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

Originally posted by Bonified Ween

Screw the smoking gun - that doesn't have anything on the fact that this is an image that has SEVERAL layers. It is NOT ONE SCANNED IMAGE.

easy tex Im not here to steal your thunder just trying to add to your debate...

Originally posted by UcDat
www.thesmokinggun.com...

• If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document's safety paper be so seamless?

• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?

Same thing happened with my son... It's because it takes some time

• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?



• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.

• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?

So you've never worked with bound forms where when you write on the one above it, it is transposed below?

• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?

• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: it is spelled “Ukulele.”


Well it looks like your not the only one questioning this eh

this new doc leaves more questions than answers cant wait for the book hopefully that will provide a more plausible story...

edit on 27-4-2011 by UcDat because: edit

reply to post by rogerstigers


sorry my bad then.

as for layers in that image thats odd -- why didnt they merge them ? (if fraud is involved?)
maybe its slapy work on purpouse to fuel the debate? - i have no clue

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by UcDat

Originally posted by Bonified Ween

Screw the smoking gun - that doesn't have anything on the fact that this is an image that has SEVERAL layers. It is NOT ONE SCANNED IMAGE.

easy tex Im not here to steal your thunder just trying to add to your debate...

Sorry, but the details from the smoking gun are just ideas and questions, nothing really factual. It's just the fact that this "scanned image" is in 5 different layers is just astounding to me. Anyone who uses Photoshop like myself daily can understand what this could mean.

reply to post by Bonified Ween


I dont care it's the same damn topic. WHY make a new thread? Why not add it to the many that already exist on this crap. I am sick of seeing the boards spammed with the BS.

And I agree with the scanner comment so yeah they ARE the same thing to me.

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
reply to post by Bonified Ween

 

I dont care it's the same damn topic. WHY make a new thread? Why not add it to the many that already exist on this crap. I am sick of seeing the boards spammed with the BS.

And I agree with the scanner comment so yeah they ARE the same thing to me.

Then stop spamming them if your sick of seeing BS. It's a conspiracy forum. Why would a single image scan be broken up into 5 different elements or layers. That is NOT how a scanner works, doesn't matter if you have the best scanner in the world. All this proves is that this document that was released was heavily edited and reworked..

Originally posted by reassor
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

sorry my bad then.

as for layers in that image thats odd -- why didnt they merge them ? (if fraud is involved?)
maybe its slapy work on purpouse to fuel the debate? - i have no clue

I dunno.. it's sloppy and wierd..

Actually, what is strange is that the seperations are not completely consistant.. for example, his first name "BARACK"... the "Text" layer has "BA ACK" and the R remains on what I would call the "Ghost" layer.

I dunno. maybe it was something done during the clearnup process from the scan -- I am certainly no professional when it comes to electronic document restoration.. Just seems odd.

reply to post by Bonified Ween


I noticed the white edges around the type immediately.
Something stinks, as usual.

reply to post by Bonified Ween


Who said I am spamming? I don't spam, people who post the same crap over and over are spamming.

You are obviously angry for no reason. I just pointed out a thread on it already...I do it all the time when I see duplicate topics, that is not spamming, it's helping out ATS.

If you see it as spamming that is your problem. I really dont care.

It becomes annoying when there are 10 plus threads all on the same thing and everyone is saying the same thing..Why not just have one and share it where all the information is in one place?

Oh well...enjoy your BC debate

The green patterned background is on the paper that the scan was printed on. The signature on the lower right is to certify that the scan is authentic. These are not part of the actual birth certificate, which is on white paper in a bound volume. This is why the pattern is continuous even though the shading and distortion show that the edge of the page curves towards the binding. Please learn to understand what you are actually looking at before you subject it to further "analysis."

Let's keep it civil...

And on topic ladies, gents and grays... Lest I release my original poo flinging certificate...

Slathered in feces is no way to go through life.

Thanks.

reply to post by Mirthful Me


Sorry

I dont want to have poo flung

Originally posted by Logman
Of couuuuurse it's fake. If you a conspiracy theorist it doesn't matter what someone tells you, you will never believe otherwise. You can only come to the realisation yourself. Funnily enough, the same thing applies to religion and politics. Yes, all the dumb things.

instead of this babble, why dont you try what the OP is suggesting.

Originally posted by DJW001
The green patterned background is on the paper that the scan was printed on. The signature on the lower right is to certify that the scan is authentic. These are not part of the actual birth certificate, which is on white paper in a bound volume. This is why the pattern is continuous even though the shading and distortion show that the edge of the page curves towards the binding. Please learn to understand what you are actually looking at before you subject it to further "analysis."

Yeah, the green paper part makes sense, of course. And I would even buy that the Green bar and "official stamp" would be digitally added so the document would be green paper, digital stamp, and scan. What I am not understanding is why the scanned image is in multiple pieces.

I am no birther, but rather, a natural skeptic. I am curious as to why the bulk of the document is obviously copied out of the hospital record, then copied over a pre-existing long form. I am open to any suggestions as to why they would do this rather than just copy the entire page. Furthermore, should there be a seal at the bottom anyway (I know a lot of people have raised a big stink over the seal). Will this seal issue be raised again?

The way i see it: If this is a fake, it better be flawless! They have had 3+ years to work on it an research, get the information correct, and ensure no conflicts. If not, Great! That will be one less thing people will be distracted by instead of addressing true issues.

Well I think its time one of us make our own birth certificate with this document to prove how easy it is Kidding of course because that would be illegal and all...

reply to post by rogerstigers

Yeah, the green bar part makes sense, of course. And I would even buy that the Green bar and "official stamp" would be digitally added so the document would be green bar, digital stamp, and scan. What I am not understanding is why the scanned image is in multiple pieces.

As far as I can tell, it's not. Someone put it in their Illustrator program, cut it up and separated it into layers.

reply to post by Rising Against


Did you really believe it could have worked any other way? If the doctors that birthed him testified under oath and there just happened to be a football stadium full of people watching the live birth at Aloha stadium at the 50 yard line, the birthers would still find some reason to call it a fraud.

Of all the stupid theories going, this has to be one of the dumbest on the planet.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

Yeah, the green bar part makes sense, of course. And I would even buy that the Green bar and "official stamp" would be digitally added so the document would be green bar, digital stamp, and scan. What I am not understanding is why the scanned image is in multiple pieces.

As far as I can tell, it's not. Someone put it in their Illustrator program, cut it up and separated it into layers.

I just downloaded it straight from the official White House link, imported it into InkScape (free alternative to Illustrator) and saw the same thing with my own eyes.


*side note*

I am also not a Birther or constitutionalist or whatever. The whole debate is bizzare and an obvious honey pot to keep people distracted. I am merely looking at this for the curiosity factor.

*end side note*