Sheesh, Here is page 52:What does it say for "Race"?
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!!!
The thing I have not resolved yet is that the document posted by the Whitehouse is so technically flawed, but the copy provided to the AP, which is on a white background not security paper, is perfect. I have not found a single flaw in it yer even at 3200x magnification.
Good lord. If the signatures didn't match, folks would point *that* out.
Do atheists agnostics or unitarians “baptize”?
Ann was probably one of the above
obama senior was in the US on a student visa under auspices of a Unitarian program, may have been what got him in same orbit as Stanley Armor Dunham
Sheesh, Here is page 52:
Hey, when “I” can see the difference with what little I know about “PhotoShop” ... then, trust me, ANYBODY can see there’s something wrong with this. Bring up the pdf from the white house ... use ctrl and the mouse wheel to zoom and unzoom ... as you are doing this, watch what happens. All of the numbers disappear EXCEPT for the “1” which stays ... why is that? Then zoom in tight on the last “41” look at the differences between the pixillation between the 4 and the 1 ... and this is “proof” ... well, yes I guess it is. It’s proof this is a forgery and he’s a fake. Prove it for yourself, don’t take my word for it.
Hey, you gave it a good shot. It was interesting and we all learned something. Thanks for your post and your high character shown.
Seeing “African” or “Black” in an early ‘60s BC is probably the same as the “th” superscript in the doc Dan Rather created re Bush. Glaring evidence of phoniness. Like letterhead showing a ZIP code before 1963.
People would then be saying, "It's too perfect--it must have been altered!"
Besides, this way it distracts his critics with a sideshow for a bit longer.
Post 7 does offer a seemingly valid answer to your post question.
ukelele was around in 1982!
Thanks!
Didn’t think it was the author LOL.
I see your point.
“Good lord. If the signatures didn’t match, folks would point *that* out.”
Are you kidding me? Nobody could reproduce his own signature that perfectly! They have only lengthened some ends, but the angles and curvatures are the same, as I said. Try this yourself on a piece of paper.
My guess is that nobody would have used “Communist” as a Race designation either...
I'll ask the same of you.
Nobody could reproduce his own signature that perfectly!
The signatures are not a perfect match. They match enough to indicate that the same person signed them. Isn't that why we sign official documents?
This is how STUPID they think we are. The WHITE HOUSE web, has an article on Barry releasing his BC. They decided that we needed to compare it to the first. Their link (says click her), goes to a printout they photographed from SNOPES with the date of 4/25/2011.
WHAT THE HECK IS THE WHITE HOUSE DOING PRINTING SOMETHING OFF OF SNOPES. WHERE IS THE “REAL” (cough, cough) COPY OF THE COLD THAT WAS RELEASED ON FACTCHECK AND KOS?
The President prints a copy of something on SNOPES and that is what we are presented as TRUTH?
Re: “NOBODY
in 1961 ever would have written “African” for “Race” on any sort of an official document. ‘Negro” is possible, “African American” is (barely) possible, “Aframerican” is posible, but “African” is not possible. This is total BS.”
***********
Agree — 1961 was a really volatile time re race relations. Even in a place like Hawaii (not well developed at that point) I’m sure the ‘father’ would’ve been listed as NEGRO.
(In my family at that time, there were several older persons who called blacks ‘darkies’ and did not have a mean bone in their bodies, either. That’s just what blacks were called by many in 1961 Chicago. “African?” Please, that’s just ridiculous.
“U.K.L. Lee”?
Yeah, RIGHT.
And how come this and the COLB have two different numbers?
The doctor is dead? Well, how CONVENIENT.
This isn’t even a GOOD forgery.
I've been looking at several documents I've scanned over the past few years at 800 and 1600 zoom, and the text all looks the same. I mean, none of those docs contain any of the BS which appears on this document for Bork Obunga.
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.