Obama's NEW Birth Certificate proven to be fake hours after release

" “Hate to bring this up, but I just checked the official web site for Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital and according to the information there, the name of the hospital at the time of his birth should have been Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital. According to the web site the name didn’t change to Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital merged with Kapi‘olani Maternity Home in 1978. So how could his official long form birth certificate that was generated in 1961 have the name of the hospital that wasn’t created until 1978?”


whats this?

reply to post by Blaine91555


Ok wait. Now I'm really confused, so I'll start with his birth.
Offical BC filled out after birth on standard white form.
Scanned and put on microfilm for archiving.
White House says realease it
Original white microfilm scanned and put on green form using Illustrator
Green form looks like it was scanned from a book also, because that is what their offical green paper looks like??
I find that odd.
Do other BC's from there get tranferred to the green paper as well?

For all of you who troll through time travel threads and believe in the possibility, maybe the birth announcement was made after the fact if you know what I mean.. Seriously though, as a graphic design professional I can assure you NO SCANNED document has layers unless it was done intentionally after the fact with some kind of software. I truly believe if this is true it's the smoking gun!

Help! How do you download t h is pdf? also if you goto the white house site right click and then select properties, you can visit the security and read what you are able to do to the document including change the text

filling of form fields: Allowed

there is no security on this file.

thanks for any information on how to download

www.whitehouse.gov...

reply to post by XtraTL


As I was just saying above the explanation that the data was broken down after it's white form to green form for the purpose of identifying the text seems highly irrelevant considering the entire purpose of the release was for a President's use, not the government to keep track of him among billions of others living here.

The entire foundation of the argument is this: The image was taken from the original microfiche released and photographed that is why the news media outlets have it? Then later the government or Obama took the original microfiche and put that on the green background? At which point it was scanned again and the text was run through a searchable database program?

Temporally this all seems wrong and I find myself confused. Can you clarify?

Originally posted by Justice2012
reply to post by XtraTL

 

As I was just saying above the explanation that the data was broken down after it's white form to green form for the purpose of identifying the text seems highly irrelevant considering the entire purpose of the release was for a President's use, not the government to keep track of him among billions of others living here.

The entire foundation of the argument is this: The image was taken from the original microfiche released and photographed that is why the news media outlets have it? Then later the government or Obama took the original microfiche and put that on the green background? At which point it was scanned again and the text was run through a searchable database program?

Temporally this all seems wrong and I find myself confused. Can you clarify?

Thank you, I thought it was just me.

Originally posted by prizim
The problem here is that you do not know how a scanner works. Sorry, you are incorrect.

Since I deal with pdfs on a daily basis, (graphic design & printing), I can tell you for a fact that - When you scan an item through a flatbed scanner, the entire document being copied comes over as a whole piece. If the pdf file is falling apart, (separate layers for text and images), the document being provided is defiantly a fake.

Again, I develop and edit pdf files for a living.

reply to post by sickofitall2012


Glad I have a fellow sufferer lol I have remained silent for years out of potential repercussions behind closed doors... but I cannot anymore.

My personal theory is that Obama has intentionally released a document that will create an even worse situation than before, add more fuel to the fire... Why? I have absolutely no clue

reply to post by Bonified Ween


I can't help wondering whether they want us to actually know for sure it's corrupt.

They want us to revolt? I do wonder...

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I personally give up. I don't like Obama anyway. I'm afraid though that the craziness and false info will help him. I know Trump is helping him and I pray he gives up the charade soon.

Yeah I'd give up if I was you to, this is 100% fake. There should only be one image object and anyone who works with pdfs knows that!

Hey guys,

To any newcomers basically the OP was debunked in the first ten pages.

It works like this.

When transferring from paper to digital they used a program like OmniPage.

This program separates known text, pictures, etc and makes groups.

You then take this doc and save as PDF.

Hawaii didn't flatten the document (merge layers)

It's as simple as that.

No conspiracy here.

Anyone left obviously has no clue and/or cannot accept that these layers mean nothing grouped or not.

If this document is a hoax then the layers are not the key to the issue so figure something else to bring up in a different thread.

Originally posted by Habit4ming
What I find interesting is that the birth certificate of Susan Nordyke, born one day after Obama's alleged birth, shows a different address for that hospital. How was that possible??? Not to mention, her box 7C says, Honolulu, Ohau and Obama's box 7C says Honolulu, Hawaii. Check out page 2 of this link to see a copy of her certificate:
www.dailypaul.com...

No matter I'm sure at least part of this is a big distraction...is not the Fed having their first ever press conference today?? END THE FED!

For my part, I have no desire to see his birth certificate. He is not natural born, his father was Kenyan, under British jurisdiction. His father NEVER became a U.S. citizen of any type. He may or may not be a citizen, but he's definitely not a "natural born" one...

I am sure that someone has already address this but, Honolulu is on the island of Ohau in the state of Hawaii. So Honolulu Hi is just as correct as Honolulu Ohau.
The first four presidents had parents who were born in England. The first four presidents were not born in America, they were born in a British colony due to the fact that the United States of America did not exist until 1776 when they were all grown men. Your parents do not have to be american for you to be an american. If you have american parents and are born overseas you are still an american. If you are born on US soil you are an American no matter the country of origin of your parents. He was natural born. American mother on American soil.

reply to post by Section31


Totally Agree.

This is Far from an Original Document!

This guy Jerome Corsi has a No 1 best seller on this issue. And he claims Obama's Presidency is not going to survive it's release. Which is in three weeks. Get it.


It's pretty obvious that, as Manning said, the birthers are now the most powerful political force in the nation.

Originally posted by AbleEndangered
reply to post by Section31

 

Totally Agree.

This is Far from an Original Document!

I'm grabbing the original pdf given to MSNBC, and I will run it through Adobe Creative Suite 5.0. It should only take a few moments.

Originally posted by mudbeed
Hey guys,

To any newcomers basically the OP was debunked in the first ten pages.

It works like this.

When transferring from paper to digital they used a program like OmniPage.

This program separates known text, pictures, etc and makes groups.

You then take this doc and save as PDF.

Hawaii didn't flatten the document (merge layers)

It's as simple as that.

No conspiracy here.

Anyone left obviously has no clue and/or cannot accept that these layers mean nothing grouped or not.

If this document is a hoax then the layers are not the key to the issue so figure something else to bring up in a different thread.

edit on 27-4-2011 by mudbeed because: (no reason given)

Debunked by like 1 or 2 "experts"... with an additional 6 or 7 experts who clearly knew what they were talking saying it is indeed faked.

reply to post by mudbeed


Hey bud read my posts and I will inject some new life into this thread then...

Again from what I understand I posted a high resolution white image of the Long Form which an ATS member has said was from the microfiche. It was then transferred over to the green "official" background we see on the short form Obama certificate.

From what I can tell there is no layer issue in the one I posted which is supposed to be the original microfiche, not the later transferred .pdf from the white house.

I am confused about it's significance although I know that it is.

If it was run through a PDF scanning program to keep the text searchable for database purposes don't you find that odd since the microfiche was already harvested without this issue. It seems to me that the President knows how to find his long form BC

If I follow the OP, what they did in forging Obama's long form birth certificate, is to complete all the steps a forger would normally take except for the last step which would be to re-photograph or re-scan the forged document so that when it was released to the public it would then appear to consist of one layer.

I wonder if they used the same guys to fake this that faked the Pentagon airliner impact footage, the famous five fake frames.

Of course, now they could actually complete that last step and say that they accidentally released something that one of the guys was just fooling around with on the computer, for fun. Like the moon landing studio shots that got mixed up with the real shots.

Originally posted by Justice2012
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Wow you have a lot of posts... Is there a reason you seem so determined to clarify everything and restate your expertise?

You are falling off a cliff right now in your defense of this form...

Probably not, but like me, I think this guy is tired of the psuedo-science "evidence" OP has copied and pasted on this site and the fact that everyones buying it. Those who aren't experts on OCR and adobe illustrator should really listen to him because he does this for a profession and is probably the only expert in this thread. I have limited experience but have worked with OCR, and I can tell he knows what he's talking about and you should listen.