He mixed two different image file types thorough out the BC he released.
Posted on 05/01/2011 6:45:48 AM PDT by eastexsteve
Bear with me, as I am rather new to this forum. The following is my unbiased examination of the Obama LFBC without any comment or input from outside sources. I'm sure others have made some of the same observations I have, but I assembled some observations that you can see yourself without using any specialized software whatsoever. I haven't seen some of these observations out on the web by anyone else yet. (Although, I'm sure I haven't looked everywhere.) Please feel free to copy the file from Google Docs and do what you wish with it.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1eQRJILO2U0ZWUwODM0ZDktZTg2OC00Yzc0LWI4YzAtODBkZWU2YjBhZDU1&hl=en&authkey=CKv6_hg
Interesting. But then why involve lawyers at all to get a simple birth cert. On the Auntie thread GregNH just posted this:
Here is what I propose. I am sure that now that Ambercrumbie is Gov that the WH thinks it has some cover, and I am sure that goes a long way, but it can’t go all the way. People have a conscience, and some one, if prodded will come forward. There is a video out there that claims that that Hexidecimal information of the LFBC states it was last edited on 6/12/2008. So that means NO ONE in HI had ANYTHING to do with the release of this new document. It was all ready and available for the right time to release.
In other words they prepared the COLB short form and the COLB long form in the same time frame and just held on to the LF until pressed. They waited to see if it would reach a head then they could release what they did and say na na na na. And the MSM and their base eats it up like IceCream. “See we told ya so”
So to get back to my proposal we need to somehow appeal to a patriot in HI that knows that the HDOH did not release anything and comes forward. Someone needs to say, hey we didn’t prepare a LFBC according to Mrs F when she claimed she personally oversaw the “copying” of the “original” document.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2702976/posts?page=1986#1986
The poster has offered a hypothesis, that the document is a forgery. For evidence, he presents the document layers with the anomalies he lists, including the "r" in a different format than the rest of the word "Barack".
But the evidence itself doesn't prove the hypothesis. IN order to prove, or advance, the hypothesis, you need to explain why the anomalies indicate a forgery -- and to do that, you have to explain to what end they would have to replace the "r" in their forgery.
For example, in the Rathergate scandal, they had proportional-font. And the reason was that the document was generated in Word, and someone put the document in WOrd, and showed that they matched. It wasn't that the document looked funny, it was that there were specific problems with the document that could be EXPLAINED by it being a forgery, and it made sense.
Replacing the "r" makes no sense. If they were building a document, they would never build it the way the layers are put together. It would be much easier to do the job. Plus, they would only build something if they had available only a similar document, and had to replace things on the document with the Obama information.
But the document we are looking at is certified by the public official in Hawaii; it would have had his full name on the document. Why would the Obama white house take a perfectly good name on a document, and replace an "r" with a different "r"?
Given that there is a reasonable non-conspiratorial explanation for how this could happen (scanning process), those who argue that this was evidence of forgery do owe the world an explanation of WHY a forger would do what they are seeing.
So the question remains, why replace the 'r'?
And I assume that he also changed other information, information that would have shown he was not eligible. And somehow, the people in Hawaii who sent the two copies didn't notice these modifications in the released document, or else are part of the conspiracy, meaning it's not one person.
And Barack did this on the computer he has hidden in his office, where none of his advisors would know, and hid the oroginals from his wife and advisors and others (because you said he was acting alone).
And what do you think was on his original certificate that he had to modify? Hawaii has certified that he had a birth record, and they sent it to him, so it can't be that he doesn't have a birth certificate from Hawaii. It could be the information that his father wasn't a citizen, except the one he released shows his father wasn't a citizen, and he's always said his father wasn't a citizen, and we all knew that his father wasn't a citizen, and have debated what they means for two years.
So since he didn't modify the part that raises questions, what part did he modify?
Who do YOU think made the fabricated composite?
And why do you dismiss those who have stated that they scaned a document and got the same kinds of layers with the same kinds of OCR anomalies on some layers as you see here? What is your reason for asserting that it is a fabricated composite, and not an authentic scan of a single document?
And why do you use the words "scan of an online document"? We don't scan online documents. If the documents are online, they don't need to be scaned.
But really, what we need to start with is who you think it is that built this fabricated composite scan.
How solid is this “video out there” that makes a claim about the hex characters? Is it credible? Has anyone verified that the claim makes sense?
He mixed two different image file types thorough out the BC he released.
OCR anomalies
There is only one reason to use OCR- To convert an image for manipulation.
OCRs convert file types.
I think you’re hitting the right points and asking the right questions. I’ve been on FR a long time and have seen many a conspiracy theory, good and bad, make the rounds, and this one definitely has the feel of a bad one. I was 50/50 on it prior to the latest release — I thought there was a decent chance there was something embarrassing on the BC that Obama didn’t want revealed and was glad Trump was pushing the issue — but it has now crossed the line into bad conspiracy theory territory.
Are you saying that Bil Clinton staff was involved in a CT to cover up the Monica Affair?
The US president has private time and equipment.
“Anyone even vaguely familiar with applications like Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, and Corel Draw, will find it easy to locate the multitude of manufactured layers that make up the pdf image. It is also possible, at least in Adobe Illustrator, to open Windows—>Actions, and find a play-by-play list of rotations, resizings, and transparency actions made to various layers. Such actions cannot be done if a document is simply scanned, not even if scanned with optical character recognition (OCR) software.”
From this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2713318/posts
It’s obviously a “doctored” document. I’m a computer moron, so do any of you know how to find the play-by-play list from Adobe Illustrator?
You’re too deceitful to continue discussing this with. I am defending the ones who have found the layering, not dismissing them. The issue is the fact that layers prove it is a composite and not what your barry bassturd has claimed it to be. I do not know who fabricated the scam. And your insistence in trying to convolute the simple facts is duly noted, obamanoid.
You poor fool. I wrote ‘on-file’ not on-line. But that little slip shows your agenda quite clearly.
The researcher here did not hypothesize that the BC is fake. He found anomalies in it that can’t be explained by the recipient sharing an electronic copy of a 1961 document, which is what Obama is claiming this is.
Who the he’ll knows why this document was pieced together in this way that doesn’t make sense? There isn’t a good innocent or deceptive reason that comes to My Mind! But it does demand an explanation.
Why was the R in Barack replaced, Mr. president? And/ or Hawaii Dept of Health?
Look. You know Obama lies to us all the time. He might be lying again, no?
But you claimed he modified it to hide some truth that would prove he wasn’t eligible. SO again, you are saying you think he modified it by mixing file types, but aren’t saying how this mixing of file types acheives any aim he had. How does making that “1” different from the “1064” hide a piece of information that would make him ineligible? How does changing the file type on the “r” in his name hide something that would make him ineligible?
You have some interesting side-effects of some process. You have nothing that suggests these side-effects are planned, are the result of some other change that was planned, or would in any way further the goal you claim for the forgery, hiding something that would make Obama ineligible.
Now, having said that, how did he modify the BC he released in a way that hid anything useful, but was undetectable as a change to the people who scanned and delivered his copies of the BC from Hawaii? Since you said Obama, not the Hawaii officials, made this change, your theory implies that there is a real BC in Hawaii, that the Hawaii officials faithfully copied it, verified it was for Barack Obama, and released it to him as the rightful owner. And then Barack modified it, and the Hawaii officials either didn’t notice, or have refused to point out that what he is showing isn’t what they sent.
Bill CLinton didn’t forge documents. On the other hand, I’m certain some people in the white house suspected he had an affair with Monica, but when he insisted she was a stalker, they believed him. Although I still think Blumenthal knew the truth and just hid it. Not coming forward with acknowledgement of a legal affair isn’t the same as falsifying legal records.
Yes, you did. I apologize — it certainly didn’t make sense otherwise.
The person who forged Obama’s birth certificate probably extracted the relevant signatures in the document from other birth certificates or readily available documents of that era. My signature never seems to be exactly the same when i sign my name. If I signed my name 100 times and overlaid the signature there would be a slight variation in each one. With such a sloppy graphics forgery the odds are that the signature selection was the easiest for them to find and extract. My question and suggestion is: Even with the same signor, do signatures always have some slight variation? Has anyone tried to locate where the extractions that were inserted into this birth certificate came from? Most likely these signatures came from another available certificate and not some obscure document. It would be interesting to find an exact match of one of the signatures on another document. I am not remotely knowledgeable in computer graphics, however with the advancement in the field, is there the possibility that typewriter strokes can have some of the unique individual characteristics referenced above. I would try to research this more, however i have to go to work, Im broke and uneducated.
That’s because Adobe reader itself redraws a layered document layer at a time when you resize the window. It’s a poor attempt at a forgery, no doubt. They should have flattened the image before they saved it. Download this one and tell me what you find.
It seems to me that you are correct about the document having been done on a manual typewriter.
First of all, it is, practically speaking, pretty much impossible for the basic writing to have been done using a computer. A typewriter (either electric or manual) must have been used.
Why?
There is clear visible difference between letters of the same type. Look at the lower-case a's and s's. They are all different. While such differences could theoretically be photoshopped to appear differently, it would take many hours and a fine hand to do it. One would have to be insane (and have plenty of time to boot) to photoshop all the letters when using a typewriter would do.
So whether the document was real or forged, I think we can safely assume that a real typewriter was indeed used on the "fill-in" information that appears typed.
There are, of course, two types of typewriter: manual and electric.
I agree that it looks like it was done with a manual typewriter. I'm not 100% certain of that, however. There might have been some model of electric that could on occasion produce the same kind of result on the O and the K. But I would think the odds of it being a manual typewriter are better than 95%.
A major problem I see with the idea that the multiple layers originated simply by combining pieces of documents is that pieces of words - both in the typed text and the form text - appear on multiple layers. This makes little sense to me unless the layers are the result of a computer software process.
I would not be certain whether the document came off of a roll of microfilm, or whether it was copied out of a book, although I think the microfilm is more likely.
In any event, I think a black-and-white image was basically printed onto green security paper.
As far as the "kerning" is concerned, I think what we are looking at here is a mechanical variation in the spacing of letters as a result of the mechanical nature of the typewriter. Again, I think a manual typewriter was used here. They had long arms that flew up and struck the page. A good deal of vibration was involved. Sometimes one arm would even sideswipe another on the way up to the paper. To see a bit of variation in the spacing between letters strikes me as very normal.
If there is evidence of forgery, it would be that the layers we see, as we see them, could not have been produced by the scanning process. And yet, if I were going to work with scanned layers to produce a forgery, I would make sure not to use layers that could be traced back to a forgery.
So I'm still not getting to any clear evidence of a forgery here. No clear evidence of authenticity, either, but it's hard to prove a positive.
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.