears as a gif file which must be editied to jpeg before you can post because most computer progs do not recognize a gif for websites as if a site has a gif file it's usually an animation or a motion picture advertisement and not a doc.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by QuantumPhysicist
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


What does that have anything to do with the fact that a scanned-in document should appear grayscaled, not perfectly pixelated and able to be easily replicated on photoshop with regular font typing


They had to scan it into a computer so that it could be emailed and deceminated for release! No one is denying this fact but the fact it had to transfer from one medium extension to another to some proves manipulation for which there is none.

You scan a doc and it appears as a gif file which must be editied to jpeg before you can post because most computer progs do not recognize a gif for websites as if a site has a gif file it's usually an animation or a motion picture advertisement and not a doc.


I scan documents all the time and they aren't .gif, they are .pdf. Maybe it depends what software your computer has. I'm really not here to argue though. I'll state once more- all I'm trying to convey is that the .pdf on their website has some discrepancies that possibly show that it could have easily been altered from an original. And I am mainly just showing how easy it is to alter the file to say whatever I wanted it to say but to still have the "computer-typed" pixelation match up with the "scanned in" pixelation in obama's
edit on 6/10/11 by QuantumPhysicist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuantumPhysicist
The whole point is that some of the words in their .pdf looked like they were typed on a computer, and other words looked legitimately scanned in.


Can you explain this further? How does a word look like it was typed in on a computer and some words look like they're scanned? What is the difference between the two? How can you tell?



If Obama's original surfaces and it's legit, so be it. I am here to just simply state that the .pdf could have easily been altered


I find the previous non-committal statement confusing as this is what you said in the other thread yesterday:


Originally posted by UcDat
Fact is the pdf the White House put up shows beyond a doubt its fake. If they have an original somewhere that's authentic its got no relation to that forgery.


It doesn't sound to me as though you're remaining too open on the subject. Or have you changed your mind since writing that yesterday?

.
edit on 6/10/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join