Posted on 05/19/2011 6:28:25 PM PDT by Red Steel
God bless butterdezillion. If she's talking computer transaction logs, she's at least working in the right sphere... unlike the continued rehashing of the layers, pixels and supposedly nonexistent curve.
and again, the response by the Lame Stream media, “Move on folks, nothing more to see here”
There was no such thing as a PDF document in 1961.
Therefore, this is not the original document.
Since it is not the original document, it stands to reason it is a manufactured document.
So just show us the original documents.
Baselines can be off because when you would roll the carriage, sometimes they didn’t line up well to the lines of a paper. So the baselines vary, that’s not unusual.
what are your credentials?
Excellent find!
You’re absolutely correct. This particular computer file is not an original document.
The more-original document is on paper.
A computer file is produced by scanning the paper document. In this case, it was scanned, then optimized using computer software and converted to a PDF file, which was then posted to the web.
Actually, in this case, the ORIGINAL document almost certainly no longer exists.
The original document would’ve been done on paper, and entered into a physical book. Over the years, the original document was scanned (most likely onto microfiche). I don’t know for sure, but I strongly suspect that the microfiche records were subsequently digitized, and all of the “original” information is now stored in digital form, in an image database.
From there, an image would be printed onto safety paper, stamped and sealed to create a certified copy of a birth certificate.
Reportedly, what we have is a scanned, optimized, converted-to-PDF file of one of those green-safety-paper, certified documents.
That's what I've been trying to figure out. LOL.
He could present his birth certificate in crayon that just says, “Bambi’s birth certificate” and the MSM would say it is real.
As overwhelming is the proof,this is going nowhere.
Amazing how many people believe that the most powerful man in the world can not have a competent forgery made.
Color aberrations,should appear on a true color scan - and present in throughout the WH PDF, but absent in many places indicating manually edited portions of the image.
Kerning present in multiple locations on the document. Typewriters don’t overlap letters.
These are elements that are not introduced by accident of a poor scanning process.
you made your living selling document systems to Government agencies? How much did you make doing that? Enough to complain about high taxes?
I’ve used some of those systems, when I’ve had to go to the local courthouse, and they are some of the most overpriced scams going.
That's actually true. And with 2 years to do it.
Were YOU on the OJ jury? Only a brain dead liberal can ignore the evidence of this forgery.
A computer program optimized by paying attention to what it thought should be all black, and then making those areas all the same dark color.
Kerning present in multiple locations on the document. Typewriters don’t overlap letters.
Old manual ones do. The typewritten letters on the Nordyke twins and Edith Pauline Coats certificates look exactly the same. So are all Hawaii birth certificates from 1961 forgeries?
More to the point: There IS no kerning. It’s a figment of Karl Denninger’s imagination.
The letters on this certificate look just like the ones on known valid certificates.
Sorry to inconvenience true believers with reality, but there it is.
True black should sample at RGB 0 0 0, none came up with that or even close. I checked it against the actual .pdf file, same thing.
I don't know for sure what this means. I would have expected different results. Looks like a color scan to me, wouldn't expect these results with grayscale, and Photoshop tells me it's RGB color on the crops and affadavit as well as the text, 8 bits per channel.
However, the points in the affadavit itself sample in shades of gray, nowhere near green. There are also telltale chromatic aberrations (cyan fringing above the letters and pink below) on the text portion when zoomed up, again indicating it was scanned in color (how the author submitted it).
Sometimes in order to save for the web, you have to convert to color, and this is a new version of PS to me. but I used single point samples.
The green cropped sections are in .png format, but the affadavit is in .jpg format (how the author saved them).
I can't remember who put their name on the line on this analysis, but he presents some of the most compelling arguments yet, indicating there's something seriously amiss.
My credentials are that I’ve worked with computer technology for more than 30 years.
I too spent years working in companies with graphic arts. And you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You are spouting twaddle designed to fool idiots with bullshit.
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.