Georgia Teen Figures Out Birth Certificate- Official Proof 1 ( Layers )

youtube ^ | April 27, 2011 | Albert Renshaw

[RightField]

self ping

[NMEwithin]

I’m not sure I see your point....either way the pixels should be uniform regardless of whether it was scanned or printed and then scanned.

[keep your powder dry]

BTT

[Yo-Yo]

I searched this but didn't find it.

You're kidding, right? It was only posted a couple hundred times. Two months ago.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;q=quick;s=obama%20certificate

[Thermalseeker]

Not a problem - the photocopy, which is recent, is on security paper, not the original which was copied out of a bound book.

Actually, it is a problem and here's why. In order for it to be copied onto security paper the fields on the security paper would have to match exactly to the fields used on the typed 1961 form version (assuming one exists). The purpose of the security paper is to prevent alteration of the form using a photocopier. What you're saying happened is exactly what the security paper is supposed to prevent. From the Adobe alterations and layering you can see that the security paper motif itself was altered, as well as the type in the data fields. This shows deliberate manipulation on paper that didn't exist in 1961. At the very least Obamalamadingdong's information was entered into a form that came along much later than 1961.

[mountainlion]

The so called security paper does not show up inside many of the letters.

[lacrew]

Shouldn’t the area inside the ‘C’ show signs of the green security paper?

Somebody wrote a column a few weeks ago - with the idea that this was deliberately a very sloppy fake....the believers will continue to believe, and the number of skeptics will grow, pointing out the obvious mistakes...to be mocked and ridiculed by the media and Hollywood.

[muawiyah]

There are some older threads on the subject that explain what you are looking at.

Remember, you are not looking at the original typed and rubber stamped document.

There are two items the Regime has put out there for our examination. One is an Official COLB and the other is a photocopy of the Official COLB.

The COLB is, in fact, an electronically produced copy of a stored image (probably a microfiche of the original original), with some additional information placed in and around that area for purposes of identification and authentication.

The final COLB sent out was also rubberstamped by the current certifying official.

Because of all the copying, recopying, printing, photography and artifacts of the consequence of it having been typed, written on and rubber stamped in the past, you will "see things" regarding the pixels ~ that mean little more than that you do not have your hands on an original image of the item signed the day Obama was born.

There are a couple of birth certificates out there for the Nordyke Twins who were born just after Obama. By general agreement "things" that appear on those two COLBs that also appear on the OBAMA COLB are considered "within the range of that which is normal".

The only real fun in the discussion is dealing with the "things" that do not appear on the Nordyke Twins COLBs but do appear on the Obama COLB.

This particular thread is dealing with OLD BUSINESS ~ and not the sort of thing that ought to make anyone's head explode.

That does not mean the OBAMA COLB is legitimate ~ just that if it's a forgery (a frequent claim) then it's pretty good since it is virtually identical to OTHER COLBs of comparable etiology.

[Thermalseeker]

It was printed on security paper a few weeks ago. That doesn’t make it a forgery. The original was scanned at some point, stored for an unknown period (perhaps decades), and then printed on the security paper.

And you are certain of this because?

I'm referring to obvious technical flaws and you are making statements about the disposition of this document that you have absolutely no way of knowing unless you've worked in the Hawaii Department of Vital Statistics for the past 50 years.

Groan, indeed.

[Broker]

OK, let’s continue to use this same surveillance technique on BH Obama’s conduct and connections.

[svcw]

Bottom line, it doesn't matter. If Obama stood in front of Congress and the American people and said: “I am not an America citizen and I am not therefore not eligible to be President”. Congress would have to act, and they wont. The Republicans are cowards and the democrats are idiots.

[muawiyah]

There are people who have lived through the growth and development of this technology ~ all the way from the days of the hectograph ( http://www.officemuseum.com/copy_machines.htm ) to your latest LCD projector. BTW, a mistake in the HECKTOGRAPH review ~ that was invented long before 1876 since the last Buchanan Postmaster General prohibited copies made by hectograph from being entered in the mails. He was a Souvern’r protecting slavery and hectograph was used by Abolitionists to print up dozens of antislavery tracts for distribution to slaves and pro free labor folks in the Souf’. I think it came along in the 1850s at the latest.

[muawiyah]

Which means "they know" and can review these two documents with an experts eye ~ without having had to work in the Honolulu BOH offices.

Did you know, lo and behold, we had some Freepers call up the BOH out there to clarify procedures. I, myself, estimated the size of the building that is needed to store the originals in standard document binders, which is not all that enormous, and could be easily done ~ and would only take a couple of employees to maintain once they went to microfiche back in the 1960s (like everybody else in America).

[ctdonath2]

I am certain because it is plainly obvious to those familiar with document processing systems & history. Every “technical flaw” I’ve seen discussed is easily and mundanely explained.

[Tatze]

The actual document in the archives is not on security paper. I’m not even sure the copy of the actual document was on security paper, because a copy shown by several news orgs had no security hash marks on it. Only the WH copy had the security hash.

Definitely some odd stuff going on.

[I cannot think of a name]

“Are you talking about photocopiers or mimeograph machines?”

I think the brand name was Savin. It wasn't mimeograph, but the paper did come in a roll and there was this two part toner. The entire process and machine was a gigantic POS.

[sten]

usually surveillance stops when the perp is burning down the house...

[Old Student]

“Actually, it is a problem and here's why. In order for it to be copied onto security paper the fields on the security paper would have to match exactly to the fields used on the typed 1961 form version (assuming one exists). “

You're assuming the security paper has the form pre-printed, which isn't necessarily a good assumption. You can buy blank security paper, as for checks, for example, with nothing pre-printed, or to fit certain templates for specific programs that print checks, like QuickBooks, etc. It's easier to get now than it was a decade ago when I bought my last pack of 3-to-a-page check printing paper. Had to go with the generic paper as no one made it for MS Money AND at the same time affordably cheap. There were LOTS of options for Quicken, and others, though.

If I dug through my boxes of old stuff, I've got 2/3rds or so of that last package, and could probably print my own “birth certificate” on it. Only problem would be that I bought pre-perforated paper...

OS

[ctdonath2]

I've witnessed the development of document processing technologies. Right around the time HI would have digitized all BCs, storage technology was limited enough that certain obvious & creative solutions were in use to compress the scanned images to very small files. These techniques included separating out multiple "layers" of preprinted form content (compressed to barely-legible low-resolution low-bit-depth severely-cropped sections), unique form content (more legible but still anemic (by today's standards) highly-compressed sections), and legally important content (higher resolution, grayscaled, but carefully selected sections such as signatures); each of these sections would be stored as an unassembled box of scraps, pieced and pasted together when needed to regenerate a legal equivalent of the original. Those files, having no content of higher quality and no reason to regenerate en masse at great cost to modern norms, were retained pretty much as-is. So, a few weeks back, the Obama's minions descend on HI with a large carbon footprint (no FedEx here, gotta send a high-powered lawyer in person!) to fetch a "copy of the original BC", which is regenerated from these legally satisfactory (but confusingly antiquated to modern eyes) fragments of a scan of the original, and printed on modern "security paper".

They did not - as is obvious to any knowledgeable observer - go into a warehouse and pull an ancient photocopy made on modern security paper.

Eminently sensible - if you understand the history of digital document processing, historical limitations of data storage, and the growth of legal acceptance of digitized material.

[Thermalseeker]

This still doesn't explain the use of security paper that didn't exist in 1961. If you look at a Cashier's Check, for incidence, the entire document has the security motif in the background. In some incidences, it's a watermark. The numbers, signatures and other data printed on the check are printed on top of the security motif, and do not have white background inside the lettering. On Obamalamadingdong's BC some of the hand written letters, like the "O" and "b" in "Obama", as well as some of the questionable typed letters don't have the security motif behind them. This indicates alteration, exactly what the security paper is supposed to show. Compare the signature of the parent with the signature of the attendee and you will see exactly what I'm talking about.

As to why the White House would put up such a document that has so clearly and obviously been altered is about as curious as them thinking they can spend their way out of debt.