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.

 

Proof why Sherrif Arpaio, just like Alex Jones before him, is wrong about Obama's birth certificate

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamCorrect
Oh, of course. Nevermind the fact that he admitted some of what he said was wrong:

"Some of my statements, mainly regarding the use of OCR software were also not 100% accurate." Source


OK - - I read the entire post and your point is?

How many times must I state: only a certified document expert - - viewing the original birth certificate can determine any discrepancies.

No professional or even an ethical amateur graphic hobbiest would claim authenticity of a copied document. That seems to be what this man is mostly saying. He seems to be saying - Hey - I made some comments - - and others took it as absolute. Of course its not absolute.

Yes! Absolutely there can be anomalies in Photo Copying - - especially OCR. A lot depends on the equipment used and the program or programs used.

However - - the birth certificate was physically viewed and certified. And again when it was photo copied.




posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
They are hiding his BC, just like they hid all of his past associations with Bill Ayers and the like.
There's no telling what we will eventually learn about this guys past.....when it's too late.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by IamCorrect
Oh, of course. Nevermind the fact that he admitted some of what he said was wrong:

"Some of my statements, mainly regarding the use of OCR software were also not 100% accurate." Source


OK - - I read the entire post and your point is?

How many times must I state: only a certified document expert - - viewing the original birth certificate can determine any discrepancies.

No professional or even an ethical amateur graphic hobbiest would claim authenticity of a copied document. That seems to be what this man is mostly saying. He seems to be saying - Hey - I made some comments - - and others took it as absolute. Of course its not absolute.

Yes! Absolutely there can be anomalies in Photo Copying - - especially OCR. A lot depends on the equipment used and the program or programs used.

However - - the birth certificate was physically viewed and certified. And again when it was photo copied.





There is no scanner that will scan and produce "specific layers" of ONLY the modifications. Each layer was directly connected to an alteration.. It was not like the layers were random.

As the scan stood in original downloaded form from whitehouse.gov.. Each layer was connected to added fonts with kerning that did not exist then or the background.. Only what was added/altered had become a layer, No layers were of already existing text throughout the BC.

That is totally Impossible for that to happen..



edit on 11-3-2012 by LedaOhio because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
OK - - I read the entire post and your point is?

Oh, I can't imagine what the point might have been. Surely no one else reading would be able to tell that, either.


[...] Yes! Absolutely there can be anomalies in Photo Copying - - especially OCR.

There was no OCR. How many times does this have to be explained?



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LedaOhio


That is totally Impossible for that to happen..




No its not.

I've seen the weirdest things happen in electronic copying/photo copying - - especially OCR.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LedaOhio


That is totally Impossible for that to happen..




No its not.

I've seen the weirdest things happen in electronic copying/photo copying - - especially OCR.



OCR does not randomly select a background.
It is "Character" recognition.. Not background recognition..

Those "random" letters you claim were strangely producing layers also used Kerning.. "the setting of two letters closer together than is usual by removing space between them."

Calling it "Strange" is beyond ridiculous. Saying "oh it is strange.. it just happens.. what a fluke!" for well known "established" functions of scanners and the software associated with it..

Layers produced of specific "Non-Existent Fonts of the time period" being their OWN LAYER is like ignoring your face is on fire.. It is that obvious..



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LedaOhio

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LedaOhio


That is totally Impossible for that to happen..




No its not.

I've seen the weirdest things happen in electronic copying/photo copying - - especially OCR.



OCR does not randomly select a background.
It is "Character" recognition.. Not background recognition..

Those "random" letters you claim were strangely producing layers also used Kerning.. "the setting of two letters closer together than is usual by removing space between them."

Calling it "Strange" is beyond ridiculous. Saying "oh it is strange.. it just happens.. what a fluke!" for well known "established" functions of scanners and the software associated with it..

Layers produced of specific "Non-Existent Fonts of the time period" being their OWN LAYER is like ignoring your face is on fire.. It is that obvious..


Where did I make a claim of anything except anomalies occur?

Yes - - I agreed with an article that makes sense to me because of the knowledge I have. But - again where did I claim anything except anomalies occur?

What is your personal experience to this knowledge?



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LedaOhio

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LedaOhio


That is totally Impossible for that to happen..




No its not.

I've seen the weirdest things happen in electronic copying/photo copying - - especially OCR.



OCR does not randomly select a background.
It is "Character" recognition.. Not background recognition..

Those "random" letters you claim were strangely producing layers also used Kerning.. "the setting of two letters closer together than is usual by removing space between them."

Calling it "Strange" is beyond ridiculous. Saying "oh it is strange.. it just happens.. what a fluke!" for well known "established" functions of scanners and the software associated with it..

Layers produced of specific "Non-Existent Fonts of the time period" being their OWN LAYER is like ignoring your face is on fire.. It is that obvious..


Where did I make a claim of anything except anomalies occur?

Yes - - I agreed with an article that makes sense to me because of the knowledge I have. But - again where did I claim anything except anomalies occur?

What is your personal experience to this knowledge?


An Associates in CIS and Bachelor in CS and 30yrs experience tells me. I am also Star authorized printer and Scanner repair. I was head bench tech 8yrs at BPCS. and was a Lexis Nexis Data center infobase editor till 1996. I have have repaired and used 100's if not well into 1000's of scanners in my 30yrs behind the helm.

NEVER would an "Anomaly" occur as I described.. and again.. KERNING was not invented then and should not have been anywhere on his BC to begin with..




edit on 11-3-2012 by LedaOhio because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LedaOhio

An Associates in CIS and Bachelor in CS and 30yrs experience tells me. I am also Star authorized printer and Scanner repair. I was head bench tech 8yrs at BPCS. and was a Lexis Nexis Data center infobase editor till 1996. I have have repaired and used 100's if not well into 1000's of scanners in my 30yrs behind the helm.

NEVER would an "Anomaly" occur as I described.. and again.. KERNING was not invented then and should not have been anywhere on his BC to begin with..



Very impressive. Congratulations on your education and career.

What is an Anomaly? Something abnormal or peculiar.

I know what OCR is. About 10 years ago I had to "test" several programs for a boss. Accuracy - usability - - etc.

I suppose OCR programs are far better today - then they were 10 years ago. But then accuracy was not very good. None of them were very accurate. Kind of reminds me of "smart phones" today and auto correct. It really wasn't worth it compared with the time it took to proof read the OCR copy.

Anyway - - I've worked with photo programs for about 20 years - - not exclusively as my profession. And I have seen some odd anomalies - - plus layer issues - - more then once.

Personal experience only. No degree to back it up. I'm very honest and straight forward.

However - - - along with the State of Hawaii personally viewing and certifying the birth certificate - - and my own experience with 20 years of this and that - - - I just think the Birther movement has no legitimacy.






edit on 11-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LedaOhio

An Associates in CIS and Bachelor in CS and 30yrs experience tells me. I am also Star authorized printer and Scanner repair. I was head bench tech 8yrs at BPCS. and was a Lexis Nexis Data center infobase editor till 1996. I have have repaired and used 100's if not well into 1000's of scanners in my 30yrs behind the helm.

NEVER would an "Anomaly" occur as I described.. and again.. KERNING was not invented then and should not have been anywhere on his BC to begin with..



Very impressive. Congratulations on your education and career.

What is an Anomaly? Something abnormal or peculiar.

I know what OCR is. About 10 years ago I had to "test" several programs for a boss. Accuracy - usability - - etc.

I suppose OCR programs are far better today - then they were 10 years ago. But then accuracy was not very good. None of them were very accurate. Kind of reminds me of "smart phones" today and auto correct. It really wasn't worth it compared with the time it took to proof read the OCR copy.

Anyway - - I've worked with photo programs for about 20 years - - not exclusively as my profession. And I have seen some odd anomalies - - plus layer issues - - more then once.

Personal experience only. No degree to back it up. I'm very honest and straight forward.

However - - - along with the State of Hawaii personally viewing and certifying the birth certificate - - and my own experience with 20 years of this and that - - - I just think the Birther movement has no legitimacy.






edit on 11-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)


You asked what my exp was is why I included it.. I was not trying to belittle you or massage my ego.. Was just stating what you asked..

When they scan the document.. There is no need to do anything else to it.. No OCR, no optimizing, nothing..
Scan and go.. Very simple process.. To gum that process up would have to be deliberate. There must be a reason they would post such an easily debunkable fraud. Not even the worst user can mess up a scan unless he saves it somewhere and loses it.. That's about it hehe Click, scan, save.. DONE!

For the heck of it.. Assuming we had an original BC here..
Lets scan it into a single layer.. Now to make layers for what ever reason.. You could run OCR or use color selecting tools to grab portions and make a layer from that.. That is where you will get anomalies.. it will bleed through on colors and letters may not have sharp enough edges for OCR to grab it cleanly leaving specs behind. You would have to tweak settings and run it again.. producing multiple layers..

On this official release.. These layers that already existed were clean cuts, very specific to the alterations. There was no bleeding of layers of specific text that was added, and the back ground with no bleeding etc.. You could lift it up and move it around without leaving "anomalies" (specs pieces dots particles of) behind. They were sharp selection of each portion that was brought in from elsewhere, never having been part of the release. That is not anomaly-like.. It is deliberate additions compiled to make the document.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siberbat
I guess I don't understand.
When I wanted a copy of my BC, I got a certified paper copy for $10. I guess if I was the President, I would have held my BC in my hand on CNN,FOX,MSNBC, NY TIMES, Washington Post, ect. and called out all the haters. Not put a digital copy on a website. lol
I think as the leader of the free world, I could have made Hawaii records dept get me what I want. I is of course I didn't have anything to hide.

See that is the issue isn't it. What is the President hiding? Why can't he do what any other American can do and just show a hard copy. I must have gotten like 5 copies of mine. It really is a trust issue. If we can't trust him on something as simple as a BC how can we trust him with our nuclear arsenal. He has shown to be a friend to Wall St. bankers and a warmonger. His only legacy has been NDAA. Oh, and bowing in submission to other world leaders. I wonder if Teddy Roosevelt would have done that? Hmm. So the man does not appear to be a man of his word. He's no FDR, Kennedy, or Reagan. Heck, Clinton did a better job at being honest than President O. That's what all of this birther stuff boils down to...TRUST!

edit on 11-3-2012 by Siberbat because: typo


How is holding it up for the news not a digital copy? Unless you're there to see it, it doesn't matter. Are they going to somehow copy it from his hand to their own? Do you honestly think that a smaller photo of him holding it would be under any less scrutiny than the scan we have now? I don't think your logic holds up. I do understand the point you're trying to make in that it would seem a lot more open if he were to have done that, but in the end the result would have been messier. We would have a much smaller sample to work with and all the so called 'experts' would find ways to say it was altered anyway.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LedaOhio
When they scan the document.. There is no need to do anything else to it.. No OCR, no optimizing, nothing..
Scan and go.. Very simple process.. To gum that process up would have to be deliberate. There must be a reason they would post such an easily debunkable fraud. Not even the worst user can mess up a scan unless he saves it somewhere and loses it.. That's about it hehe Click, scan, save.. DONE!


No prob - - No issues with you as person to person.

I am on a Conspiracy Forum Website - - so obviously I don't believe everything is 100% on the up and up.

However - - I have personally experienced copied documents not "behave" as they should when opened in other programs. I can only go by my own experience - - - and the fact it was physically witnessed and officially certified by Hawaii's Health Dept.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We'll just have to agree to disagree.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
It just occurred to me.

My hubby does work with computers. I swear he learns more from fixing my screw ups then anything else.

I once sent a job off to the printer without remembering to flatten it. Oops! Boss ate that one. Fortunately - he was a very kind boss.

Anyway - - the point being - - a person experienced in photo copies will open a document correctly and/or correct or adjust as needed (unless they miss the font screw up that wasn't flattened
) Probably without even thinking about it.

It seems to me - - - the person scanning the document did not flatten it. Probably didn't even know it should have been flattened.

Non experienced people opening a non-flattened document in various programs - - are going to get various results. Some would probably experience layers and other odd anomalies.

Just a thought.

edit on 11-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LedaOhio
When they scan the document.. There is no need to do anything else to it.. No OCR, no optimizing, nothing..
Scan and go.. Very simple process.. To gum that process up would have to be deliberate. There must be a reason they would post such an easily debunkable fraud. Not even the worst user can mess up a scan unless he saves it somewhere and loses it.. That's about it hehe Click, scan, save.. DONE!


No prob - - No issues with you as person to person.

I am on a Conspiracy Forum Website - - so obviously I don't believe everything is 100% on the up and up.

However - - I have personally experienced copied documents not "behave" as they should when opened in other programs. I can only go by my own experience - - - and the fact it was physically witnessed and officially certified by Hawaii's Health Dept.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We'll just have to agree to disagree.


Trusting "Officially" anything is not a practice one should use these days when it comes to Govt. What they stuck their stamp on was not his original from the day of his birth. It was computer generated. A printed out piece of paper saying basically "Yup he was born here" with the official stamp on it, nothing more..

When everyone complained about it. Because it was just what I said, having only existed on a computer.. They then released the "Official" document. And it too is a glaring fake.

Did you listen to the entire Arpaio video? They found that the week prior to Obama's Hawaiian birth, that all flight manifest were gone.. There was a blank spot on the microfilm that would have showed all names of those flying in around his birth date. It was mysteriously gone.. I found that very interesting as to how meticulous they are at covering this up. Think of the millions dumped into hiding this too.. When it would only cost me 20bucks (i remember when it was $2) to run down and have them "scan" my original and print it out. I am sure he could actually use the original and not a scan.. if it actually existed. Think of the money he would save by simply doing that..

Open it and grab a layer.. Notice everything is lifted and no anomalies are left behind.
FAKE BC Straight off the White House Website Here



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LedaOhio
What they stuck their stamp on was not his original from the day of his birth.



That is something you really don't know. You may want to believe you know that - - but you don't.

I live in AZ. I have no interest in anything Sheriff Joe says.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


It is not even debated that it only lives in the form of data.. Even if they scanned it. It then only lives as data..
It is a piece of paper that came from data off a computer.. No ifs ands or buts.. And it was not of his actual in-hand birth certificate.. So.. After outcry.. They created (compiled) one using documents not even from that time period as proven by the kerning.

Here's more obvious flaws:

In the United Kingdom, the terms "black" and "Asian" were used in the 1961 census to describe those who were "non-white British" nationals. Barack Obama, Sr., as a citizen of the British Colony of Kenya, would have known that his British racial designation was "black" in 1961. The term "African" was not used as a racial designation in either the colony of Kenya or on the British mainland. In South Africa and other British colonies in Africa, "Coloured" was used to describe those of mixed white-black descent.

The consensus among intelligence agency experts is that the Obama long form Certificate of Live Birth was hastily manufactured by an amateur who never thought of using the standard race designation of Negro in Barack Obama, Sr.'s racial designation block on the form either due to ignorance or an attempt to be politically correct in 2011 by refusing to use an accepted term from 1961.

Intelligence experts point out that "African" is a major clue indicating a forgery.

In 1961, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare classified non-Whites, who were not Asian, Eskimo, Aleut, Hawaiian, part-Hawaiian, or other "non-White," as "Negro." The U.S. Census Bureau also used the term "Asian and other Pacific Islander" in 1961, which included Filipino, Hawaiian, and part-Hawaiian. The Census Bureau, like HEW, used the term "Negro" to describe blacks and those of black descent. The term "mulatto," used to describe those of mixed white and black ancestry, ceased being used by the U.S. Census Bureau in 1918.


Full Source: www.rense.com...



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LedaOhio
I can make a Computer print out of a Live-Birth as well. It means NOTHING! Face it.. It is fake!


You can also make your computer print out a birth certificate and a dollar bill so I guess none of those things are real?


That's not what the basket bunch says! LOL



Guess how much of your video I watched.
You can print anything you want out. At work I could counterfeit anything in thee world with our printing presses. That does not invalidate every document in the world.
Where the hell did you get that logic from?
A certificate of live birth is a birth certificate.
I could care less what a "basket bunch" says when the department of human services agrees with me.
Maybe you can tell me what you think certification means?



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LedaOhio
Maybe watch the ENTIRE Arpaio statement proving it is fake again..


Cannot watch videos but considering Joe never PROVED anything, are you lying or just wrong?
I am sure that if this has been proven you can find something other than a youtube video to show me where that happened.
Nothing was proven by Joe and to keep saying something was after being informed and shown it was not is to lie. So you can prove me wrong right here or stop lying.
This is a really tough call for birthers to make but I have faith you might actually have some honesty in you so lets see.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siberbat
I guess I don't understand.
When I wanted a copy of my BC, I got a certified paper copy for $10. I guess if I was the President, I would have held my BC in my hand on CNN,FOX,MSNBC, NY TIMES, Washington Post, ect. and called out all the haters. Not put a digital copy on a website. lol


Actually that did happen.
Even Donald Trump got the chance to touch and feel it himself in person.
You are thinking that since Obama never came to your house and showed it to you, he must not have ever had one to show anyone.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LedaOhio
 


I stopped listening to Rense and all those emotional conspiracy types at least 10 years ago.

I guess I've evolved and matured - - - in my conspiracy selectiveness.

Been doing this too long.




edit on 11-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join