Posted on 04/28/2011 10:03:29 AM PDT by DCBurgess58
Lots of people have been discussing the subject of the layers found within President Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate. What I haven't really heard discussed yet is the easiliest seen and most damning problem with the document. It contains mixed pixel sizes, clearly visable to anyone by merely zooming in on the PDF in Adobe Reader. First off, let's download the document from the White House.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Once you have downloaded the PDF, follow my instructions for examining it. Some of you may choose to close your eyes to this and not try... But all who do will be in for a shock... You can come to your own conclusions but the truth is unavoidable once you see what I have found.
First off, left click on the PDF to see the full Birth Certificate form as provided by the White House.
Find the part in the upper right hand side, where it says DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and has the numbers 61 10641 written underneath...
Using the Adobe PDF reader, click on the 1600% magnification and look a the numbers 10641...
Check out the number one on the right hand side... notice how pixelated it is? Notice also that it is made up of a bunch of different colors!!! Now get a good feeling for the size of the individual pixels that make up this number...
Now take a look at any of the numbers to the left of the one, notice they are all one color only? More importantly than that, there are numerous places on all the other numbers where you can clearly see how large the size of a single pixel is. The pixals in all the other numbers are only one quarter the size of the pixels in the one on the right hand side.
If you scan a document, the whole document will be made up of identical sized pixels... If this document was real, it would be made up of identical sized pixals...
BUT IT'S NOT!!!
Okay, now zoom the PDF out to where the whole Birth Certificate is visable. Now, left click once on the image and it will go blue... right click and select Copy Image... Now open up Microsoft Paint, Corel Paint Shop or whatever other imaging program you use and paste the image in the program... The basic background of the form is there but almost all of the written data is gone.... What the heck??? Where did all the writing go? There is just white shadowing where the words were.
When you copied the document, the layer with the smaller pixels was NOT coped... That's why you don't see it when you paste the document in an imager... Also notice that the number one on the right hand side did appear in the pasted form. That's because it was the same pixel size as the background form of the document. Now finally, Why is there a white shadow left where the missing text and numbers used to be? Because it was an intentional forgery, they took the time to alter the background of the text and numbers, so that the characters would look realistic... but they screwed up on matching the pixel size of the overlaying text!!!
Finally, remember... I didn't make this PDF... You just downloaded it from the White House!!! GAME... SET... MATCH!!!
My wife and I have also given up on Beck. I'm not one to call somebody a "nutball", or a "conspiracy theorist", because conspiracies take place all the time, especially in politics and among the super-wealthy like Soros. And people with psychiatric diagnosis are often hugely successfull in life and are blessed with true brilliance. That said, Glenn Beck is history in our house. He has all the arrogance and narcissism of Obama, he condescends to his audience as though he's been ordained by God Himself as a prophet, and his approach in general to his audience is... well.... reminescent of a daddy talking to a little boy. Too bad, because he really does have some awesome things to say ---- sometimes.
The POTUS can certainly get any vital record he needs from HI, particularly when his good friend and ally is Governor there. The evidence is all completely controlled by people with a powerful vested interest in maintaining Obama’s bona fides. That was true even when HI had a GOP governor. Compelling evidence that Obama was not born in the US would provoke a constitutional crisis and inflame our festering racial sores. Nobody in the establishment wants that and they would kill, literally, to keep it from happening.
Raising questions about the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate is a waste of energy. More generally, there is no point in arguing about Obama’s eligibility to be President. That question was closed on election day, 2010. Let's just focus on his fitness instead, which is what really matters.
I can see that you are correct on that, it is clearly visable on the image in post 70 as being part of the form.
That 0dumbo would deliberately do this is in keeping with the POS’ character.
That he refused to release even when it could have saved a find flught surgeon’s career is one of the most disgusting things he has done
MuBarack Hussein Obama. Yes.
Hell, no one knows who this guy really is. Even Qaddafi or however you spell his name addressed him as “Baraka Hussein Abu oumama”.
When Mubarak was ousted from Egypt it suddenly occured to me several versions of his name exist.
So his momma called him Barry or whatever and since I have no respect for this jack wagon I call him MuBarak.
No, his “Nationality” is described as “Kenyan”
Picture an original document where that last character is more fuzzy and gray than the others. Depending on the palette used, the sharper characters could appear aliased because of the cutoff levels, while the gray one will be aliased.
As for pixel size, I just scanned a few sheets on an office device made by Ricoh and I got variable pixel sizes—where the colors were more consistent, it had larger blocks. In photos with a large gradient, the individual pixels in the PDF (the device creates the PDFs) were smaller.
I don’t have time to go look at details of the algorithms used, etc., but some of them do use variable pixel sizes and palettes, it seems.
Did you actually look at page 52 of the document? You need to scroll down. It asks the question "Race". The answer given is "Kenya".
Yesterday, I saw a thread with a link that showed the official Hawaii race designations from 1961.
It proved - as we all know - that Negro was used when applicable. Not African.
I wish I had bookmarked that link. I went looking for it again last night. Naturally - with hundreds of threads I looked at yesterday with thousands of replies - I couldn’t find it.
Not only was it reported as “Negro” in Hawaii, but there is proof also - for US census records - that Negro was the required term for National reporting also.
African or Negro. It’s just a small issue. But when you add in all the other inconsistencies ... it starts to stink.
I think in 1961, the official race of the parents was put on the birthcertificate, not the continent of one of the parents. I believe the word “Negro” would have been used instead of African, for this father’s “race”.
One thing I can easily glean from your post is that Obama has everyone guessing and nobody trusts him, (Except for his personal guardians in the media and his bootlicking radical lefties). This doesn't bode well for 'The One'. He may well turn out to be a fantastic poker player, with lots of help from the media, but very few people trust this man.
From an email I rec’d this morning...
http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx
First of all, the birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in “Kenya, East Africa”. This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could have Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the “British East Africa Protectorate”. But, this is not the only thing that I found that just does not jive.
The other item that I looked into was the hospital that Obama was born in. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”. This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
Physicians often have such irregularities in signatures. It assists with catching forgeries for fraudulent prescriptions, so that might be why. Many people leave off all or some of the tittles in their signatures.
I am not a physician, but I put two dots in my signature where there’s no “i”—it’s a distinctive mark. With a pattern of such “stray” dots, I can demonstrate that if a signature is missing it, then it’s a forgery. (Based on a single copy of my signature, one might think the dots are just a stray mark because they don’t belong; thus, they might not be copied.) No, it’s not perfect, but it did work for me once.
You haven’t actually looked at the layers of this particular document, have you?
Words of text in the same text box are split into different layers, portions of signatures are split into different layers. IOW, the way this document is split into layers explodes your theory, it seems.
Obama’s handlers later trot out the original copy just to make the doubters all look like fools.
What would be the point? If he released the real BC three years ago the entire matter would be moot today, and his ratings would be much higher.
As for pixel size, I just scanned a few sheets on an office device made by Ricoh and I got variable pixel sizes—where the colors were more consistent, it had larger blocks. In photos with a large gradient, the individual pixels in the PDF (the device creates the PDFs) were smaller.
I don’t have time to go look at details of the algorithms used, etc., but some of them do use variable pixel sizes and palettes, it seems.
Well, I really thought I had the smoking gun here... but frankly i'm not going to cling to my theory of what I have seen when several of you have provided very good research into why the pixels are a different size. I give... as far as i am considered, my pixel theory is dead on arrival.
Notice that the “Ukilele” signature is almost identical on both documents. They just lengthened some edges, but the curvatures, the angles look the same. Nobody can reproduce an identical signature.
Yes...you’re right. And 1961, seeing “colored” as race wouldn’t have been a stretch either. But “African”?? Pffft!
I’d like to see other period examples of this—if they could find them. LOL
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.