Obama's Birth Certificate

reply to post by jamie83


as far as "cripsness" goes.

1.) it depends on the quality of the printer
2.) it depends on the jpg compression rate
3.) it depends on the graphic editing software used to convert the image into jpg/gif
4.) it depends on the person who scanned it


Just bceause it appears crisp and "without green dots" doesnt make it a fake.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

Simply zooming in on a scanned image doesnt prove crap, and i cant even wait till i get home, ill post again shortly and prove it to you.

Very true. And by implication, a perfectly created photoshop document that falsifies information doesn't prove crap either, right?

The entire premise that one wold accept that Obama must be a naturally born U.S. citizen because he says he isn't congruent with the essence of ATS. There are tens of thousands of posts in the 9/11 forum claiming that all the evidence of arab terrorists doing 9/11, and even the videos of the planes themselves were faked. People in the 9/11 forum actually claim that the entire 9/11 bipartisan commission was part of a conspiracy to cover-up mass murder.

So if we at ATS can entertain theories like holograms of planes were used on 9/11, is it really that far-fetched to discuss whether Barry O. might have fudged his certificate of birth? Or that *maybe* he's been lying about where he was born and he's gotten away with it to this point?

In the big scheme of the topics discussed on ATS, these theories are very believable by comparison.

reply to post by jamie83


Here's your proof
im using the best version of Photoshop available, and i run it on a very top of the line machine here at my office



its a quick job, but it gets right to the point

How i did it?

1.) Created the image of the text, rastersized the layer
2.) Printed out the image of obamas birth certificate
3.) Scanned obama's birth certificate
4.) loaded it into photoshpo
5.) made the text image transparent
6.) layered the text image on top of the scanned image
7.) printed said layer
8.) scanned the print and resaved it as a digital file
9.) loaded it and posted it

do i also need to point out to you why this document isnt a fake? Or can you deduce it on your own

but since im a nobody here (in terms of seniorty, and fame)
i would be up for offering the image to S.O.
I hear he's quite the tech genius, and im pretty sure he could offer some technical jargon that we wouldnt understand.


Just because Sean hannity says its fake, doesnt mean squat

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
his father was dual citizen to Kenya, this is correct, but he was STILL a U.S. Citizen

Proof he was a US citizen? I read his wikipedia article and it says he was briefly in the USA to go to college here, but that does not require a US citizenship and he was actually part of a JFK program to airlift africans from africa and give them american education to show them how good it is in the USA.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
and he meets the age requirement

NO he does not.

According to this, he first came to the USA to study in 1959. Barack Obama was born in 1961. Even if his father WAS a US Citizen from the very day he arrived in the USA from Kenya, he would have only been a US citizen for 2 years.

en.wikipedia.org...

For Barack Obama to be eligible for preisdency, his father would have had to resided in the USA for 10 years minimum... not 2 years.

Obama is a US citizen, but not a natural born citizen. He CANNOT become PoTUS.

reply to post by jamie83


I'm a graphic design major and the birth certificate does scream fake to me. It looks like it was done in Adobe InDesign. The white "glow" around the letters as you call it, look like the photoshop clone tool was used to hide the real text of the real document while the fake text was typed over it.

That is definitely not a real birth certificate.

But again, it doesn't matter, forget the certificate for a moment - even if it's real, he's still ineligible to be PotUS.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
do i also need to point out to you why this document isnt a fake? Or can you deduce it on your own

but since im a nobody here (in terms of seniorty, and fame)
i would be up for offering the image to S.O.
I hear he's quite the tech genius, and im pretty sure he could offer some technical jargon that we wouldnt understand.

Please point out why the Obama document isn't fake. I would love to know.

Also, I'm not sure what you proved by your exercise. That it's possible to add a text layer onto the scanned document in photoshop without creating the halo effect? I already did that. I know you can make a photoshop doc without the halo effect.

But that isn't the issue. The issue is WHY does the Obama doc HAVE the halo effect? Is it because somebody did a bad photoshop job, or because the scan created some odd digital artifact?

So far your argument has been that the document must be real because Obama wouldn't be stupid enough to put out an easily recognizable fake document. That's conjecture on your part, but not proof of the validity of the document.

Originally posted by AlCaponed
I'm a graphic design major and the birth certificate does scream fake to me. It looks like it was done in Adobe InDesign. The white "glow" around the letters as you call it, look like the photoshop clone tool was used to hide the real text of the real document while the fake text was typed over it.

My gut reaction is that there is something amiss about the certificate of birth image. Of course I could be totally off base. I have no way of knowing either way. I can only point out what I find hard to explain. This could be due to my own lack of experience as well. That's why I've asked repeatedly if the halo effect could be explained in some other way.

I think your idea might have some merit. If there was other text beneath the added text, one would be required to cover the underlying text. This may very well be the reason the green is missing from between the letters.

I have no idea about the POTUS eligibility question. I am guessing that if there if what you say is true, Clinton would have already used it, or WILL use it, before the convention. Maybe she blackmailed Obama into helping pay off her $30 million campaign debt (to herself) by agreeing to sit on this information. Who knows???

reply to post by AlCaponed


Atleast you finally admit that the possiblity of the certificate being legit exists

mission accomplished



But

1.) wheni was talking about age requirements, it was about obama. he's old enough to be PoTUS

2.) Nothing i can find after extensive google searching says anything about how long his parents had to be u.s. citizens.
If this is true, i'd really love for you to back it up
After all, if its true, and im assuming its not, then thats ignorance

we choose to deny ignorance
open my eyes for me

I'm a graphic design major and the birth certificate does scream fake to me. It looks like it was done in Adobe InDesign. The white "glow" around the letters as you call it, look like the photoshop clone tool was used to hide the real text of the real document while the fake text was typed over it.

First off, cloning the background of the image would not create a halo effect around altered text.

The only way this document can be fake is if it were typed "fake" on a legit piece of paper made to look like a government document

this paper was not photoshopped.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin


First off, cloning the background of the image would not create a halo effect around altered text.

Exactly. There is no halo around the text, it only appears there is. Look closely and you will see the 'whiteness' as I'll call it, doesn't just wrap around the next

reply to post by AlCaponed


still witing in case you over looked my question here

the image is not photoshopped. If you were really a graphics design major, you should be able to figure that out i would assume.

This document also comes from the 1960's
you think it hasnt collected a bit of wear and smudging all these years?

i know mine certainly has

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

2.) Nothing i can find after extensive google searching says anything about how long his parents had to be u.s. citizens.
If this is true, i'd really love for you to back it up

After all, if its true, and im assuming its not, then thats ignorance

here

4. December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986
If, at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.

If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. There are no conditions placed on retaining this type of citizenship. If your one U.S. citizen parent is your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules apply if your father legally legitimated you before your 21st birthday and you were unmarried at the time. If legitimation occurred after November 14, 1986, your father must have established paternity prior to your 18th birthday, either by acknowledgment or by court order, and must have stated in writing that he would support you financially until your 18th birthday.

immigration.findlaw.com...(1).html

My god, politics make people crazy! Beware. There's a good chance you are being manipulated.

this is just too good to pass up


edit:

Here you say

For Barack Obama to be eligible for preisdency, his father would have had to resided in the USA for 10 years minimum... not 2 years.

I asked you to prove to me where it says thats a requirement, because my googling produced no results

so your response here
was just defining what it takes to be considered a US citizen, not president. By your own definition of his father, You're calling his father a citizen, but then back-tracking

You seem very confused.
Maybe you should take a nap, come back, and try again.

Stop contradicting your own claims


[edit on 14-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

This document also comes from the 1960's
you think it hasnt collected a bit of wear and smudging all these years?

i know mine certainly has

No, this document has a time stamp of June 6, 2003.

And I'm not sure how you can say it wasn't photoshopped? You've contradicted yourself.

First you claim that the only way it could have been faked would be if it was typed on the original certificate and scanned, and yet you've shown that it could have been photoshopped without leaving any tell-tale signs of fakery.

Also, if there was lettering already on the document where a fake name would need to be placed, it would make sense that the green background would need to be overwritten so you couldn't see the lettering underneath.

I'm still waiting to see some scan that can duplicate the obliteration of the green background behind the letters. As of now, I'm still totally unconvinced that this document has been verified as being legitimate. Proving it *could* have been faked better doesn't prove it's real.

reply to post by jamie83


this guy (click here )

says it better than i ever could.

Enjoy reading

oh, and ill be expecting your official retracting soon.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by AlCaponed

 

This document also comes from the 1960's
you think it hasnt collected a bit of wear and smudging all these years?

i know mine certainly has

This certificate I linked to in this thread is not his original certificate from 61, you can see the stamp near the bottom center that if you reverse in PS you can see clearly says June 6 2007.



However that halo thing is such crap. All the black print of the certificate has a halo effect around it. If I were going to fake this document I certainly wouldn't piece it together, I would get an actual certificate, scan, manipulate. Doing it in pieces would take allot more time and effort then to have an actual document to start from.

So unless they pieced all this together then I think your "halo theory" is a bit off.

reply to post by jamie83


and no
i never contradicted myself

i said there's no way this is "faked" in photoshop

i said if it is faked, then someone got a piece of paper, typed it, and passed it off as a fake government document

there is zero evidence of photoshopery in that image

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
1.) If his father was NOT a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth (though..he was)

I don't think that's true. His father was Kenyan.

Then his mother would have to have bene a citizen for atleast 10 years. And she was.

At least 10 years, 5 of which were after her 16th birthday.

oh, and by the way, i found a perfect example of how the birthcertificate is not a fake

Click Me

That is great! Good job.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by AnOldFriend


Yeah i seen the date stamp

am i wrong in my assumption that if the courthouse makes a copy of something for you that they, too, stamp it?

Because...when i got my copy of my birth certificate, they just made a copy and placed the seal on it with that stamper thing

So a 40 year old document
being copied
putting a 2003 stamp on it

still makes it a 40 year old COPIED document
which is going to have some "flaws" in it.