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

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
What I can't figure out is if the folks here promoting this nonsense REALIZE they are perpetuating a distraction manufactured by the very same PTB they rail against, or if they are ALL paid disinfo agents.

Honestly, I hope ya'll ARE paid disinfo, because if you're promoting this distraction for FREE, then your just a pawn yourself...

I'm a checkers piece aspiring to be a pawn.

Originally posted by 2ndFUTURE
reply to post by grahag

 

A color scan does not EVER create monochrome bitmaps. NEVER. It would have bits of grays and odd colors on the fringes. These layers are not color. If you go into edit them you can only use black and white to edit. You would have to convert it to color in order use color. These layers were either never scanned as color in the first place or cut apart and converted to monochrome after the fact.

It's impossible without deliberate manipulation of the file.

Using absolutes is a bad idea. Even the top people in their field use unlikely or almost never. Absolutes will only prove you wrong.

Impossible is not really the word you want to use. It is definitely possible if you were to scan it using a vector based scan for OCR. OR if it's a scan of a scan of a copy, it would have already gone through the process once or twice and then colors would have been normalized for consistency by scanning software. If it was previously a document that was then converted to microfiche, it would have probably been done in mono. It would then have been scanned in when converted from fiche to digital, which would explain the single solid color as well.

reply to post by Libertygal

Originally posted by Libertygal
I noticed some other discrepancies.

photoblog.msnbc.msn.com...

Line 1. The "O" in Obama is in perfect line with the baseline of the text, exactly as it is in line 8. However, look at line 6b. The "O" is raised from the baseline.

Please pay close attention:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7935495e4687.jpg[/atsimg]

Notice anything? HINT: You are comparing baseline of ALL CAPS ( Line 1 and 8) to a baseline of INITIAL CAPS in 6b. A capital letter next to a lower case letter WILL NOT match same baseline due to mechanical nature of typewriter. (It was called "shift" key for a reason as it actuates different character on strike head.) The other anomalies you pointed out can be easily debunked in same manner if I had inclination to do so but not worthy if you can't understand basic mechanical properties. (ink ribbons, paper porousness and inexact nature of non precision antiquated devices.)

I'd say your internet sleuthing module needs a firmware update.

Is duh a word?

reply to post by grahag

I'm using absolutes because it is absolutely impossible. I've scanned and changed documents and photos for15 years and know what is possible. This OCR theory is crap. It will not do what is in this document.

reply to post by aptness


Thanks for the info. That seems like plausible reason as to why Obama would have a higher file number than the twins. Sorry for posting questions that have already been answered. I did not have the time to check 70 pages to see if someone already asked the question. It was much easier and faster just to ask the questions and get a response.

reply to post by 2ndFUTURE


I'm sorry you feel that way.

I suppose even experts in their fields disagree sometimes...

reply to post by SavedOne

Well, that's what it's all about, finding out what can be written off as evidence. You seem to have a good piece right there that disputes mine.
It still doesn't right off what others have found though.

reply to post by Rhino5


YOU GUYS HAVE GOT TO SEE THIS!!!!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8b690c92a5c3.jpg[/atsimg]

THE SHORT FORM BC IS INSIDE OF THE LONG FORM BC. Smoking GUN!!!

UnidentifiedObject and I figured this out!!!!

Go here, otherwise I would start a new topic.

Check it

reply to post by grahag


This is not about "feeling" its about fact

It looks real to me.

Its pretty much been proven that its because of the printing.

Apparently its real!

reply to post by grahag


What the hell is a vector based scan? I thought all scans were initially bitmaps.

We all know he is a fake and a liar...the Kool-Aid Drinkers will never believe their Saint-As-Beast is anything but so this whole thread is moot...

Originally posted by Justice2012
THE SHORT FORM BC IS INSIDE OF THE LONG FORM BC. Smoking GUN!!!

UnidentifiedObject and I figured this out!!!!

Oh yes I sees it! Also, your seat cushion is a flotation device.

Welcome aboard and Congratulations. In less than one day as a member you have unraveled the greatest mystery of our time. Now please tell me where I've left my car keys.

Originally posted by Homedawg
We all know he is a fake and a liar...the Kool-Aid Drinkers will never believe their Saint-As-Beast is anything but so this whole thread is moot...

I'm trying to remember the last politician that wasn't.

reply to post by Justice2012


bump his for emphasis

I'm going to say it one last time for those who fail to understand...

THE GREEN BACKGROUND WAS DIGITALLY ADDED TO THE CERTIFICATE. That means the certificate WAS MODIFIED.

The original document was only black and white. They tried their best to remove the white background and replace it with the green patterned background. There is white edges on some of the text on the document so they didn't get rid of all the white background, and that proves the document was digitally manipulated.

They added the green background to make the document more "tamper resistant".

Someone said the document was printed on a green background and that is NOT true... It was digitally added. If it was printed on the green background then there would NOT be white edges around some of the text, it would be green. Printers can't print white. The white edges are evidence that someone used an algorithm to remove the white background yet keep the black text. There is a tool called "background eraser" that does this.

So it is true, the document WAS digitally modified... HOWEVER, the document was NEVER meant to be a raw copy or duplicate like the OP claims, so this is a non-issue. It clearly says on the document that it is an ABSTRACT...

So the OP basically found a knowingly modified document and is claiming the document is confirmed fake simply because it was modified... Sorry to burst all your bubbles but the White House never claimed the document was unmodified. It's clearly labeled as an ABSTRACT on the bottom...

reply to post by kinda kurious


Quick question than why does Oahu on line 6b looks like it has a raised O and on line 7b it does not? Shouldnt they both be the exact same?

Originally posted by 2ndFUTURE
reply to post by grahag

 

This is not about "feeling" its about fact

Well, since you want to push it.

Is it possible that if you're using a scan of a microfiche which is only BLACK and clear that you would end up with ANY color in the document when scanning at 300dpi? Maybe, due to possible inconsistencies in the film. NOW, lets say that you have your scanning mode set to MONOCHROME. Similar to a fax machine scan. Why would you do this? #1 is the data footprint is MUCH smaller and second, the quality is sufficient for providing a legal review. Faxes are used all the time to transfer legal documents for review and are considered the de facto standard for legal proofs. Is it possible NOW?

If you answer No, then we don't have anything to discuss because I'd call you out as a loon and not really an expert in your field.

I'm not saying that my reasons for why this might be monochrome is absolutely true, but it's a likely cause considering the technology used at the time to convert the record.

Originally posted by drift393
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Quick question than why does Oahu on line 6b looks like it has a raised O and on line 7b it does not? Shouldnt they both be the exact same?

Already answered on the previous page.

reply to post by Justice2012


What they did was use the green patterned background form the short form, and added that green background to the long form.

The green background is used to make the document "tamper resistant". The long form was too old and doesn't have any tamper resistant background SO THEY ADDED ONE. It looks like they removed the black text from the short form leaving only the green background with some faint white letters, then used that green background on the long form. So what you see is remnants of the short form on the long form.

Can't you see people? The green background was added... The document was knowingly modified. They are not trying to hide anything.

The long form was never meant to be an exact copy.... and you people are erroneously assuming it was supposed to be...