Here’s some interesting analysis from the tech savvy generation. Does my heart good to see the wholesale loss of credibility Obama has suffered among the people who actually understand the issues with the cut and paste BC:
Dfensog
I posted this earlier:
If a problem in an airplane has a 1 in a billion chance of occurring the FAA says that problem has no credible chance of happening. Assuming the chances of each of them occurring is 1 in 100, which seems generous, the probability of all 9 of these “similarities” existing between those two birth certificates would be 1x10-18 , a one in a billion times a billion probability. If you assume the probability of each similarity is 1 in 10, there would still only be a 1 in a billion chance of all 9 similarities existing at the same time.
https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5jvowu/about_a_week_ago_sherif_joe_arpaio_proved_obamas/
"Now we are going to focus on boxes 6d and 6e [error in video should be 7e]within the Obama PDF, both Xs were taken directly from box 6d in the Ah'Nee long form birth certificate in fact not only was the X pulled over but the box itself was pulled over and various parts of the line on top of the X were also pulled over according to forensic documents experts."
The problem is that the PDF boxes 6d and 7e are not identical so could not have been copied and pasted from the Ah'Nee box 6d.
The X in box 7e was altered by the scanning software and is at a different resolution from the X in box 6d.
In the AP copy there is a gap between the bottom of the "o" in "no" and the top of the X in box 6d.
There is no gap between the bottom of the "o" in "no" and the top of the X in box 7e.
The scanning software altered the image by coloring in pixels. It is ridiculous for anyone much less a document examiner to say that the X, the check box and portions of the word "no," in box 6d is identical to the X, the check box and portions of the word "no," in box 7e. Or that the Xs are in the same position.