Posted on 09/17/2008 11:58:31 AM PDT by Polarik
Start spreading the news...
FYI:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2086586/posts
Thanks, again Polarik.
Pinging to #41.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2084512/posts?page=41#41
Was there a change in personnel about the time of Obama's birth which would be indicated on the COLB by virtue of the signatories? If so this would enable someone in the know to date the certificate within the tenure of the signatories, and might prove the undoing of the claim of DOB.
Excellent!
BTTT
Thank you.
Excerpt:
Wanna hear something really scary? Senators are given sensitive government data when they start work, but are not given any background checks beforehand!
Sheesh! I worked for the Feds as a contractor -- not even an employee -- and they did all kinds of background checks on me.
Hellooo DHS, are you listening? Give us access to eVerify now please! Set up all the restrictions you want! Make orgs qualify; but stop this unchecked madness with politicians now!
Amen.
Hawaii has become extremely tight-lipped about anything having to do with BHO. Onaka has been the only State Registrar that Hawaii has had since they became a state in 1959.
We'll just need to see what happens when Berg's motion for discovery is responded to.
There have been images of clippings of two line birth announcements of Obama’s birth from both those two papers posted at TexasDarlin blog.
Amazing work Mr. Polarik, America can’t thank you enough.
Now getting people to pay attention to that man behind the curtain is the focus for the last 6 weeks until ELECTION 2008.
Godspeed to all who fight for the truth and fair media rather than DNC issued propaganda.
Thanks P & L.
bookmarking
"Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu."
That is a straight - out LIE. As anyone who has looked into what they director said, she NEVER said he was born in Honolulu - or Hawaii for that matter. Typical "Fact" check. They take a statement, slant it by putting their own interpretation on it, and make people think that is what was actually said. Just like with the COLB. First referring to it correctly as a Certification. Then later on, subtly changing int to Certificate and then referring to it as "the original" birth certificate. Factcheck has about as much credibility with checking the facts as the elephant that was guarding the peanut jar does when peanuts disappear and he claims he didn't know where they went.
Actually, The AP was the first one to make that stupid statement public, and we should definitely send some major flak their way for making it. FactCheck could have taken it off the AP wire...but they are also stupid for saying it and making forgeries.
"We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding."
It seems they did not follow "the best practices of both journalism and scholarship" and certainly did not investigate "the factual accuracy of what is said " in this case.
I would like to commend you on your effort and very good research.
Several months ago, myself and a friend of mine noticed immediately the CoB posted on Fight the Smears was a glaring fake.
He and I both first noticed the grey/white pixilation between the characters after zooming in.
I immediately knew why this was. I have forged several images (not CoBs though).
The granulated dithering and pixilation is due to two image layers. There was an original background image with the native text.
Because you can’t convert back a JPG or GIF to an editable image format, the original scan must stay JPG.
So, to forge, you have to use the clone tool to cover the existing text with the native background colors.
This is where the problem occurs. Because the graphics editor doesn’t have the original layer in an editable format (i.e. fireworks png etc.), it “guesstimates” the color correction with a color correction algorithm.
Because it can’t quite make a perfect color match (not the original layer), it just dithers or attempts to get as close as possible, which is pretty good to the naked eye.
When you zoom in though, it jumps right out at you, because you are viewing the pixels up very close.
So, the image was done in least two layers. The original scanned image and the text overlay.
You were spot-o in your discussion, but what I learned from creating a clone of the Kos image, is that the forger never had a real, paper COLB in his or her possession. Although the forger received several scan images, one of them had been converted (or saved as) a bitmapped, color-indexed image, and the overlays were done in a bitmapped format before it was compressed and saved, not once, but twice: the high amount of image compression coupled with the large image size and high color count (about 70% or lower could only have been achieved in this sequence. I made about 415 test images until I got it right - but the intermediary step involving a bitmapped image was the hicker because every other combo did not obliterate the green pixels to the degree as they weere shown.
I'll email to you the steps I took, to see if you can also recreate the forged Kos image.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.