Was Obama's Certificate of Birth Photoshopped?

The simple answer to the above 2 questions is, he's a politician, and trying to get elected. Is he trying to hide anything? Yeah probably. Does it matter what he's trying to hide? No, the fact is he's hiding something from us, and if he's trying to do that it must be something bad. So just because of that, he should not get our votes.

Or maybe he really is not eligible to become president so that's why he made the phony certificate of birth. Perhaps he has nothing to hide about his religion or race or whatever, he just wants to be elected president and will need that document to be elected.

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
Well it does appear to be photo shopped;so the question is what exactly is he or a member of his staff trying to hide.His religion-which should not make any difference if you are proud of your faith or the fact that he may not be a valid U.S. citizen? If it is the latter then he can kiss his chances of presidency good bye. I think it is probably both. I personally don't like or dislike Obama.He has never done anything wrong to me or the country as far as I can tell.That does not mean I am going to vote for him though.

It is definitely a major red flag issue though.

My guess if I had to make one?

I think his birth name is Barry, and not Barack. One hint of this is that he claims to be named after his father, which would customarily make his name:

Barack Hussein Obama Jr., not "II".

The "II" designation is usually used when a person is named after somebody NOT his father, like an uncle or previous ancestor.

Maybe in their zeal to make people believe his name is Barack instead of Barry, they incorrectly put the "II" after his name, trying to prove the point that he was named after his father.

I've heard ahem.... "whispers" from certain people that he changed his name to Barack to appear "more black" to his black peers. This might have been connected to Michelle's thesis on how integrated blacks needed to get back to their black roots.

Sometimes I think people who want to leak certain information may do it indirectly so it can't be traced back to them.

reply to post by jamie83





Ever occur to you that Barry is short for Barrack?

How many friends do you have as a kid?

Any of them named Alexander, Johnathan, Stephan... who you called Al, Alex, John, or Steve?????

Once again... making mountain ranges out of sand granules.



And as for your intellectual leap into the designations of JR SR I, II, III, IV, etc..

Seriously.. go outside already..

I am the III..my fathers name was II OR JR and his father was SR.

Absurdities... piled on Absurdities..

Did you know that the number you have been crying about being blackened out could allow someone to recieve a certified copy of the documents???

Yeah no wonder B is covering it up!!!

Its the ALIEN AGENDA!!!


But I love THIS GEM the most...

Originally posted by jamie83
I've heard ahem.... "whispers" from certain people that he changed his name to Barack to appear "more black" to his black peers. This might have been connected to Michelle's thesis on how integrated blacks needed to get back to their black roots.

Yeah I bet you heard "WHISPERS"...

Let me guess.. one of those Extreme Right wing Anti American Websites .. Like Freerepublic.. or Stormfront!...



[edit on 16-6-2008 by SavageHenry]

reply to post by jamie83


Exactly, the difference in contrast creates more visible artifacting between blocks that are next to each other.

I've included a few pictures to explain what I mean. These are from your post with a few lines of added text. I saved them at 0 out of 12 for quality (low), 7 out of 12 (medium), and 12 out of 12 (high) to show the differences of artifacting based on how much loss you're willing to accept on an image.

This shouldn't be used as an exact comparison! The image of his birth certificate is a scanned document, where as my example is a screenshot. Screenshots offer far more ideal images then a scanned document, and the blending of text into the background will be much more minimal.

The actual artifacts are introduced into the image when it is saved as a JPG, but there can be other steps before that employ some type of compression and you will have image quality loss in those cases.

Low Quality



Medium Quality



High Quality



Hopefully those images show what I'm talking about easily. You can click on them to see the full view.

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by Agent_Orange Since paper and any text printed on it would be flat, it should scan at the same 'sharpness' since they are on the same focal plane. But on Obama's certificate of birth, they are not.

It's a fake.

So what's your take on this part of the image, in terms of focus and blurryness,

...and this part of the image:

To me it looks like the date stamp area looks "real" and the letter area looks fake, in part because of what you said about the focus.

Why do you keep mirroring the 2007 date stamp? On the original, it's reversed. It must be showing through from the other side. That would explain the difference in appearance from the other text.

Link to Obama's Cetificate of Live Birth
It's almost at the bottom, a little right of center.



[edit on 16-6-2008 by BRQuick]

reply to post by BRQuick


I agree, that stamp is most probably on the back side of the certificate. I think when i flipped it to show Jamie the date he/she got the idea to do it as well.

Because of the possibility of Identification on this site I WILL NOT be posting any images, at anyones request... Sorry... too bad... I don't trust any of you enough to know my Details from my BC... That said...

I hold in my hands a Certification of Birth (look at baracks... same title) from the State of TN in my hands.
It does NOT say BIRTH CERTIFICATE... The allegation that Mr. Obama provided the wrong documentation is PROVEN false by this. Lets go further down your rabbit hole...

The Three seals of the state (one for the Department of Public Health, on for the state seal, and the third a state seal watermark. ) are simply PRINTED on the document, and have NO RAISING whatsoever. I KNOW for a FACT this is a LEGITIMATE birth Certificate that I HOLD... That said the statement that the seal must be raised to be legitimate is out the window.

Documents Scanned and Entered into Photoshop ALWAYS show digital distortion. When a LAYER is added to the image (which the box over the certificate number [which is IDIOTIC to give as IT IS THE ONLY WAY to order a REPLACEMENT...] would count as a LAYER...) it distorts the entire image. Given that the data is transfered over an phone system the probability of further distortion during transfer is high.

Next my CoB has no official signatures or any other hand writing. The information on it is laser printed... same with obama's though printed 25 years earlier. The only difference is size, ink colors and state logos (which would be understandable since each state has a different design to their certificate of birth.

Last but not least, it is completely normal for people to lose track of their CoB and require ordering a replacement. as such the date of transfer (or reception in some political offices) would be stamped on the back of the document to record the time of arrival.

As I have stated you are throwing out red herring baiting arguments that an "not logical or giving into emotional appeasement" person would be able to see through.

I still don't appreciate the Mods allowing that personal attack to stand, especially after reporting it... So I will point it out here.

Calling me names sir, will get you no where, but a guarantee of seeing my lovely avatar on a daily basis.


*SNIP* off,

Coven

There will always be granularity at lower resolutions. The granularity is the same washed out color of the background the letters are on. This hold true for:

-- The Date Stamp
-- The Seal

As for the main text, it has pixilation and with a different color from the background of the scanned image.

Coven, give it up. Someone earlier stated what you did but the opposite and their example was from Hawaii and yours from Tennesee. You say yours is the same, while the one from Hawaii (even from the early 1960s like Obamas) had different font.

The only thing the same was the background and the Seal.



[edit on 16-6-2008 by jetxnet]

except his is obviously a replacement for a lost or stolen BC...

See the date stamped on it...

thats when it was received...

I see that I bring forth a valid argument and your only response is "give it up"

Come with a real response next time or don't waste thread space please.


Coven


Mod Edit -

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 16-6-2008 by elevatedone]

What do you mean "when it was received"?

How was it placed there, with some kind of ink dobber? Why would you place there? Did you stamp yours too when you got a copy?

The bottom line, the only thing original with that CoB scan was the Seal and the date stamp.

Originally posted by jamie83

I can't imagine how the certificate number could be used for identity theft. You can't steal somebody's identity with a number that isn't used for anything. It's not like you could get a credit card by giving the number on your Cert. of Birth.

I don't know about over there, but here in Australia a birth cert. is considered 70 points of ID, and you need 100 points for proof of identity.

And considering the level of ability when people make counterfeit documents, I would think having a complete piece of ID floating around the internet is not very smart. That's my opinion on why the bc# was blacked out. Just common sense.

BUT YOU HIT THE JACKPOT!

You asked a great question, why wouldn't they have faked a cert. no.? Why? Because they couldn't risk giving out a number that would allow anybody to trace this Certificate of Birth backwards.

And that also is a good point.

But imo, much less likely.

After further review, I'm retracting my earlier statement. I am no longer positive that it's a fake. Frankly, I'm shocked that a fellow ATS poster would intentionally misrepresent the evidence in order to prove his case. The act of clipping out what is obviously a stamp on the back of the form, flipping the image, and presenting it in comparison to text from the front of the BC is a deliberate falsifaction.

I guess I should've known better than to believe what I read without checking it out for myself, but lesson learned.

I still think the BC looks fake. Not due to any artifacts in the image, but just the general appearance.

I don't think he intended to falsify it that way. The other scans presented showed, when zoomed in, that they too, have the granulated washed out color of the background at lower resolutions.

On the Obama cert, the Seal and the date stamp are consistant with those other scans.

What isn't consistant and has the pixilazation "halo" effect with different color than the background of the original scan? The text for Obama's information does.

It isn't even the same font as the standard 1960s issue cert from Hawaii as we learned earlier. Another strike.

So, to me, it is obvious the digitial cert image is a fake.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by jetxnet]

Originally posted by Agent_Orange
reply to post by jamie83

 

Yes exactly. If the text (not the date stamp) were actually on the paper when it was scanned, it should be at the same level of focus as that date stamp which is really on the paper.

The date stamp is real, the level of sharpness/focus matches the paper and texture it is printed on.

The other text is not. It's very sharp, and appears to be floating in the air over the paper. That is a flawless sign that it was added AFTER it was scanned in.

I agree with that, your post above hit with exactly what I was seeing also.

but -

What it appears has happened, is they took a blank certificate (one that wasn't yet printed on), scanned it in, and then added the text on the computer. That is, without a doubt what the process was.

I fail to see the reasoning as to WHY this would be done, when there are perfectly good methods of printing on a document already. There is no reason to artificially print, using a computer, on a blank document. It's quite ok to use an existing device to perform this, isnt it?

so..

Or perhaps they took a certificate that wasn't blank, cloned out the real text in photoshop (which with a textured background like on the certificate, would be easy as cake) and then typed the obama text over it. But this is less likely I think.

Is MORE likely imo. Also gives an explanation as to why there is a date stamp on document. Can you even obtain blank documents that are already date stamped from a legal source?

Also, as the background pattern on the document is rather pathetic in its design - it's uniform,and easy to replicate - it would be an easy task to replace old text with a new blank BG and then in order to line text position up, have an original copy of the document as a semi-transparent layer, and position it accurately.

A background pattern, in order to prevent counterfeit, should not be uniform. It should be skewed so any cloning/cut-pasting would appear obvious.

Whichever process they used, the certificate is simply not real.

Given the document itself looks patently fake, I would agree. It would have been far more authentic looking with perhaps a .5% Gaussian blur applied over the text..

Originally posted by jamie83


I've heard ahem.... "whispers" from certain people that he changed his name to Barack to appear "more black" to his black peers. This might have been connected to Michelle's thesis on how integrated blacks needed to get back to their black roots.

Sometimes I think people who want to leak certain information may do it indirectly so it can't be traced back to them.

So....are you saying that Barack Obama should aim to create "white roots"?

Who cares if he wants to get back to his "Black Roots"
He's black.
If thats what he wants to do - let him, and leave racially driven rhetoric out of it.

Anyone who attempts to dispell Barack Obama as a president, on any level that has to deal with the color of his skin, is indeed a racist.

You're not a racist though Jamie, so why are you resorting to typical neo-con attacks.


[edit on 16-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Also, as the background pattern on the document is rather pathetic in its design - it's uniform,and easy to replicate - it would be an easy task to replace old text with a new blank BG and then in order to line text position up, have an original copy of the document as a semi-transparent layer, and position it accurately.

This is how believe it was done. Someone else's CoB from Hawaii was scanned in. Once in Photoshop, the orginal text was replaced with a new Overlay.

This is why the text overlay is different from the Seal and the date stamp when zoomed in at lower resolutions. This is also why this text has the pixilization affect and the other scans (and Seal on this one etc.) do not.

You can easily tell what was replaced and what was not by the pixilization of the replaced text with a different color from the background (i.e. not the same washed out granular color of the background which is normal).

It goes to show you how arrogant Obama is, thinks he can fool most with that. It reminds me when Al Gore said he invented the Internet, what a fool.

Originally posted by SavageHenry

And as for your intellectual leap into the designations of JR SR I, II, III, IV, etc..

I am the III..my fathers name was II OR JR and his father was SR.

No really, it's very odd to be called "II" when you're named after your father. Try this. Google "Joe Smith II" There are 569 results. Then Google "Joe Smith Jr" There are 8,620 results. That suggests a 6% ratio of "II" designations compared to "Jr" designations. Go ahead and try it with other names.

Did you know that the number you have been crying about being blackened out could allow someone to recieve a certified copy of the documents???

Yeah no wonder B is covering it up!!!

No, that is completely incorrect. The Cert. No. doesn't allow you to get a certified copy of the CoB. You MUST be a relative to get one, or the person in question. If you want to lie and say you are a relative, you can order anybody CoB right now. If you get caught, you're in deep trouble though.

But I love THIS GEM the most...

Originally posted by jamie83
I've heard ahem.... "whispers" from certain people that he changed his name to Barack to appear "more black" to his black peers. This might have been connected to Michelle's thesis on how integrated blacks needed to get back to their black roots.

Yeah I bet you heard "WHISPERS"...

I'm just telling you what people told me. And I don't mean my neighbors or websites. If you recall, I pretty much knew a lot more about James Johnson before anybody ever even heard of James Johnson.

And maybe you should lighten up a bit.... I phrased it with the "I heard whispers" thing to be sarcastic and lighten things up a bit.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

So....are you saying that Barack Obama should aim to create "white roots"?

Who cares if he wants to get back to his "Black Roots"
He's black.
If thats what he wants to do - let him, and leave racially driven rhetoric out of it.

Anyone who attempts to dispell Barack Obama as a president, on any level that has to deal with the color of his skin, is indeed a racist.

WTH are you talking about????

I didn't use racially driven rhetoric or try to dispel Obama based on his skin color.

I was just throwing out a theory about why Barry O. might be hiding his original BC. It's not a racist theory. Try reading his book for more background on when he started calling himself "Barack" after being known as Barry his whole life.

You have a better theory why he hasn't made his BC public and instead released a photoshopped copy of his CoB from 2007?

reply to post by jamie83


No i dont have a better theory on what you say
because its not a photoshopped document, i believe this has been proven in, not only this thread, but one or two others as well (?)

But if i had to guess?

I'd let the "BC" controversy carry its self until October, then i'd release it and say "IN YOUR FACE" to dispel all doubters.

A few biproducts of this strategy?

1.) As long as that dirt stays on me until October, i can easily dispell it, making anyone who thought i was lying feel like an idiot and swerve more votes my way
2.) Make all doubters feel like idiots
3.) Make all doubters feel like idiots
4.) Because i don't have to. A BC is a private document, no different than your SS card, or your tax documents.

its no different than the police pulling over someone and that person refusing a warantless search.
You can make the case that "if you got nothing to hide"

but you can also make the cast that "i have nothing to hide, so screw you, ill make you get the warrant, and prove you to be an idiot when its all said and done with'

me? I prefer the latter.

Boy I tell you I have seen the pendulum swing both ways in this thread. If you some of you guys that are so obviously are members of the Obamatron club would for a moment relies that this is all part of running for President for crying out loud....hey thats a good idea...STOP CRYING! when anyone brings up something about Obama.The same stuff happened to John Kerry with the questioning about his service record and medals.Oh and another thing stop using the race card every time anyone says anything about Obama it's always "Oh your a racist": tell me who is acting ignorant? This is all part of the American political process and oh yea it's called freedom of speach...So get over it already and stop whining.

[edit on 05/16/2008 by CaptGizmo]