It's Official: Experts says Barrack Obama's Birth Certificate is a Forged Document

page: 20
99
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
looks like this just got real

Exclusive: Court Subpoena for Obama’s Original Birth Certificate Served to Hawaii Health Department
www.thepostemail.com...

will someone else please make a thread about it?

Im sick of being the only one posting this stuff and taking the heat

BTW this should be good news for both sides since they will get the original document and have it proofed by certified experts.

I dont think they wil produce it and would be surprised if nObama doesnt try to get the case blocked.
edit on 6-7-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

process server has delivered a Hawaii court-issued subpoena to Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, commanding her “to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying testing, or sampling of the material:” original 1961 typewritten birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, III [sic] issued 08.08.1961, signed by Dr. David Sinclair, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and registrar Lee, stored in the Health Department of the State of HI from 08081961 until now. The subpoena allows Fuddy until August 8, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. to produce the document.


www.thepostemail.com...


I hope someone posts it this is big really really big.
edit on 6-7-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-7-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Mr. Mask

could it be that by enhance they mean they used the selection tool around words on the scan, that were too faded to read legibly, and applied some kind filter to enhance it like contrast or gamma correction or edge finding? would this create a link? if so and there were several faded areas, many links would be created.

edit on 6-7-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)


That's the thing, enhancing the image would be just that- a basic contrast light/dark tweeking. That would not create a link history with links showing that images came into the doc "sideways" and show a history of size altering.

It would just show a history contrast use.

What we see on this doc are links to images that show to be laying sideways and of a larger size then they should be.

I for the life of me do not understand this. And everywhere you talk about this with Adobe users they all wonder why the hell this happens. But you mention it here and about 40 members newly joined call you a racist and a birther.

I don't want a fight...I want an answer.

As far as my little mind can take me, the links show images were brought in and altered to fit the doc.

There are other problems with the doc as well, but this is the one I feel absolutely confused on.

Alls that had to be done is for the doc to be scanned and possibly contrasted. To find other steps were taken for no apparent reason, reasons no photo editor would take in the process of scanning an image- is baffling to me and will take much more then "pssh! Thats enhancing" to solve my questions.

Further more, anyone producing this doc, real or not, should have known instantly that its contents would start a chaos.

Nobody I know would dare leave a layered doc with a link history "as is" and then upload it, when its credibility would surly be inspected to the fullest.

This is why so many Adobe users are asking these questions. This is basic photo-editing 101.

I can speculate why it was done this way...but I don't want speculation. I want answers.

As I have said many times already- when someone who knows how/why this was done comes forward, I will gladly put this to rest in my mind. Thus far I've seen pathetic answers from people who wouldn't know altering from enhancing.

Alls I want is a photo-editing Phage to come and make this make sense to my stupid mind.

MM



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


oh, okay, what's "sideways" mean, as far as "bringing in the images"? i find all this stuff fascinating.
i'm sure there's a reasonable answer, because, as you've pointed out, doing something illegal and then making it obvious or easily identified as illegal, seems counterproductive. and like you, i find speculating about it, pointless till there's more information. but i'm still interested in the technical side of it. i don't use photoshop, just paintshop although i've used photoshop elements before. i don't know that much about reading the history of images. in fact, i still haven't gotten use to using layers in paintshop. it's not very intuitive



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


By sideways I mean the images remain in the link history as "laying on their side", reading up and down not side to side. As if you turned the image sideways.

It seems to show that the images that entered the doc came in sideways and then were resized and rotated to read correctly.

I also agree that whatever chaos coming from this could have easily been avoided and that the mistakes were possibly put there intentionally for whatever reason.

I'm not saying the doc is fake or that Obama is from mars not America. I'm saying that if I released that doc, I'd know full well its contents would cause heated debate. A thing that could have been easily avoided if the image was just flattened. Like every image usually is before being exported and uploaded.

PS- Not a birther.

MM


edit on 6-7-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
reply to post by undo
 


or that Obama is from mars not America.






i never thought of that! you may be onto something!


edit on 6-7-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Don't be a racist birther...

Of course he isn't from Mars.

But Pluto?!

That's why they removed it as a planet...I bet.

MM



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
what will it take for you birthers to be convinced? seriously.

im not even hating on you, what will it take?



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
reply to post by undo
 


Don't be a racist birther...

Of course he isn't from Mars.

But Pluto?!

That's why they removed it as a planet...I bet.

MM


i vote to ignore the guy above me.
what say you?



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by vjr1113
what will it take for you birthers to be convinced? seriously.

im not even hating on you, what will it take?


Possibly someone making sense, presenting evidence to clear up the confusion, and I dunno- this is a big one- stop calling people birthers?

MM



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


well as far as i know he is legally president, so the burden of proof is on you. i really haven't been following the thread so id like some evidence please.

no birthers is fine.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


well as far as i know he is legally president, so the burden of proof is on you. i really haven't been following the thread so id like some evidence please.

no birthers is fine.


I am not questioning his eligibility as president.

The subject of this thread is Mara Zebest testifying before the National Press Club that she is a self proclaimed expert and finds anomalies within the BC released.

Not reading the thread must be the reason you jumped to birther talk...I can forgive that I guess.

I just don't understand why the BC has anomalies.

PS- Not a birther.

MM



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by NthOther
This whole thing is simply a waste of time and energy, as if it mattered in the first place. He was born to an American citizen (his mom), so what difference does it make where it happened? The only egregious aspect of the situation is that he may be lying about the circumstances of his birth; but if we impeached and convicted every lying politician, there wouldn't be a government... which would be nice, actually.

Besides, getting rid of Obama won't improve our state of affairs in the least. Would Biden be any better? Will whoever is elected in 2012 be any better? It is the pinnacle of naivete to entertain these notions.

Your focus should be on how the man, and those he serves, is destroying whatever remnants of liberty we have, not what country his mom popped him out in. Birther paranoia is being taken advantage of, serving as a distraction from the important issues of the day.


you said it yourself: "he was born to an american citizen (SINGULAR)" where the definition of natural born citizen calls for "being born in America to citizen parents (PLURAL)". He's not eligible, even if he WAS born in Hawaii (which is doubtful).



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MiloNickels
 


Milo, I was just saying how no matter how hard you try to debate this topic, that a new member will arrive and turn it into an anti-Obama or Pro-Obama argument without even addressing the topic of this thread, the topic being

"The BC and the supposed anomalies presented by many, including Mara Zebest".

Thanks for helping me make a point.

MM



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 

ok its a scan right? mistakes happen. paper fades and disintegrates, doctors make mistakes, is there proof beyond reasonable doubt that that BC is fake?

i dont think so. even if there are anomalies, do you really think that cia or the white house would release a fake BC with anomalies? they are not stupid.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by MiloNickels
 


the whole natular born argument is pretty moot. it's been discussed extensively on ats.

the law itself would be pretty stupid anyways. like it should matter that both you parents were american...

ppl would rather pick a bad natural born prez instead of a good non natural born prez?

there is a big hole in that logic.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by Mr Mask
 

ok its a scan right? mistakes happen. paper fades and disintegrates, doctors make mistakes, is there proof beyond reasonable doubt that that BC is fake?

i dont think so. even if there are anomalies, do you really think that cia or the white house would release a fake BC with anomalies? they are not stupid.


Scans do not make mistakes. They do not just make link histories out of thin air. Enhancing an image doesn't leave an image link history. I mean, you can make an image link history by taking parts of the image out, altering them, and then placing them back in- but that would be unnecessary and just not how one goes about enhancing an image.

You do not surgically remove the text you want to enhance and then enhance it in another document, then return them to the doc sideways, resize and reposition them, and then add them.

This is not a mistake...and yes, I agree with you- you would not expect anyone to release a doc with anomalies, especially when you know it will be looked over with intense scrutiny.

But here we are...and there the anomalies stand...with no reason to explain why.

The best I can speculate (and I hate speculation) is whoever released this knew very well these issues would be pointed at and argued about. Its possible the entire thing was released to cause more heated arguments and debates for many reasons.

But that is speculation. Once you dive into "what ifs" and "I wonder whys", you leave the realm of fact.

I want to know why the doc presented has images linked to it that show altering is size and positioning.

MM



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


gawd im gonna sound really crazy but what if they did it on purpose. if what you say is true (and im gonna have to research), the only reason i can think of is they did it on purpose. although they don't seem really scared about ppl looking into it. obama even joked about it on camera.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by whathasitcome2
The document experts are ready to testify in court, I am sure.


So "document experts" are willing to testify in court about a document that none of them have even seen, or handled.... so they really are not experts!



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by vjr1113
 


hey since you just got here and havnt read the thread assuming you missed the vid too? So not much point in debating this with ya right...

how about this could you would you post this story for me? It be nice to have it up by someone on the pro Obama team and no one else will.

www.thepostemail.com...

should be good news since Obama's BC will finally get its day in court and be examined by court approved experts.

ps it will help your flag count (if you care about contributing its a good thing) and if no one else will I'll just end up doing it myself....


oops sorry started this before your last reply always nice to have another rational person onboard XD

ya obama did more than joke about it did you see that cpan thing wth the roast and the lion king vid?

here it is if ya missed it www.abovetopsecret.com...

as you can tell Im not a big fan of Obama I dont try and hide it the USA is corrupt to the core same as Canada the UK and the likes...
but thats a debate for another thread. Honest tho please throw up the story Ill be the first to SnF



edit on 6-7-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-7-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join