Posted on 05/01/2011 6:45:48 AM PDT by eastexsteve
Bear with me, as I am rather new to this forum. The following is my unbiased examination of the Obama LFBC without any comment or input from outside sources. I'm sure others have made some of the same observations I have, but I assembled some observations that you can see yourself without using any specialized software whatsoever. I haven't seen some of these observations out on the web by anyone else yet. (Although, I'm sure I haven't looked everywhere.) Please feel free to copy the file from Google Docs and do what you wish with it.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1eQRJILO2U0ZWUwODM0ZDktZTg2OC00Yzc0LWI4YzAtODBkZWU2YjBhZDU1&hl=en&authkey=CKv6_hg
Your the one who is pushing a conspiracy theory well past it’s expiration date. But I’m not telling you to stop believing. I’m just explaining why the conspiracy makes no sense, and what questions you need to answer to hope to have any sensible argument.
You seem to think the argument is about whether there are layers, although I’m past trying to figure out exactly what, if any, argument you actually are trying to make.
Others have created layers by scanning a single document. You have yet to show any reason why they are wrong; you haven’t explained why those layers couldn’t have been introduced by the scanning done by the Hawaii officials, or by the secretary who scanned the document for the white house.
Others haven’t explained why the President of the United States would be taking time out of his busy golf schedule to scan and modify his own birth certificate.
I see no evidence to prove the document is a scam, and not simply the result of a scan, maybe through a program with the settings on a different setting than would have been appropriate for a picture of a document.
I’m not ignorant of scanning, but I haven’t relied on, or made any arguments, based on any personal knowledge (I rarely do here, especially about things related to my work, which I don’t discuss here). I’ve seen statements unrefuted by the conspirascists by people who have no reason to lie that I take as the truth, as they are first-hand accounts of what they have done.
On the other hand, I’m not arguing that the document is real. How would I know that it was real? I’m simply arguing that the layering has another explanation, so those saying it proves conspiracy better explain how the layering, how the mucking around with the document, advances the cause of those who are supposed to have been messing with the document.
You seem to be arguing, but again I’m not sure anymore what you are arguing, that you are NOT pushing a particular hypothesis about it being a scam, just that “layers prove it is a composite and not what your barry bassturd has claimed it to be”.
I’m not sure what you mean by that, as I haven’t seen Obama claim it wasn’t a composite; he hasn’t said a thing about that. Layers don’t prove it’s a composite, since others have created layers with a single scan that have similar features. But you don’t seem to be saying how being a composite makes it a scam — I presume by “composite” you mean they took two different documents or a document and other work and layered them together, which I find to be an absurd premise, and being so requires some explanation of why someone would do that, what goal would it serve.
I’m sorry that it takes a lot more words to make rational explanations than it does to simply make ad hominen attacks. It would be much easier to simply respond by calling you name and dismissing your words.
Your conspiracy theory has a rational explanation for how it works, and what it’s purpose would be. I might not agree with it, but it makes “sense”.
I still leave rooom for the possibility that Obama had his BC all along, and specifically held it, and released bad versions, in order to hook people onto a conspiracy so he could make them look like idiots.
There are ways to examine the facts and hold open possibilities that don’t lead to jumping to conclusions and looking stupid, but there are some here at FR that aren’t very good at that.
For example, there was the whole “look at the hand-written numbers, it must be a forgery” argument from a couple of days ago. There are a lot of “never minds”; it remains to be seen if the “layers” argument will end that way, or if it will turn out to be something more nefarious.
Here is the first thought that crossed my mind when I found out that Obama switched back to Perkins Coie lawyers.
You may recall something about that presidential executive privilege may not cover government lawyers and that the left used this against President Bush, but his private lawyers were a better protection under the attorney client privilege to keep information from becoming public or out of the courts.
The letters in the modified layers of the document that show the application of anti-aliasing algorithms were never created by typewriter ink on paper ANYWHERE in the chain of creation. Anti-aliasing computer graphics algorithms did not exist back in 1961. How much evidence of a forgery do you need? And, who knows why they did it? I don’t. But, I can show that they did it. And, I can show that they did a sloppy job of it.
It’s like bedlam tonight.
Full of 0bamhorroids.
I’m a tech idiot. I just try to read and learn. It’s clear the overwhelming evidence is it’s a forgery. Looks like a zillion reasons. As far as the hex characters specifically I have no idea. There should be a tech thread about this for knowledegeable people to weigh in.
Just have to keep looking at various threads, I wish I knew.
Nobody has ever maintained that they were. Certainly I haven't.
Anti-aliasing computer graphics algorithms did not exist back in 1961.
Again, no one has maintained that they were.
It seems that you're missing the obvious (and to some degree, PROVEN) explanation for the existence of the layers.
Have you noticed that some letters are antialiased, while letters right next to them, in the exact same word, are NOT antialiased?
Does this not strike you as odd?
In fact, if you look at the layers, an odd pattern emerges. There are quite a few letters in the very text of the form itself that are separated from the layer you would expect them to be on - the layer with the vast majority of the text from the form - and on another layer entirely. Like antialiased letters from the larger words (the R in BARACK and the 1 in the certificate number), the letters separated from their "proper" layer seem to be random.
Why is this?
The obvious explanation is that it is an artifact of a non-human process.
And in fact, this has been confirmed by a FReeper named reegs who first printed out the birth certificate document (I believe in full color but you might have to ask him) and then scanned the print back in to a PDF file.
The result he got was similar to the original: a document with layers in it. And the interesting thing is that portions of BARACK and the certificate number scanned into separate layers just like in the PDF he started with.
Obviously there is a machine process that took place in scanning the original document in - again, the process has been, in broad strokes at least, duplicated by reegs.
And why do I discount that the layers we see in the White House would have been created by a human being? Well, first of all we know that the machine process can and most likely did create the layers. Secondly, if you look at the actual contents of each layer, it is virtually inconceivable that any human being would create a document in that way.
It even seems very unlikely that a human being would have touched up layers already created by the machine process. Why? Because any human being that did so would obviously know about the layers. And any human being who was thinking about the layers would realize the obvious: that releasing a document with these layers might arouse suspicion of a fraud. Therefore the sanest, safest thing to do, if one were modifying layers already created, would be to merge the layers back in together and release a cleaner FLAT document.
In that way a great deal of suspicion could have been avoided.
Of course I noticed some of the letters were anti-aliased and some were not. That’s how I know the document was tampered with. Unless, of course, you want to maintain that the anti-aliased letters were somehow through an act of Divine Intelligence automatically put in place as substitute characters for what was missing in the original scan. And, the very presence of the anti-aliased characters shows that they were added. Which means the document was tampered with, and was not a flat scan. And, why would they be missing from the original scan in the first place?
There is a reason letters and words were missing from the white layer. They were parts of other words and data that were edited out and replaced. Because words and data were copied and pasted from other sources, and those particular letters contained artifacts that the creators didn’t want displayed in the final document. And, you will notice there is more than one “white layer” with data that was added later.
It’s not rocket science. You put the paper or microfilm down on the scanner, and you scan it. You send the file of the scanned image to the requester, or you print it out and send it to them. You’re done. It’s as simple as that. You don’t “doctor” it with Photoshop, or any other graphics program, and then try to call it authentic. I attached an example of how to do this in an earlier post. Mine had no editing layers, because I didn’t edit it.
That is indeed the conclusion that immediately leaps to mind: A few characters are different, and are antialiased, whereas most are not; therefore the antialiased ones have been tampered with.
However, if they were tampered with, then we have two possibilities:
1) They were tampered with after the layers were separated by the computer process. This is an obvious absurdity for reasons mentioned earlier: anyone doing such tampering would have had no reason to preserve the layers, and every possible reason for eliminating them and releasing a flat image that would not arouse suspicion of tampering.
2) They were tampered with before the layers were separated by the computer process; and in fact are the reason that these particular characters were pulled out when the scanning to pdf process converted a flat document into a layered one.
This is immediately much more satisfactory, but on further glance this theory begins to crumble, too.
First of all, let's look at which letters are antialiased. This is our tentative tamper list.
It includes: The final digit in the certificate number (1), the R in BARACK, 6c, N in Name, f in of, H and al in Hospital, I in Institution, If, h and al in hospital, add in address, L in Limits, 7 in 7a, d in Residence, d in and, S in State, Co in Country, o, in no,, gi in give, the X in a checked box, K in Kenya, ) in Country), S in STANLEY, , in Wichita,, K in Kansas, igna in Signature, of, nt in Parent, the check mark in a check box, a blur in a check box, of, and the A in Attendant.
We have therefore some 30 or so examples of letters that are antialiased. Why these particular letters?
With the sole exceptions of the d in Residence, the R in BARACK, the 1 in the birth certificate number, and the few items that occur in check boxes, they ALL have BOTH of the following characteristics in common:
a) They all occur either at the beginning or end of a word or set of characters OR in very close proximity to a non-text graphic element such as a signature, and
b) There is not the slightest possible reason why anybody would want to change them.
Note that the vast majority of these characters occur in the form itself. It would be very difficult (not to mention meaningless) to redo little letters on the beginnings and ends of words in the form.
In fact, out of the entire list, there is only a single one of the items which if changed could contribute anything meaningful to a forgery. I refer, of course, to the 1 in the certificate number.
Note also that this occurs at the end of a series of characters.
Notice also that one single stroke of the Registrar's signature is NOT antialiased, whereas every other bit of that signature is!
Please explain to me exactly why someone would go through the document and antialias these 30 or so characters, bearing in mind the difficulty of getting a good match on the little letters of the form itself -
...and ALSO bearing in mind that by this difficult method, they know that they are going to arouse suspicion of a forgery... when they could have much easier simply edited the document, made it look perfect, and released it as a flat-layer JPG.
You have also stated:
[The] reason letters and words were missing from the white layer is because [t]hey were parts of other words and data that were edited out and replaced.
Perhaps you can expand on what you mean by this. Having examined the graphic, I see no letters and words "missing from the white layer." Every single letter and every signature stroke has a white layer around it. There are, as far as I can tell, only two possible explanations for this.
1) the white outline was created by a software-driven process, or
2) the white outline was quite deliberately created as an anti-shadow by a human being.
Since 2) again makes absolutely no sense at all, we are back to the scan-to-pdf process as an explanation for this phenomenon as well.
In short: at the moment, I see no remotely reasonable way for your theory to be possible.
Let me add again that I think your analysis has been about the best I’ve seen so far. So you are to be complimented.
But at this point, the theory appears to me to be, in practical terms, impossible.
Thank you thank you!!!
I think the evidence is well short of overwhelming.
In other words they prepared the COLB short form and the COLB long form in the same time frame and just held on to the LF until pressed. They waited to see if it would reach a head then they could release what they did and say na na na na. And the MSM and their base eats it up like IceCream. “See we told ya so”
I am interested in this video. Can you please post the source?
You have too many windows open or something. My refenced comment didn’t mention what you are referring to.
It’s around somewhere, I don’t serve “concern trolls” as your purpose is not mine.
Oh, but it did. You quoted GregNH. Check your own post again.
But you are correct that your purpose and mine are not the same. My purpose is to get at the truth. Yours is to advance your agenda.
http://storyreportscomments.blogspot.com/2008/11/now-there-can-be-no-doubt-as-to-fact.html
But the page (and video) referenced was posted in November of 2008, and makes no reference whatsoever to the long-form certificate released by the White House on Friday. It refers instead to the CertificaTION of Live Birth released in 2008.
Once again, we have investigated an allegation that (if true) COULD have been a bombshell revelation.
And (in regard to the present long-form certificate, at least) it has come to absolutely nothing.
Well over 20 of these allegations have been investigated, by various FReepers, in regard to the document released on Friday.
A few of them (maybe 3 or 4) suggest interesting lines of inquiry and possible ways that one MIGHT demonstrate that the document actually is a fraud.
For example, IF it can be proven that the Hawaii registrar's office numbered birth certificates as they came in rather than using pre-printed forms, THEN we have something interesting.
The rest of the allegations have basically come to nothing.
That certainly doesn't prove Obama's long-form birth certificate is genuine. But it does show that, at present at least, we don't seem to have any compelling evidence at all that it is a fake.
You are a liar and do your own homework.
You’re the one who mentioned it. Presumably you ought to be able to back up points that you’ve made.
But never mind, I found it without you. See above.
Osama’s death has quietened the discussion on this topic, for now. Tomorrow I hope it revives a bit.
No action by Barry the Fraud will ever paper over this deception (aka abstract).
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.