Open letter to Donald Trump

05/12/2011 | nikos1121

[BuckeyeTexan]

There are not multiple image resolutions in what you provided or in the original PDF at the WH web site. There are the same number of pixels per inch in both signatures. If you examine both signatures in their entirety, you’ll see that the ‘A’ in “Ann” and the ‘D’ in “Dunham” appear just as “pixelated” as the ‘D’ in “David.”

Using different pens, inks, and/or pressure when signing names on the same document can and will result in lighter or darker signatures, which will result in exactly what you see. (It will do the same thing if the document is faxed.) Each pixel has an RGB (Red-Green-Black) value determined by the imaging software that digitized the document. Darker, fatter, heavier signatures (as parts of SAD’s are) can result in higher black values in the corresponding pixels. Lighter and thinner signatures can have lower black values.

[mad_as_he$$]

It is a forgery for simply one reason. It does not have an embossed seal.

[Triple]

Here is my proposal for Obama to clear this whole thing up:

o Waive privacy rights to the documents relating to his birth with the state of Hawaii.

o Have Hawaii deliver a certified copy of the birth certificate, to all requestors - for a charge of $115.

o The proceeds will cover administrative costs ($15) and a $100 to a homeless shelter.

Since the information is already out, there is no real loss of privacy to Obama, and everyone can get a reminder of one of the iconic issues of Obama’s first term. (And real hard-core skeptics can examine a true certified paper copy.)

PLUS

Some great charities will get the benefit of both birther skepticism and gift giver’s generosity. These things would sell like hotcakes.

Come on Obama - feed the homeless...

[BuckeyeTexan]

How do you know? Have you seen the actual document? Many have pointed to circular indentations in the form of a seal on the left side of the page at line 23.

I don’t know if it does or doesn’t have an embossed seal, but making absolute assertions from a digital image are futile.

[nikos1121]

I respectfully disagree with you. The D in Dunham for example is pixelated, but the rest of the signature is not.

Did you watch the orangegold1 YouTube sigment on this?

[mad_as_he$$]

I challenge you to find any other scanned document that is embossed that does not have a very strong remnant of the seal. Especially if it is on “security paper”.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Donald isn’t done. Wait a few days and a new Trump will hit the air ways but—when he does so its going to be with proof. He still has, I believe, a few tricks up his sleeve.
If Biden and Obama are pulled from power the president would be speaker of the House? Trump is many things but a RINO isn’t one of them—He may not be a Conservative but he is a capitalist—and a good one too. Watch and see him work his magic.

[ml/nj]

There are not multiple image resolutions in what you provided or in the original PDF at the WH web site.

Lets look again:

Look at the 'm' in Dunham partially visible at the upper right. There you will see a couple of small pixels which you will not find duplicated in the Sinclair signature. These same small pixels are in evidence in the staircasing in the riser in the 'h' in Dunham, but not at all in the riser in the 'S' in Sinclair where the staircase steps are much larger. Note too that these two risers present at the same angle to the horizontal. They are clearly of different resolutions.

(Also of note is how the green safety background is disturbed in a completely different way by these risers even though that background is composed of "large" pixels throughout.)

ML/NJ

[nikos1121]

I want you to know, that I was as skeptical of even more so than anyone on this until I listened to this young geek expert on YouTube talking about the document that was posted on the govt website.

Please understand, that the most striking thing about this, is that it IS AN OBVIOUSLY ALTERED DOCUMENT. We’re not talking about nuances here. We’re talking about blatant if not laughable alterations to the point that either the WH is actually that arrogant to think that they’ve marginalized everyone who tries to bring this up again or they are just that stupid.

I think it’s arrogance. And you should be as angry as I am.

Please see the YouTube postings by orangegold1 and then report back here. It should not take long, and he’s updating his analysis,

But he is not the only one. There are several professionals...probably numbering in the thousands who have seen this.

There have been over 550,000 views on his posting, and he has not had anyone as yet rufute his findings.

I repeat, this is flagrant disception.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Which specific video do you want me to watch. There are several.

[GregNH]

You are clearly not serious.

4/22/11 The pResident issues a letter to HDOH to request TWO COPIES of his LFBC and authorizes Perkins & Coie to fetch them

4/25/11 Ms. Judith Corley of P&C flies to Hawaii to pick up TWO PIECES OF PAPER, not a PDF file!

4/26/11 BHO waves the pieces of paper for all to see.

So tell us Buckley how we ended up with a multi-layered electronic file posted on the WH website?

[GregNH]

Ref for above http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-correspondence.pdf

[nikos1121]

No, you tell me.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I challenge you to find any other scanned document that is embossed that does not have a very strong remnant of the seal. Especially if it is on “security paper”.

[GregNH]

The question is asked of Mr. Buck

[nikos1121]

I can’t access YouTube at work so as to give you the direct link, but of the three that he posted, (he have more now) it would be the first one with the most hits. There were around 560,000 at last count a few days ago. It runs about 7 minutes.

It starts off slow, but for someone like me who is not really photoshop savvy it was good to get the background. Then like a good mystery novel it takes off.

There are what appear to be dozens if not tens of dozens of alterations.

What struck me too, is in the opening when he said that many people are unaware that the adobe illustrator software dissects out the layering, and also that had this been flattened it would be more difficult to discover.

In summary, after you’ve watched this, ask yourself “Why?” Why would they release a blatantly forged document? Was this on purpose, or does it again show the complete incompetence of our gov’t?

I think it’s arrogance. I think Obama feels untouchable, and believes that he can marginalize the general public who now bring the matter up. He won’t come out and defend the document, just basically ignore ignore ignore calls to do so.

So this should get good. Thanks for taking the time to look at this. You will be a strong convert if you agree with the findings of orangegold1.

[nikos1121]

The original COLB that was released did not have creases in it and there was no seal. The serial number was also blacked out.

[BuckeyeTexan]

As I understand it, the PDF on the WH web site is a scan of a photograph. The layers were created by the scanning software when it attempted to translate characters on a photograph into text. The creation of such layers has been demonstrated in numerous YouTube videos.

[mad_as_he$$]

Thanks for making my point.

[GregNH]

So now you are telling me that the TWO PIECES of PAPER were turned into photographs? Hmmm

There is simply no way to scan a piece of paper and have the scanner make multiple layers! And even if that fantasy were true you certainly wouldn’t have layers that have objects all 90 degrees to the original scan.

That is laughable, seriously.