Posted on 06/26/2011 12:57:41 PM PDT by steadcom
I took the exact pdf from the White House website and opened it in Photoshop. I then took a copy of the "Obama" name on one line and put it over the "Obama" in another line. The "B"s match exactly !! This is a statistical impossibility unless the document is a fake. No typewritter from 1961 will produce the exact letter on the pixel level.... The person who made the fake document forgot to make a different "B" on the pixel level. If you don't believe it, try it yourself in Photoshop.
It's actually highly probable depending on what scanning software is used, because that's what it's supposed to do. To make text more readable, the scanner will sharpen the text by overlaying a high-resolution character that matches the original as best as possible. Every time it does this, it creates a new custom font, which it will repeat when it recognizes another character that's nearly identical.
You can see this same effect in other scanned documents. For example, open this PDF file and observe the L's in the words "Intelligence Bulletin" (among many other cloned letters).
Thank you, I was not aware of that.
“Sandra Lines said it best in her analysis of the work done by Pollard on the COLB. Paraphrasing - to determine the authenticity of a document you need - THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT”
Obfuscation anyone?
No one is saying his “original” is a fake. No one has seen it (if it exists).
The COPY, SCAN, of the purported original is a FAKE.
That we do have. The white house released it on the white house web site and Obama himself has claimed ownership of it.
SHEESH!
Do you have an explanation for the straight text where it should be curved at the edge of the document caused by the fold of the book it was in?
That would be with OCR trace to import a document and correct the spelling with the option to change the letters.
There is no reason at all to run this type of program on a scan, unless the reason was to manipulatr the scan.
Got that?
It makes the text crisper and easier to read. I don't need to explain why that would be preferred when scanning older documents.
The text would be “crisper to read” if the jerk administration didn’t need a white halo and many different documents to make the ‘original’...that Obama can’t find anymore.
The option to release an actual scan, like Bobby Jidal, was not beyond Barry’s reach.
BS and excuses...
If it’s a fake then a prosecuting attorney somewhere in America should be willing to initiate a grand jury investigation for criminal fraud, document tampering and forgery. If the evidence is credible, indictments can be issued.
The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners has certified experts who determine the authenticity of documents in legal proceedings.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (rule 902, it can be googled) a birth certificate is a self-authenticating document as long as it carries the state Seal and the signature of the state official authorized to attest to its authenticity. In the case of Hawaii, that would be the signature stamp of Registrar of Vital Statistics Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D.
What you really need to do if you want to pursue this "new" discovery is look up all the threads from earlier this Spring on this topic "birth" here at FR and read your way through them.
I suggest you do some research here at FR and review them. See what real experts say.
BTW, I spent most of my life in several aspects of the printing industry so dont' get too uppity around me or I'll think you are a Leftwingtard disruptor.
I did enough travel and worked in enough areas that I probably would have noticed if anyone had bought a manual typewriter ~
Now, about the ribbon ~ I sure don't recall carbon ribbons at the the time but I do remember using old, faded, stretched and well beaten down cloth ribbons that'd be re-inked.
All things are possible. I suppose all sorts of woven materials were used for ribbons at that time.
None of the typing is at carbon ribbon levels but there are pre-printed items on the page. Thankfully we are past that point in time where folks were taking a look at the rubber stamp images and telling us it was fake since those characters didn't match that of the typing.
Thanks. I’ve read all the earlier discussions. And it’s not my discovery, it’s simply a comment by the author of this latest piece.
No, this isn’t new. But it needs to be discussed until it gets through the thick heads of the Lamestream media.
Then we'll have something to prove the LFBC provided by Obama is a forgery.
We even had this way back with the forgeries Dan Rather tripped up on. Virtually everything could be demonstrated to be able to be done ~ even the format for the "letters" (simply following a Department of Air Force style book that was current up into the early 60s but was no longer used in the 70s. We found that in the military mail cancellation situation down in the Florida in the 2000 election that Department of Navy had NOT replaced their copies of the Domestic Mail Manual on ships at sea or foreign military basis for probably 10 years. So it is possible for military people to forget to play with the paper in the correct order.)
The one final absolute certainty was that the typographer who'd produced the forgeries used a font not available in the early 1970s AND he'd left "kerning on".
That wasn't available at that time either on typewriters of the kind ordinarily found on Air Force field facilities. Conseuently when our guy produced IDENTICAL COPIES with WORD that proved the forgeries to be forgeries. In short, the PROOF was the ease of making an identical duplicate elsewhere.
What we are finding with the Obama materials is that there's no magic bullet. On the other hand he claims to have been born in 1961 in Hawaii, and at that time (2 years after statehood) folks would have been lucky to have any idea of who was in charge, where to get it, how to use it and a million other problems attendant to regularlization of administrative due process by the NOW state of Hawaii.
No doubt "mistakes were made". If they weren't we'd need to be very suspicious given the conditions.
About 95% of the items people draw attention to would have logically been created in 1961 when the original document was prepared. About 2% involve artifacts in the "image" introduced at the time everything was photographed for transfer into what was probably a microfiche system (then popular with government offices who had large file storage and retrieval problems ~ they really cut the cost).
The rest of the problems ~ 3% ~ relate to final "production", and there you need to know a little bit about scanning, pixelation, xerographic process (essentially the same as laser printing), paper quality, and dirt.
People like Mr. K don't want you to know that. His ambition is to GET RID OF OBAMA.
That's my ambition too, but I don't see that we advance things very much by trying to gloss over "strange" elements that can be readily explained, or which should, in fact, be expected.
I can see him walking into court with the pixelation querries ~ the judge's eyes will roll up in his head.
Much better to walk in with PROOF that this is a forgery ~ and one way we can find that proof is to look for the IMPOSSIBLE, not just the apparently statistically IMPROBABLE.
Imagine a professional forger with decades of experience behind him and the best equipment in the world at hand to produce whatever he needs. Do you really think that person is going to give you cheap clues? Is he going to hide the truth in plain sight? Or, is he going to make sure that everything you see is perfectly consistent with equipment capabilities at the time various "changes" could have been expected with any original documentation. Fur Shur he's not going to put his signature in ink dots at microscopic levels.
Advertised with the common theme of "Golden Touch" as were so many 1950's Underwood machines, both standard and portable. This model replaced the Underwood 150 in 1957, and was built until part-way through 1960. In most essential features, the following Underwood standards are quite similar through to the end of production in the mid-1960's, following merger with Olivetti in 1963.. This machine is serial J13-8072733 and was built in 1958.
Source Underwood Typewriter Gallery
This 1960s Remington Monarch typewriter is so very Mad Men! Joan Holloway, eat your heart out! The Remington Monarch was manufactured beginning in 1962, through the decade.
The typewriters body is metal, with lovely, clean lines, and a predominantly two-tone color scheme in dove gray and soft-white. They top of the keys mirror the body's white tones, with the undersides of the keys being a fabulous, funky, dark brown. The machine measures roughly 11"w by 12"d by 4 1/2"h.
Source = http://www.etsy.com/listing/54608028/vintage-1960s-remington-monarch-manual?image_id=168739506
Elunder, when you cite “experts” tell us which ones. Just saying “CIA Agent” might well mean someone like Valerie Plame ~ and what would that be worth?
The FIRST typewriter ribbons were strips of carbon paper! Carbon paper was invented in 1808. Practical typewriters came around sixty years or so later and they used carbon paper ribbons.
See http://www.kevinlaurence.net/essays/cc.php
Why does there need to be names and addresses of these ‘ex-CIA’ for you? Do you need their family status and age as well? How about a state and middle name?
This is sick!
Where is the REAL birth certificate?
Hawaii has no reason at all to seal the certificate now, fool.
Geesh, I remember that my Dad’s offices purchased new heavy office manuals in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. I also remember thinking I had made the big time when I blew a wad on a portable electric Olivetti for personal use that was the same year the Apple II came out. Before that I used cheap portables and old hand-me-down Underwoods or Royals.
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.