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

Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy

Ok this is crazy story but hopefully it illustrates a point. Imagine if you were in court because a female school teacher had enticed your 12 year old son to have sex with her, and you had photographic evidence of this.
The teacher on the other hand no evidence to prove her innocence.
Now imagine if the defense lawyer said "Anyone can make fake photographs" but was not able to prove the photos were fake.
How would you feel if they found the teacher not guilty.

That situation is closely related to relevance, if the photos or "Birth Certificate" is not what it is purported to be, then it is not relevant to the case.

Digital evidence
en.wikipedia.org...

A common attack on digital evidence is that digital media can be easily altered. However, in 2002 a US court ruled that "the fact that it is possible to alter data contained in a computer is plainly insufficient to establish untrustworthiness" (US v. Bonallo, 858 F. 2d 1427 - 1988 - Court of Appeals, 9th

Nevertheless, the "more comprehensive" foundation required by Scholle remains good practice. The American Law Reports lists a number ways to establish the comprehensive foundation. It suggests that the proponent demonstrate "the reliability of the computer equipment", "the manner in which the basic data was initially entered", "the measures taken to insure the accuracy of the data as entered", "the method of storing the data and the precautions taken to prevent its loss", "the reliability of the computer programs used to process the data", and "the measures taken to verify the accuracy of the program". 7 American Law Reports 4th, 8, 2b.

What about this?

For what it is worth....

I printed a file to a PDF using the Adobe PDF printer that gets installed with the Adobe CS4 line of products. This was a receipt from a domain renewal I had made last month.

Upon opening it in Adobe Illustrator CS4, I was able to manipulate each individual component of the PDF. The lines separating parts of the receipt were converted to paths, the text was editable, and every part of the document could be moved, rotated, scaled etc.

Also, as I am sure it has been mentioned before, OCR technology can produce scans where some parts of the text are picked up and some aren't.

I cannot picture a scenario where someone is forging a document and then never opens it back up to test how it will be received "in the wild". Especially in something as public as this. And it isn't like the government is at the low end of the tech spectrum.

reply to post by imitator


I am not sure if I understand what your saying, or if you understand what I am saying.
Just for clarity. The point is the OP has provided evidence to support his claim, the debunkers have not provided evidence but only what is possible (ie here say), yet everyone believes the debunkers.
Regardless of what the truth is I don't agree with the practice of valuing here say over real evidence.

Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy
reply to post by imitator

 

I am not sure if I understand what your saying, or if you understand what I am saying.
Just for clarity. The point is the OP has provided evidence to support his claim, the debunkers have not provided evidence but only what is possible (ie here say), yet everyone believes the debunkers.
Regardless of what the truth is I don't agree with the practice of valuing here say over real evidence.

I think I understand, I'm no lawyer, you would have to establish authenticity... I would say who cares what the debunkers say, if you have proof !!! The problem with the OP, he's no expert.

Here is how it would go down to establish authenticity, with the photo situation or even a Birth Certificate.

crlgrn.wordpress.com...

In the case of digital editing, Grimm cites a commentator who suggests an eight-step foundation process for establishing the authenticity of the digitized version of a film photo via a witness who (Lorraine v. Markel, pp 55):

1. is an expert in digital photography
2. can testify to the process for creating a digital photograph and explain how visual information is presented (e.g.density of pixles) as well has how a computer can manipulate this information
3. testifies to the validity of the process
4. can state that research into enhancement technology is adequate to support claims about the image
5. can testify that the software used to manipulate the photo was developed from sound research
6. has received a film photograph
7. digitized the film photograph using the proper process and then enhanced the digital copy using the correct procedure
8. can identify the trial exhibit as the product of the conversion and/or enhancement work s/he conducted

Of course those on these forums trying to debunk it is wasting time... Obama is Kenyan lol

reply to post by Bonified Ween


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?””
things that make ya go hmmmmm. Game set match anti birthers heres the link www.kapiolani.org...

reply to post by imitator


Thanks. That is actually quite informative.

The birth certificate lists:

Stanley Ann Dunham's race: Caucasian.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr's race: African.

Nothing exceptional there unless one happens to notice that it is an official document filed in 1961. Having noted this there is a nasty little detail that won’t go away, namely that up until 1968, the standard term for all Africans was 'Negro', in keeping with the distinct classification of races as one of either Mongoloid, Caucasoid or Negroid. It wasn’t until the late 60’s and the Black Revolution that 'Negro' was deemed a pejorative term and was replaced by ‘black’.

It wasn’t until the late 70’s that political correctness came into vogue, and the beginning of the 80’s that the term African was chosen to describe all blacks.
To put this into perspective, imagine you were looking at birth records from centuries ago in Prussia. You would find people listed as Prussian, or Bavarian etc…Should you find German, would you not know something is drastically wrong, seeing as the term Germany for the Nation State was not yet in existence?
If someone was listed as German in 1700, it would be glaring forgery: just like Obama listed as African in 1961 is. Whoever forged the Barack Obama birth certificate got caught out by ‘political correctness.’

That is a fact. This birth certificate is a fake.

Given that "A scanner will not pixelate what it picks up at different scale", it would seem that some of the anomalies highlighted so far by other members cannot have accidently arisen and do point to a composite document rather than a true copy of the original. On the balance of probability this is deliberate, as given the resources available to the White House and 'insider' establishment, such a document could have been produced that would have been a faithful copy of the original with undetectable deletions, additions or alterations, perfect to the last pixel.

Why then the intentional discrepancies ? In all probability we are faced with a sophisticated Psy-Ops with the potential to bring the US down to it's knees once and for all. Think about the legal implications of this mess: if proven inelegible, then every single action taken by Obama in his official capacity is illegal, his signature has no validity, and everything he has done will have to be rescinded. America would collapse overnight.

reply to post by D377MC


Im just a bill sittin on capital hill www.bing.com... wait what did you say timmy the person who supported me is an illegal alien and not really the President

Originally posted by D377MC

The birth certificate lists:

Stanley Ann Dunham's race: Caucasian.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr's race: African.

Nothing exceptional there unless one happens to notice that it is an official document filed in 1961. Having noted this there is a nasty little detail that won’t go away, namely that up until 1968, the standard term for all Africans was 'Negro', in keeping with the distinct classification of races as one of either Mongoloid, Caucasoid or Negroid. It wasn’t until the late 60’s and the Black Revolution that 'Negro' was deemed a pejorative term and was replaced by ‘black’.

It wasn’t until the late 70’s that political correctness came into vogue, and the beginning of the 80’s that the term African was chosen to describe all blacks.

Can anyone argue with that?

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by Bonified Ween

 

In 1961 this certificate would have been typed on a manual typewriter.
Maybe not many on ATS can remember or have even seen a manual typewriter.

Note:
The "K" in Kansas is higher then the other letters of that word.
This irregular letter height was a common feature of manual typewriters.
This should mean that every "K" should be higher than the other letters in the words where it is used.
So in Barack the final "K" should be higher than the other letters and similarly in every other word where "K" is a letter.
This simple error is proof that it may indeed be a forgery.

There is also the name of the hospital, apparently it was not called that in 1961.
Someone could check that out.
His mother not writing her proper name (Stanley) is also unusual and seeing as his parents were not married at the time, her insertion of the Obama name in hers is unusual, unless she wanted to hide the fact she was not married.

Now that you mention it, several of the characters are out of synch. I have a nice blow up someone put up around page 37 or so: kbmt.images.worldnow.com...

And, since I started looking beyond the cia-61 = OAHU stuff, I see many type font mismatches. I don't necessarily agree that all K's ought line up in the same offset fashion you spoke of, because I have no forensic training, but I do see that the K's are in fact different altogether in actual font. They are just different. Several font characters are different.

Also, when my eyes hit the BC image for the 1st time today, I did see, without any need to highlight, colorize, etc, seeming erase marks where boon had pointed out over the mother's address. I believe this is where an OAHU ghost is apparent, when colorized, which I cannot do. I'd have to go back hundreds of pages to track that post down. Why should there be any ghost at all? It could be to obscure the removal marks. I don't know, or particularly care, because at this point only Jesus Christ can do anything about this mess and I am not vain enough to believe Jesus is coming back in my little time slip. Gumby Jesus who'd like to smart dust gitmo detainees and drone kill enemies of israel, and those who mourn their loss, doesn't do it for me, OK?

It's just that I remember when the land was truly free, and no one quivered behind their door, afraid to live, love, and we weren't bound to focus upon, and be held responsible for, the gaping anus of our politician's incontinence, as these same women and men now attempt to enslave us in order to serve as a distraction from their crimes against humanity.

Come on everybody. Isn't this fun? Just a few more months of this, then years, then decades, and your days will be near an end. Wasn't this fun? Good times!

Just a comment regarding - Date Accepted By Local Reg
For those who have the document please blow it up to 500% and have a look at the date. The 1 is very obviously a different colour. Do people think this is a scan to PDF effect?

reply to post by D377MC


I'm a bit surprised that mom is listed as 'caucasian'. Dad as 'african' is so stupid that it can't have been altered. Let's give them some credit, please. I suppose if you looked over enough documents from the same hospital and compared the use of race, it would clarify things. Sharpen up our perspective. Wasn't there a earlier (supposed fraudulent) version BC which had stated race as 'black' to which everyone said that they would have used the term 'negro' instead?

Someone's probably putting together a pile of these BCs from the same hospital, as to compare whatever there is to compare. No way anybody can alter them, unless they do...alter them. For example, say you wish to look up a person with an address from 1982, a person who had changed their name, identity, age, etc..., you could effectively use a phone book from that period, and then follow through from that point. tptw could not go and wipe out every phone book in existence. All they could do is present you with one that had been changed to remove that name. But if you are willing to spend 25 bucks, you would be able to purchase that book, because people actually save them, and offer them up online. I'd like a couple of Chicago phone books from 82-3, personally. Typically they are out of stock.

I think you are right, we are looney but no one is really properly explaining any of this.
So far it looks like this document was scanned out of a book at low resolution using OCR. However the OCR did not catch all of the characters. They then blew it up. The characters that were not recognised by the OCR become pixelated. The characters that are recognised by the OCR blow up without pixelation. They then put this on top of another larger piece of green patterned paper and then photocopied it. That is what looks like has been done. That alone does not prove anything.

What about the use of the term AFRICAN instead of NEGRO no-one has discussed that point? People just keep ridiculing without specifically stating where and how they disagree.

OK this is for the OCR FANBOYS.

Watch and WEEP OCR FANBOYS

This confirms it. The document was created digitally and was not innocently scanned from the original document using OCR


What are you sceptics going to say now?

Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy
This confirms it. The document was created digitally and was not innocently scanned from the original document using OCR


What are you sceptics going to say now?

edit on 29-4-2011 by ZeroPointEnergy because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-4-2011 by ZeroPointEnergy because: (no reason given)

Wow, nice evidence, even the crickets are quit
2nd line

reply to post by allprowolfy

No, the royals are being wed. I am busy thinking what technodisease kate will be assigned to extend her hand to touch the sufferers of, and sweetly announce that they're dying of. Not in the mood to let obama's games sully the moment.

Originally posted by drifter1109
All this argueing over is the BC real or not. Try to take things logically. Think about it.. Obama spends almost 4 years and lots of money to refuse to produce his BC. Why? No matter what his lame reasons the fact is by producing it he could have saved alot of bad publicity. This birth debate has cost him. Maybe not alot but it has cost. Then he produces one that is proved to have major discrepancies. A short form that clearly was intended to appease the masses. The masses being those who had heard about the great BC debate and were distracted enough to begin following the story. The plan, produce the short form and majority will say " See there, he did produce his BC, silly conspiracy people. Thereby narrowing the group who were not fooled and ,since the masses never want to be bothered thinking for themselves for very long, were more than happy to move on. The group left that still did not buy the fraud wouldbe labled nuts and soon the issue would disappear. A good plan. After all it has worked so many times in the past. Only something went wrong this time. The BC issue did not die and actually continued to gain momentum. Other revelant questions begin to arise. Questions that may have been overlooked if not for the BC debate. Now it is election time again. The powers that be do not want this BC thing hanging over Obamas head. It must be put to rest now. So what happens? Miracle. The BC is released. Think. Why now? After all this time? the answer election time. Is it real? I don't know but I do know I would not put it past "them" to attempt to defraud the public. In fact the BC all of a sudden showing up tells me to look closely, it's to obvious.

You have are among the few that has the big picture in mind,I believe this is going to do more damage than they thought.First of all before this long form was released a majority of the public either didn't pay attention to the birther issue or didn't want to hear about it now I believe even they(the naysayers) can see that there is something terribly wrong with this document it has come to the attention to 90% of the public and they cannot deny the discrepancies,just reading all the threads on ATS i've seen readers converting.I think that tbtb are worried about the Corsi book that is coming out soon(damage control). I really believe that there must be something in that book that is going to question his legitimacy big time.I can't imagine that this birth certificate,in any way,is going to put this issue to rest.it has in fact made it worse.