Obama's LFBC has CIA-61 handwritten on it - ATS Exclusive

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Boon,can you overlay a transparency of the short form onto the long form so the markings matchup? That way we can get an idea of how the documents were pressed together when the transfer occured?

i did that already in my editor.
I didn't post it cuz i couldn't
line it up properly to match mainly
cuz I couldn't make one of them
transparent to do it. Or maybe I
don't know enough about this
stuff to know HOW to do it.

so you may have to get somebody else
to perform that function, sorry

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


Thanks for that link, I proposed the same question on that thread. I think your enhancement would make it the easiest to perform the overlap and see how the two documents were stored or scanned together.

I'm confused....85+ flags.....thread labelled "ATS- Exclusive" ???????

Jumping the shark again are we???

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

Correct.. it plainly says OAHU to my eyes.

u r looking in the wrong place. use an image
editor and focus (zoom in) just to the left of
HUSSEIN.

I also clearly see OAHU in the exact spot you are describing, just to the left of his middle name.

reply to post by SonicInfinity


What you might call "analyzing" is what I and others might call "manipulation." The moment you start futzing with levels of this, and contrasting that, and overlaying such and such is the moment at which credibility is stretched. I've worked with digital art long enough to understand that each act of affecting an image file introduces more and more noise, even if one can find something that wasn't as obvious on first inspection.

Please, always remember that in all instances in which people have "analyzed" images through such methods the image itself is no longer the same image. Someone has manipulated the image to get that result. I'm not saying that they've injected a whole body of new information into these documents, but to call manipulation "analysis" is slightly suspect.

An analog analogy (great band name, BTW) might be the playing of reversed musical recordings, wherein gibberish can, because of human pattern recognition, become meaningful, even though the objective fact of the matter is that no actual back-masking took place.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Yeah, my workstation only has paint or I would try it myself. I am really wanting find out why these documents were stored or scanned together. It doesn't make sense to me at all. The short form was released years ago, and the long form just recently. Why would they have been stored pressed together, or why would the long form have been scanned with the short form behind it?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

but how can you scan something that has layers and is ported as a potential fraud.

I didn't scan it.
I d/l the image file as a .jpg
and imported it into the image
editor and started fooling around
with the color controls which revealed
the text.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Oh, good God! This is the whole problem with theorists. It's not enough to believe there is a conspiracy, and it's not enough to investigate the conspiracy, and is cetainly isn't enough to disprove the conspiracy. It's like a dang drug addict who needs more and more. Why can't you just let go and accept that, shockingly, you were wrong and move on to the next great conspiracy.

Kennedy assasination people, I get that. The true motives of war people, I get that. Heck, even the UFO or Big Foot people, I get that. Why? Because those theories are hard to prove or disprove, so there is some wiggle room.

This, I just don't get. No amount of proof beyond a time machine that allows you to see the freaking day of birth (which you undoubtedly believe the Government already has and has gone back in time to change the facts to fit the end) will satisfy you that THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY HERE!

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by morder1
Very interesting boondock, Where did you get the document from?

I downloaded it from the internet.
I used the white background version.
If you use the green background version
it hides the text even further.

Obama's mistake here was releasing
the white background version. It was
the version revealing the hand written text.

If you found it on the Disinformation super-highway I say it is bogus. Take a trip to The Islands, and go to their Dept of vital statistics and get a hard copy, then take it to a laboratory for proper laboratory analyses. How in the world is software w/o the h/w to boot can use x-rays which can only be produced in a certain process safely?

I do not apologize when I say that I cannot buy this due to my ultra-sensitive BS detectors are going off!

Originally posted by stealthsurfer
I also clearly see OAHU in the exact spot you
are describing, just to the left of his middle name.

c'mon folks
please read the thread.
this has been addressed
already.

reply to post by boondock-saint


K. But I don't really see it. Maybe the IA. That's it. Maybe proof of editing if nothing else.

apparently
all the artifacts, and patterns of artifacts, are different in different areas
and not there at all in some areas
which shouldn't be.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
I am really wanting find out why these documents were stored or scanned together. It doesn't make sense to me at all. The short form was released years ago, and the long form just recently. Why would they have been stored pressed together, or why would the long form have been scanned with the short form behind it?

you and me both.
i want to find out as well.

Edit: old news nevermind

Here's the link again just in case this thread get so long and it becomes hard to locate.
msnbcmedia.msn.com...

reply to post by GuyverUnit I


This is the current understanding based on the available information.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by GuyverUnit I

 

This is the current understanding based on the available information.

i guess I was too slow

Originally posted by Danbones
apparently
all the artifacts, and patterns of artifacts, are different in different areas
and not there at all in some areas
which shouldn't be.

lmao

since when did you become a philosopher ???

Originally posted by GuyverUnit I
CORRECTION

Take a look at this.
I inverted colors and adjusted brightness/contrast on link provided in this thread here
here
It does not say CIA
It says OAHU.
Actually it says PLACE OF BIRTH OAHU
There is a ghost of another BC behind the Obama's?

dude, ur running about 3 pages behind.
I know u wanna hop in with full force
but some times it's best to catch up first

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

Correct.. it plainly says OAHU to my eyes.

I agree, it is very faint but it 100% says OAHU in caps. Above it says Name and underneath the "Certificate" it says Home Of ______ can't make that part out.