Birthers: We Were Right. The BC is a FRAUD!!! Obama Lovers: Debunk THIS!

Originally posted by alphabetaone
reply to post by Americanist

 

What are you replying to me for? Why are you showing me videos I will never watch. I have the inside information, I'm not watching joey the clown who made a youtube video in his basement on a macintosh pro and thought youtube is "really cool" then puffed out back....

GTFO

So you can't install Adobe Master Collection on your POS? Sorry, pathetic excuse for not paying attention. Joey might dwell in the man cave, but apparently he's got more hardware than you upstairs and downstairs.

reply to post by NightGypsy


Can someone just just explain what the obvious evidence of forgery is?

Break it down. Piece by piece...I don't like wasting my time with non-sense like another stated earlier. I don't want to have to sit through a 20 min birther video with nothing substantial to support their claims.

Someone needs to show exactly how it's being forged.

Because all I see are claims, no proof.

Originally posted by SlyingFaucers
4. The Sequential Number is a fraud.
No rebuttal.

This is also opinion, and far from being proof of fraud.

And there’s a good and reasonable explanation for the certificate numbers.

CNN did a piece on the birthers, and they went with Stig Weidelich, a man born hours after Obama, on August 5, and whose birth announcement shows up on the same page on the newspaper as Obama’s, to the Department of Health to get his birth certificate.

As expected Weidelich got the same short form birth certificate that Obama got and initially presented. But the relevant information is that Weidelich’s certificate number is 151-1961-010920, even though the file date of his certificate is August 8.

Obama — born on August 4, filed on August 8, certificate #151-1961-10641.
Nordykes — born on August 5, filed on August 11, certificate #151-1961-10637 and #10638.
Weidelich — born on August 5, filed on August 8, certificate #151-1961-010920.

The Department of Health most likely didn’t number or archive the certificates as soon as they were filed. Instead, they probably went through the process once a week, or some other period of time, and did so alphabetically.

That would explain the reason Obama’s certificate number is higher than the Nordyke sister’s, even though Obama was born one day earlier, and Weidelich’s certificate number is higher than the Nordykes’ and Obama’s.


The rest of your points are all based on interpretations of the PDF file, which are irrelevant as pointed out numerous times, because what matters is the actual document, not a digital representation of it.

You think a court would ever make a determination on the authenticity of a document based on a digital representation of it and not by checking and analyzing the actual document?

So, basically, your reasons to conclude that Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud is based on your ignorance of the Department of Health’s numbering and filing system, and interpretations by self-declared ‘experts’ of a digital file.

Wow! File this in court immediately!

reply to post by GhettoRice


First:

The Hawaii department of health states the record is part of the microfiche, as well as having the computer registered document in their system, and the person who runs the department (Chiyome Fukino) is Republican as is the governor (Linda Lingle), and both declare his BC valid.

Second:

What everyone is reacting to, especially in this thread, is a computer generated low-resolution image released to the public. To apply any sort of "forensic examination" to it you would need the original paper BC. Lacking that you could work from a very - VERY - high resolution scan, but what's been released is not that.

Answer these questions:

How was the microfiche record made? (photograph, optical scan, digital OCR?)
How does the Hawaii Dept. of Health recreate these scans? (computer printout, saved image file?)
When was the microfiche originally created? (1960's tech, 1970's tech, 1980's tech)?
How is the green pattern reproduced? (set by software as a background, or created optically?)
What, if any, OCR is applied? Were the original scans stored as binary image files, or as OCR'ed machine readable documents?)
What resolution were the original scans or microfiche photos made at? (high? medium? low?)

See there is a LOT of technology here that people AREN'T understanding or refusing to even acknowledge or take into account. Before you can begin to apply all this TV-inspired CSI forensics analysis you need to determine how faithful these scans are to the original documents. And being that it is very likely no one will see the original paper documents, then you have to rely on the State officials who have declared Obama's BC valid and part of their records.

If you can't establish how the microfiche scans were made then how can you state anything with any certainty about how one scanned letter "b" looks like any other scanned letter "b"? Why aren't more of the letters looking identical? It was typewritten and scanned, the level of variation in the typewriter would be minimal.

Third:

Obama has the CIA working for him, if he wanted a forged 1960's BC, he has access to the people who could make it perfect. The CIA would get ahold of appropriate BC paper (or re-create it), and an old manual typewriter, and then bang out an authentic-appearing paper copy, and singed in pen and ink, faithfully reproducing some old officials signatures. It would be photographed using an old 1960's era camera, or scanned in using an old microfiche camera, and slipped into the official database. And no one would ever know. The idea that he would hire a 12-year old with poor Photoshop skillz is the argument birthers use to prop up their "analysis" of the image files found on the Web.

You simply can't argue that it is a fake. Anyone who will dare say this document is real is nothing short of a traitor to the United States of America and the Constitution of the United States.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


There is no misunderstanding here.

Releasing a birth certificate so wrought with errors is a BIG slap in the face.

At least explain the damn thing or cough up the paper copy.

reply to post by Americanist


No, actually not... I don't need to. I have something far better than the need for software installation; information.

I cannot (for some reason) load any further than page 3 of the scribd document.

I would love to take a look at it, and address the contents for myself. However no matter how many times I refresh, or restart my computer, it just won't load past page 3. I understand there are 18 pages. Is anyone else having this problem?

Can somebody please post the information in another format, or at least take the time to summarize it effectively?

I don't understand why there is such a vehement rejection by everyone (including the OP) to simply summarize this document that they are presenting as evidence. It shouldn't be that difficult, if you all have read it and understand it.

It is generally expected that the OP will at least provide a brief summary of an article that is posted to ATS. Can you at least give a brief description of the evidence, if you are too busy to summarize it? It's not fair to ask members to read through 18 pages of text (especially when only the first 3 load). You would get a much more concise response if you would simply give a breakdown of what evidence is presented.

Originally posted by SlyingFaucers
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

There is no misunderstanding here.

Releasing a birth certificate so wrought with errors is a BIG slap in the face.

At least explain the damn thing or cough up the paper copy.

Yes, you STILL don't understand.....

"Releasing a birth certificate so wrought with errors is a BIG slap in the face."

There are no "errors".....

reply to post by drwizardphd


Click the source for the document right above the window bro.

Originally posted by drwizardphd
I cannot (for some reason) load any further than page 3 of the scribd document.

I would love to take a look at it, and address the contents for myself. However no matter how many times I refresh, or restart my computer, it just won't load past page 3. I understand there are 18 pages. Is anyone else having this problem?

Here you go:

www.scribd.com...

Originally posted by Americanist
Repetition works with note cards, learning the alphabet, and forming words. You have to start somewhere. It's easy to spot new faces just getting involved with the game.

Did you happen to have a response to the videos, or are you too sick in the head to draft valid rebuttals?

That went fast and far atop your noggin.
The rebuttals you are looking for would be in the dozen other threads where we went over this the first 11 or 12 times. That would be the point of pointing out the repetition employed by the birthers.

While I was extolling the virtues of posting the same video over and over and over and over again, you take the time to mock repetition all while completely missing the irony bus you must have taken to get there. Yes, repetition is for simple minds. That must be why you are asking me to respond to a video, again, after that video has been posted and responded to

over and over and over and over and over again.

Originally posted by Helious
You simply can't argue that it is a fake.

You mean you simply can't argue that it is NOT a fake?

Agreed, however, they could have released it in crayon and nothing would change.

We've been sold out not only by the MSM, but by all three branches of government as well: Executive; Legislative; and Judicial.

Originally posted by Runaway1977

Originally posted by Americanist
Repetition works with note cards, learning the alphabet, and forming words. You have to start somewhere. It's easy to spot new faces just getting involved with the game.

Did you happen to have a response to the videos, or are you too sick in the head to draft valid rebuttals?

That went fast and far atop your noggin.
The rebuttals you are looking for would be in the dozen other threads where we went over this the first 11 or 12 times. That would be the point of pointing out the repetition employed by the birthers.

While I was extolling the virtues of posting the same video over and over and over and over again, you take the time to mock repetition all while completely missing the irony bus you must have taken to get there.

Yes, repetition is for simple minds. That must be why you are asking me to respond to a video, again, after that video has been posted and responded to

over and over and over and over and over again.

edit on 17-5-2011 by Runaway1977 because: (no reason given)

If you spent as much time backing up your claims, as you do editing your post with more nonsensical rambling, you might be taken seriously. Easiest fix... I posted the videos in a total of three threads including this one. Link to where you replied in the other two. Do you need help figuring out how to accomplish this?

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


So you respond to one issue, with complete conjecture, and erase 5 other issues and claim victory? But I am mistaken?

reply to post by Americanist


How long do you think it takes to make one edit?
So you admit you have spammed this video on ATS and since you are not the only one, then the question is why do you need to post it so many times if it is such solid proof of anything? Sounds like you are having a hard time getting bites so you are fishing in many waters. So you are asking me to back up my claim that this video has been posted to death in the same post that you admit to posting it a bunch of times in different threads yourself?

Mod Note: Kindly refrain from removing staff edits.

reply to post by SlyingFaucers


Yes you are mistaken... I didn't do what you just claimed I did, so you must also exist in an alternate reality created by your own mind.

The issues I pointed to in this topic and other topics actually concludes that the certificate was a real scanned document from an old source and it was digitally upgraded by law to include a security feature. All that doesn't matter anyway since it was also signed by an authorized person which makes it legal. It could be toilet paper and crayon and as long as the right official signs and authorizes it, it is legal.

The documents shown are all legal... so it is over... there was victory before the "battle" even started.

Originally posted by Helious


Click the source for the document right above the window bro.

That worked, thank you.



Now that I have had a chance to look over the document, I can pretty safely say that there is no conclusive evidence, instead it seems to be more of a summation of conjecture and other "birther" claims which have either been debunked or remain unproven.



Curved Lines

The "curved lines" are simply a result of the paper being bent, and the "non-curved lines" are actually curved, he just failed to properly trace under them with the line tool. If you look at "Male", you can see that the "e" is higher up than the "M". The curve is subtle but by looking at the angles of the bottom serifs, you can clearly see that the text is indeed curved. The exact same phenomenon can be observed on "Kapiolani", the first four letters "Kapi" are curved as they are on the curved part of the page. The second half of the word straightens out.

White Haloing

This has already been covered numerous times. The text on the birth certificate was originally printed on a white document. When the text was copied over to the green and white background, a slight haloing appeared over all of the text. This could simply be a result of the computer copying a bit of the old background with the selected text (most likely) or it could have been a result of the legibility of the text being purposefully enhanced due to it clashing with the new background (less likely).

Again, this is hardly evidence that any of the actual information in the document has been altered

Binary and Greyscale Letters

This has also been adequately covered. When the document was scanned into whichever imaging software was used, OCR digitizes any legible text that it can scan, and then creates a computer-generated graphic to represent it. All of the text would have appeared greyscale at first, but then OCR turns it into a flat color. The leftover greyscale letters simply were not picked up by the OCR, which also explains why they appear on a separate layer than the binary text.

The Sequential Number

The author states "The Sequential Number is a fraud". This is incorrect. The Sequential Number does 'seem' to be out of place, when compared with other documents from the hospital, such as the Nordyke certificates. However, there are numerous possible explanations for this, such as that the birth certificates were printed beforehand, and then were mismatched and used in the wrong order.

The author's interpretation of this mismatching as "fraud" shows that the author has a clear agenda, and his preconceptions are preventing him from accurately addressing the evidence. In other words, this would not fly as a legal document.

Different Color Fonts

Again, see the bit about OCR above. OCR tries to recreate the font color as accurately as possible in most imaging programs. The different colored fonts are most likely the result of the greyscale scan being lighter for those particular letters/numbers, and thus the solid-color digitization of the image is represented by a lighter tone.

Presenting this as "irrefutable proof this form is a forgery" shows a predisposition toward the document being forged, and an unwillingness to accurately address the causes of the inconsistencies.

Multiple Layers

Again, see the bit about OCR above. This has been debunked.

Tim Adams

Debunked, see aptness's post above.



In Conclusion

This is a very poorly written document, rife with grammar errors and obtuse claims. However, one should only have to look at the evidence presented, and one can easily see that the claims do not hold water. While they do manage to point out the inconsistencies in Obama's long form, they do not conclusively prove that any of them are the result of intentional fraud or forgery.

This was written by someone with a clear bias, and I would say with confidence that it has been successfully debunked on a case-by-case basis.

(Most of the credit for this goes to other ATS members who have researched these claims when they were presented earlier. I only went through the document and addressed each individual claim as they were addressed here on this forum, in many of the previous birth certificate threads dealing with the exact same issues.)

A friendly reminder...

...to post on topic and refrain from personally attacking, smack talking or being unnecessarily loutish to your fellow members. Adherence to this simple request is expected.

ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

Consider this fair warning.