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

reply to post by aptness

Keep 'em coming birthers!

Ah, aptness, you are the noble nemesis of all beastly birthers!

But, what's this? You have had so much thrown at you, that you have missed one! (Bottom of page 70.)

I'm still certain there will be a plausible reply...

"Keep 'em coming..."

JR

Originally posted by canadiansenior70


Africa is a continent not a race. I can say I am North American, and be any of the 3 main races....white/black/red.

Wrong.........African can indeed be referred to as a race.........just as Asian can be referred to as a race......both
Africa and Asia are continents.....but some races can also be by country.....like Chinese, and also it can be defined by skin colour.

There is no standard of how "race" is defined.......It was not too long ago that "Mexicans" were defined as a race by the US census.

In any case Obama's Birth certificate is based on how the parents defined their "race" to the Hawaiian officials .

"Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn't tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama's father's race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African."

www.factcheck.org...

reply to post by Logical one


One of my white friends is from South Africa and is now a Naturalized U.S. Citizen. He always checks "African American" when asked about his race.

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?

OK because you've piqued my interest, 2nd reply. The capital "O" baseline is,in fact, consistent with lowercase letters if this example makes sense.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd3fd51df02e.jpg[/atsimg]

Thank goodness this thing seems to be running out of steam. I'm pretty sure the MSM will be parroting FORGERY for quite a while, but there's a credibility factor after the truth has been out for a bit.

I'm totally fine with playing the devil's advocate, but I can only stretch so far one direction before having to snap back to reality where most people live.

There are all kinds of common sense reasons why this document is the way it is. I'm fairly certain that none of us will get to see the original birth certificate, but there are current Hawaiian officials that have sworn this is a legal document.

That's really enough for me. I don't agree with Obama all the time, but he's the president and any vetting would have been done by his opponents before he was elected.

reply to post by Bonified Ween


There was a thread up a few minutes ago that reported the hospital on the certificate DID NOT exist at that time but was organized by a merger in 1978. It was verified by several posters and now the thread and the links are gone, it was up for less than an hour!!!! Where did it go?

Can you guys goto the link and start the video at the 6 minute mark. Has all of this been debunked also? If so by who and what are you qualifications? And what are your reasons?
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by daddio
There was a thread up a few minutes ago that reported the hospital on the certificate DID NOT exist at that time but was organized by a merger in 1978. It was verified by several posters and now the thread and the links are gone, it was up for less than an hour!!!! Where did it go?

Did you check the HOAX bin?

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
But, what's this? You have had so much thrown at you, that you have missed one! (Bottom of page 70.)

I didn’t miss it, I was ignoring it.

You seem to accept the Nordyke comparables, and yet, we do not seem to see the name of the infamous Hawaiian musical instrument anywhere.

So? Are you implying it should have been the same person? Why?

I'm entertaining the idea that there is a "joke" somewhere here, in spite of real people, and real (odd) names being employed.

As far as I can tell there is no joke. I don’t even pretend to know what the signature says, I’ll leave conjecture up to the birthers. My point, by posting another certificate, was to demonstrate it was a real person.

Unless you’re suggesting that other person’s birth certificate was forged by the same White House folks that allegedly forged Obama’s. Oh wait, for a moment I forgot it’s birthers I’m dealing with, so this scenario must seem entirely plausible to you.

If you are truly intrigued, however, then perhaps you should do contact the Department of Health and inquire about whose signature is that.

The premise that the White House would release a forged birth certificate is laughable from the start, but to believe they actually inserted hints to let you know it’s a forgery requires some special kind of crazy and paranoia.

Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy
Can you guys goto the link and start the video at the 6 minute mark. Has all of this been debunked also? If so by who and what are you qualifications? And what are your reasons?
www.youtube.com...

Could someone who understands multimedia and photo editing comment about the above link from the 6 minut mark. The document has compression artifacts but they are not uniform across the document. If it was scanned as low res image or blown up from a microfiche document then the artifacts would be uniform. There are also many other anomallies

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


You have it backwards... OCR was used in non search form to remove the green background. To make copies for hand out at the press conference.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
But, what's this? You have had so much thrown at you, that you have missed one! (Bottom of page 70.)

I didn’t miss it, I was ignoring it.

You seem to accept the Nordyke comparables, and yet, we do not seem to see the name of the infamous Hawaiian musical instrument anywhere.

So? Are you implying it should have been the same person? Why?

I'm entertaining the idea that there is a "joke" somewhere here, in spite of real people, and real (odd) names being employed.

As far as I can tell there is no joke. I don’t even pretend to know what the signature says, I’ll leave conjecture up to the birthers. My point, by posting another certificate, was to demonstrate it was a real person.

Unless you’re suggesting that other person’s birth certificate was forged by the same White House folks that allegedly forged Obama’s. Oh wait, for a moment I forgot it’s birthers I’m dealing with, so this scenario must seem entirely plausible to you.

If you are truly intrigued, however, then perhaps you should do contact the Department of Health and inquire about whose signature is that.

The premise that the White House would release a forged birth certificate is laughable from the start, but to believe they actually inserted hints to let you know it’s a forgery requires some special kind of crazy and paranoia.

edit on 28-4-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)

Thanks for your honesty. Ignoring troublesome posts does seem pretty common on ATS, but you do seem to have your hands full, so I certainly understand.

From what I have been reading, there was only one registrar in Hawaii at that time, one person. Maybe this needs to be fleshed out more, but if that's the case, then having the registrar with the funny name who succeeded the one active in August of 1961 would look strange.

You posted "proof" that U K L Lee was real was from June of 1962. That seems to indicate Lee was the registrar by that time, but the Nordyke certs indicate someone else entirely. You see the difference, right?

Another fellow ATS member, backinblack, recently posted a link that may have addressed your "special kind of crazy and paranoia".

It also explains the "joke" I mentioned. Maybe not so funny, but here's the link:

israelinsider

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by Nucleardoom

 

On the contrary, far from illogical.

THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE. THE HUMAN RACE. IT HAS VARIOUS LEVELS OF RETARDATION AND ethnicities.

edit on 28-4-2011 by ErEhWoN because: (no reason given)

>>


RE: B.H.OBAMA WAS "BRILLIANT" TO RELEASE THIS DOCUMENT..


You may want to retest you understanding of Brilliance smart fellow..

Or just halt the attempt altogether.

LETS SAY THEY ARE SO SMART..

This was released in this form to discredit "Republicans" and “Truthers”.. and distract from economic turmoil, while making him of course a victim of all those Tea Party Racists..

OK this means they all know what we see, what we all can see in simply zooming a pdf copy of the digital file at %300 or greater in just scrolling around quickly.

They release it, looking this bad, so many artifacts that are inconsistent (I.e. Different layers for the number set of a 4 character date of 1961 in box 20., then the same line box 22. 1961 handled differently by different logic)
It apparently knows the first #1 is part of 196 but the #1 is just 1, but not actually 1961, lets make another layer, yea that's it! Those pesky difficult year dates - I always thought a four character date field was difficult and complex for my OCR friends.

So Dude..

THEIR FAKE, FAKE DOCUMENT, IS SUCH A REALISTIC LOOKING FAKE, THAT IT PROVIDES REAL AND DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE OF MANIPULATION, SHADY/FRAUDULENT BEHAVIOR..

EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE FIELD ON THIS PAGE WAS %100 TRUE AND ACCURATE IN EVERY DETAIL

- ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE RELEASE OF THIS DOCUMENT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH FRAUD, MANIPULATION, DISHONESTY, AND DEEP IN THE MIDDLE OF PERPETUTING SOME TYPE OF POLITICAL SCAM AT THE PRESIDENTIAL AND NATIONAL LEVEL.

- THE CHARACTER IMPLICATIONS OF DOING SO ALONE WILL LOSE HIM THE ELECTION

See how that works?
It's a little different than yours and BHOs type of intelligence do you see that?

Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy

Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy
Can you guys goto the link and start the video at the 6 minute mark. Has all of this been debunked also? If so by who and what are you qualifications? And what are your reasons?
www.youtube.com...

Could someone who understands multimedia and photo editing comment about the above link from the 6 minut mark. The document has compression artifacts but they are not uniform across the document. If it was scanned as low res image or blown up from a microfiche document then the artifacts would be uniform. There are also many other anomallies

Someone in the know correct me if I'm wrong, but when the OCR pass looks at the document and then renders into layers of similarity, it picks out things it knows and things it's not sure about and renders those using different quality. These LOOK like artifacts, but are probably just varying degrees of detail. The PDF is just a container, like a zip file with all the info required to render the document as whole. Anything that it doesn't "know" will probably get rendered at a higher quality until either it gives up or finds a character match.

Keep in mind that even if OCR is turned off, there is usually an OCR pass done although not used. I can't say what did the scan, but it looks like a Mac copy of adobe rendered it. I couldn't tell you what processed the image on the back end though. It's reasonable enough to consider that being the reason for the "artifacts" they're talking about.

And I hate how Alex Jones tries to make it look like he understands how it works. It's pretty obvious he doesn't. We really should get someone that understand the details of rendering on the PDF/OCR side if we want to prove or disprove it.

reply to post by Bonified Ween


really interesting find,, but I'm not sure it constitutes the "proof" you're claiming in the thread title. It does pose some awkward questions though ,that's for sure.

reply to post by grahag


All the DIGITAL DENIER explanations, do not work with this since whatever software, scanner, ocr, hardware, software, is not going to give a different effect for example one 1961 date at one place on the page, and another 1961 on the same line 4 inches away..

In all cases all suggestions are affected by the fact that whatever rule or reason you wish to apply, the artifacts and characteristics being analyzed - ARE NOT CONSISTENT ACROSS THE PAGE EVEN ON THE SAME SINGLE LINE MUCH LESS TOP TO BOTTOM

– EVEN IN ONE SINGLE CHARACTER IN THE SET OF THE DATE 1961…

> Why is the 1961 date separated into 196 and then 1??

I WOULD LOVE AN EXPLANATION SMART GUY..

None of the factors above can explain this only human manipulation can..

I don’t think you get the reality that if ALL DATA IS %100 ACCURATE, IT IS STILL A MANIPULATED DIGITAL FILE AND A BIG PROBLEM..

LETS SAY THEY ARE SO SMART..

That it was released in this form to discredit "Republicans" and “Truthers”..
OK, this means they know what we see, what all can see in a zoomed pdf copy %300 or greater, just moving around..

They release it, looking this bad, so many artifacts that are not consistent..

THEIR FAKE, FAKE DOCUMENT, IS SUCH A REALISTIC LOOKING FAKE, THAT IT PROVIDES REAL EVIDENCE OF MANIPULATION, SHADY/FRAUDULENT BEHAVIOR..

EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE FIELD ON THIS PAGE WAS %100 TRUE AND ACCURATE

- ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE RELEASE OF THIS DOCUMENT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH FRAUD, MANIPULATION, DISHONESTY, AND DEEP IN THE MIDDLE OF PERPETUTING SOME TYPE OF POLITICAL SCAM AT THE PRESIDENTIAL AND NATIONALLEVELS..

- THE CHARACTER IMPLICATIONS OF DOING SO ALONE WILL LOSE THE ELECTION

Originally posted by grahag


Someone in the know correct me if I'm wrong, but when the OCR pass looks at the document and then renders into layers of similarity, it picks out things it knows and things it's not sure about and renders those using different quality. These LOOK like artifacts, but are probably just varying degrees of detail. The PDF is just a container, like a zip file with all the info required to render the document as whole. Anything that it doesn't "know" will probably get rendered at a higher quality until either it gives up or finds a character match.

Keep in mind that even if OCR is turned off, there is usually an OCR pass done although not used. I can't say what did the scan, but it looks like a Mac copy of adobe rendered it. I couldn't tell you what processed the image on the back end though. It's reasonable enough to consider that being the reason for the "artifacts" they're talking about.

What about the other anomalies. eg Different coloured font, as well as font style, and that the background watermark was clearly added to the document?

Apparently 90% of the 'experts' on this website never heard of OCR or worked on a highly advanced scanner

reply to post by aptness


DIGITAL DENIER explanations, do not work with this since whatever software, scanner, ocr, hardware, software, is not going to give a different effect for example one 1961 date at one place on the page, and another 1961 on the same line 4 inches away..

In all cases all suggestions are affected by the fact that whatever rule or reason you wish to apply, the artifacts and characteristics being analyzed - ARE NOT CONSISTENT ACROSS THE PAGE EVEN ON THE SAME SINGLE LINE MUCH LESS TOP TO BOTTOM

– EVEN IN ONE SINGLE CHARACTER IN THE SET OF THE DATE 1961…

> Why is the 1961 date separated into 196 and then 1??

I WOULD LOVE AN EXPLANATION SMART GUY..

None of the factors above can explain this only human manipulation can..

I don’t think you get the reality that if ALL DATA IS %100 ACCURATE, IT IS STILL A MANIPULATED DIGITAL FILE AND A BIG PROBLEM..

LETS SAY THEY ARE SO SMART..

That it was released in this form to discredit "Republicans" and “Truthers”..

OK, this means they know what we see, what all can see in a zoomed pdf copy %300 or greater, just moving around..

They release it, looking this bad, so many artifacts that are not consistent..

THEIR FAKE, FAKE DOCUMENT, IS SUCH A REALISTIC LOOKING FAKE, THAT IT PROVIDES REAL EVIDENCE OF MANIPULATION, SHADY/FRAUDULENT BEHAVIOR..


EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE FIELD ON THIS PAGE WAS %100 TRUE AND ACCURATE

- ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE RELEASE OF THIS DOCUMENT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH FRAUD, MANIPULATION, DISHONESTY, AND DEEP IN THE MIDDLE OF PERPETUTING SOME TYPE OF POLITICAL SCAM AT THE PRESIDENTIAL AND NATIONALLEVELS..

- THE CHARACTER IMPLICATIONS OF DOING SO ALONE WILL LOSE THE ELECTION

Originally posted by vinunleaded
Apparently 90% of the 'experts' on this website never heard of OCR or worked on a highly advanced scanner

I am not sure if that was directed at me, but you don't intentionaly use OCR software to make an official copy of someones birth certificate. That would allow anyone to edit it. It should be scanned as an image and saved as a tiff file etc.