Boxes #20 & #22. Notice how the last number 1 in the year 1961 is darker than the rest of the stamped date. Explainable or doctored?
Posted on 04/27/2011 10:24:09 AM PDT by piytar
If you import the original le from the White House in to Illustrator you will see the image is a clipping mask, meaning they were merged together. The next three pages show the individual pieces. If this were just a scan then why would it be able to be taken apart liket his? Why does the type-writer font look so digitized? Look at the di erence between the two signatures. One looks like it was written on the computer while the other looks like it was actually signed by hand on the document.
(Excerpt) Read more at docs.google.com ...
Oops. I take back my original comment.
If you look through the entire PDF, you see LOTS of places where the scanning program chose to anti-alias something when similar sections and/or characters had not been.
Just go the the doc. You see it on lines, letters, and even parts of the signature.
I’m actually chalking this up to variations in the way the scanner took in and digitally processed the document.
Just curious — have you used that software? Are these the types of layers you get with OCR on? http://wireupdate.com/video/2011/04/president-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf-has-layers/ I’ve seen scanning software that puts layers on top, but the base layers has always been a full image of the graphic, not one with pieces separated out like that. In particular, I’ve never seen one that “whites out” part of the base layer. Then again, I am NOT up to speed on scanning software, and the stuff I use is ancient (in computer terms).
Boxes #20 & #22. Notice how the last number 1 in the year 1961 is darker than the rest of the stamped date. Explainable or doctored?
• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: It is spelled “Ukulele.” link
My take? That’s clearly a STAMPED date. The “1” had more ink on it and was therefore slightly darker. Therefore, the scanner choose to bring that in as a black numeral vs gray.
Same thing on the anti-aliasing throughout the document.
No, that is absolutely wrong. The speculation concerns whether or not his adoption, formal or informal, by his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, resulted in his original birth certificate in the name of Barack Hussein Obama being sealed and replaced with a new birth certificate in the name of Barry Soetoro or other Soetoro surname. In many states, the court which gives approval for a legal adoption of a stepson by a stepfather results in a court order permanently sealing the original birth certificate and birth record, making it unavailable to the adopted child and others without a court order.
That’s a fair observation. This could well be a scanning artefact, perhaps due to some kind of OCR intrusion.
But a scanner that OCR-ed just one number out of a line of equally-sized, equally-impressed numerals would be acting very strangely.
At the very least this scanned document contains a digital artifact which - perhaps innocently - mimics the effect of a crude forgery. For that reason it cannot be regarded as probative.
I would want to see a high resolution photo of the original B/C. The scanned image is simply no good. Trump, if you’re reading this, you know what to ask for!
Another issue, which may have been pointed out elsewhere: Obama’s number on the certificate is 10641. He was born on 8/4 and the certificate was accepted on 8/8 (which itself is another issue). The certificates of twin daughters born on 8/5 and not accepted until 8/11 were numbered 10637 and 10638. Same hospital, too.
I’m wondering what Corsi has to say about all this.
the more interesting thing about the way the scanner made the layers is that the date in 2011 was in the same layer as some of the supposedly older information. they should have been in different layers, but for some reason they were identified by very sensitive scanning equipment as being the same. if there is a red flag here, that is it.
Your take?
Ah, good catch - its stamped.
For that reason the right-hand-most number might well have been applied with more force than the others (by a right-handed stamper) allowing the scanner to treat it differently.
It’s plausible, anyway. Looks like we simply can’t draw reliable conclusions from a document scanned with OCR. Show us a photo Bambi!
I’m not so sure that “4” is really a “4”. Looks more like the other “1”s.
It's not necessarily suspicious, at least not for 1961.
I am a graphic artist and I often save pdfs from Illustrator. When you save as pdf, you get a dialogue box with options. One of the options is to “Preserve Illustrator editing capabilities”. I usually uncheck this option as that will make a larger file. If you are not careful, you can leave that checked on. I believe that is probably what happened here.
Why they messed with it in layers and what it looked like originally...I have no idea.
The Kapiolani Hospial's maternity ward Delivery Book would have an entry for this birth which would clarify that problem. But....
I don’t know. One possibility is if the scanner does multiple scans and then layers for eac color. The layered stuff all/mostly seems to be a different color. Still, I’m suspicious.
Look at the “R” in Barack.
Get real!
I’ll give you the doctor, but 2 different maternity wards??
Oh right, that R in Barack wouldn’t be stamped, but nevertheless it shows the same random artefacting as the ‘1’.
Basically the scanning- or compression- process has turned this PDF into an image with no probative value: you could hide a battleship-load of digital manipulation in this jungle of messed up pixels, or it might be 100% completely genuine. We just can’t tell without a photo.
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.