Posted on 09/20/2008 9:19:30 AM PDT by Polarik
That's right. They replaced all of their high-res, image files with lo-res image files that are 90% smaller than their originals.
BUT, they have the gall to leave their original file sizes listed on their links. So, like instead of getting a 2 MB image file, you now get a 200K image file.
In FactCheck's original story, posted, August 21, they made specific references to a few of my discoveries I made about the COLB forgery in an attempt to dismiss them out of hand:
Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:
* No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.
* In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters.
And, they devoted an entire paragraph to dissing my most important finding:
The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.
As everyone who has read my report should know by now that the pixel anomalies, that they call "haloes," are absolutely not scanner artifacts.
Well, on Thursday, the first part of my report made the front page of PHil Berg's website, ObamaCrimes.com, with my promise to show how the forgery was made, and to throughly debunk the FactCheck photos in Part Two.
Last night, I got a call from his legal assistant telling me that FactCheck had done this switch. I thought that she was talking about the thumbnails of the images, and not the downloadable ones.
Then, I saw it for myself -- and you should, too.
Anyone else think they're running scared???
All Obama has to do is allow other media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, IBD, the New York Post, the New York Times, the Washington Times, the Washington Post, Fox News, and CNN to obtain their own certified copies of the CoLB directly from the DoH.
They can all put scans of the certificate on their own websites and the web traffic will no longer be forced to go to one place.
And they can certainly afford the 15 to 20 dollar processing fee.
You're right here. I made this an issue as well. I noted evidence that Seal is an add-on, using PS tools to blend it in and to change the apparent lighting.
To me, the biggest giveaway is the photos of the back side of the Seal -- each one is missing the top 20% of the Seal, right about where the fold should be seen. So, the point is that they cannot take a photo of a phony folded Seal from the reverse side. If they had a real COLB with a real Seal impression, then we would have seen the entire Seal from the rear. There are other giveaways, but I'm saving them for Part Two of my report.
(2) On the blowup image of the seal, with supposed 90 degrees rotation of the document with a view to the left, the printed lines form a different spacing pattern than they do on the whole (alleged) COLB. That suggests that the seal image may have been applied to a different document.
Duly notied as well. My detractors tried to dismiss that as an optical illusion because of the angle, as well as write off the obviously phony texture of the paper as well as the "burst" of light running perpendicular to the Seal.
One more issue: the use of a "signature stamp" by the registrar (actually a stamp with a boilerplate (alleged) certification of authenticity and the registrar's signature underneath that certification).
I mentioined that, but in the context of, "Why is the date stamp, allegedly put on the back, so prominently displayed from the front side of the COLB (aka, the ONLY side), when not even the second fold is visible?
Like, did a gorilla load up a cheap, rubber stamp and mash it into the paper?
Great points, justiceseeker93!
I'm just commenting on the undue riducule heaped upon Polarik on this thread. I haven't visited fact check in some time, as I consider them biased, ill informed amatuers, and appreciate FReepers who alert us to suspected fraud and manipulation, especially when the deceivers are hanging neon "Trust Me" signs on their storefronts.
Thanks, 4woodenboats. I take their ridicule as a sign I'm on the right track. I did want to mention that if the FactCheck photos were reduced just to conserve bandwidth, then why did they remove the Exif data -- that Israel Insider blasted them about?
And, of course they removed the highly damning, Exif data to reduce the bandwidth. too?
“And, of course they removed the highly damning, Exif data to reduce the bandwidth. too? “
The hi-res photos were grabbed by everybody on the planet. Replacing them with lo-res versions or removing them entirely makes absolutely no difference. None. Any Exif data was already captured and examined.
Exif data? I scan my images into Photoshop, resize and save them as JPG files.
Maybe fact check should reccomend that visitors purchase & become profficient in the use of photoshop before viewing images on their site.
“Maybe fact check should reccomend that visitors purchase & become profficient in the use of photoshop before viewing images on their site.”
Maybe factcheck spent a pantload of money hosting the hi-res images and figured anybody who was interested in taking apart the bits had already done so.
Sometimes a duck is just a duck.
BUT, for a group that prides themselves on FACTS,, the FACT is that they did not change the file sizes listed on their web page. And, NO, the kid they hired to build the page did not forget to change them.
Exif data? I scan my images into Photoshop, resize and save them as JPG files.
You scan your photos into Photoshop? What a waste of time that is.
Problem solved.
None of that is necessary. Only a few tinfoil hat types are are objecting. Obama doesn’t have to do anything. The naysayers have to come up with concrete proof that he wasn’t born in Hawaii. So far they have failed miserably. Nobody is paying any attention to them.
In any case, factcheck posted the hi-res photos for a while and then replaced them with lower resolution versions to save bandwidth. That seems perfectly logical to me. I can’t come up with a decent conspiracy theory on this one.
FactCheck has refused to do full page, high resolution, flatbed scans of the CoLB. This, in spite of the fact that there have been numerous requests for these kind of scans. They ( h.r. scans ) were done with the first set of copies that appeared on FTS and Kos websites. Do they ( FactCheck ) believe in the validity of the document or not...??
Now that the case is in court, they should just provide a certified copy of the long form at that would do more to squelch rumors and conspiracies than anything else.
Refusing to provide an actual copy of the birth certificate only serves to fuel the rumor mill.
Your suggestion in 161 would be great, but then I'd like to see Sarah Palin get a fair interview on Oprah before the election, Jughead's form 180, and a complete list of foreign donors to Obama's campaign.
Some things we have to do without, but we sure as heck don't have to give a website that claims moral authority in it's very name a pass on providing a clear, concise view that the average joe can make a judgement call on without special software, and the average joe doesn't have photoshop, much less Polarik's skills, diligence, and the consideration to alert others.
If "FactCheck" can't produce convincing facts, then they should rename to something like Nuances,Pictures,Rumors
If that were even remotely true, then why do they still have the 1.5MB image of Obama's bogus COLB posted on their site three and one-half months later??? If "millions of people have already downloaded it," then by the same logic as the apologists for Obama, they should have removed it by now
Thanks for the excellent perspective on file sizes and reality. Your answers will serve to generate the sound of crickets. That’s the sound that naysayers make when they realize they’ve been wrong but are too prideful to admit it. Plus, the fact that you’ve been getting a lot of flak proves you’re over the target. So, keep up the good work. The case becomes more convincing each day, especially with Obama not even answering the legal requirement in Berg vs. Obama. Soon, Obama will learn how much power that pissed off judges have.
Thanks, Kev. LOL! I'm looking forard to the sound of crickets will bw welcome change from the sounds of blood-sucking mosquitoes.
It's definitely big, but my award for biggest red herring ever is Obama's skreed about "Bin Laden and Al Qaeda." OBama has no intention of going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Out of one side of his mouth, he says that we should go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, while, out of the other side of his mouth, he says that Al Qaeda is operating from 60 countries worldwide.
If he really meant what he said, then basically, what he would do is to carpet bomb the mountains and caves where a washed-up Bin Laden might be for maybe 30 minutes or less (Bin Laden is constantly on the move), along with some of his aides who are scared sh*tless to ever show their faces in public, and that, somehow, is going to make the global Al Qaeda network conduct LESS terrorism? Is that what Obama Bin Laden wants to do?
;~)
Are the high res pics for sale? Or will they soon be? That may be the answer why. $$$$$$$$$$$
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.