Posted on 05/01/2011 6:40:13 PM PDT by ml/nj
I'm not any sort of graphics expert. I invite the comments of those who are. But if any are going to tell me that Adobe Acrobat or Illustrator do these things to a pdf file, then please provide me with some example from the Internet of a pdf file that was posted before April of this year that purports to be derived from a single scan of a single document, that exhibits the same peculiarities as those I show here, which are present in what I will refer to as Bamie's Bogus Birth Certificate II (BBBCII).
I think all must agree that the human who created the White House pdf file had to have done so by once scanning, or photographing, a single document; and then importing the entire image so derived into some one program that produced the file. If more than one image was used to produce the file, then it is a fraud.
I came to my discovery about the varying pixel sizes as a result of reading a thread here on FR about a pair of letter B's which exhibited identical pixellation in the WH document. These can be seen in the upper left in the image below. The details are inside a four minute video at the link given in that thread.
I really wanted to post little pictures to exhibit what I will be talking about here as I go. For some reason, Photobucket (the hosting site I use and pay for) would not let me do that. Numerous attempts to upload the individual images in the composite shown below failed. (I thought the individual files might be too small, but I was able to upload an image of my granddaughter's two front teeth created exactly as these images from BBBCII were created.)
I should say something about how they were created. I opened the White House pdf file in Photoshop. (I have Version 6.) When one does this, Photo shop asks for some parameters. I took the defaults (8.5 x 11, CMYK color, Anti aliasing and Constrain Proportions on) except that I asked for 1200 pixels per inch. All of the little images in the composite below were isolated and copied from the resultant image that Photoshop created; and pasted into a new image. I did add some captions to the composite until Photoshop got made at me and wouldn't let me caption the last to images I added. Anyway, here it is:
(I've constrained the width of the image a bit, in order that the text not force one to scroll every line to see beginning and end. I think this smaller image makes my point, but one can see the full size image here.)
At the upper left are the two identically pixellated B's, and below them are images of two other B's from the document when demonstrate why it is so unlikely that teo typewritten B's would present identically in a scanned document such as this. The presenter in the video thinks they were pasted into a composite document. (And I think he is right. But that won't be my point here, though ANY pasting is prima facie evidence of fraud SFAIAC.)
I thought maybe the B's were identical only because they weren't scanned with high enough resolution. That's why I chose 1200 pixels per inch. I wanted my resolution to be higher than any sane scanning resolution.
There's another reason the B's could be identical. If the pdf producing program recognized these as B's then maybe it would substitute it's own B for whatever it actually saw there. (Which sort of leaves the open question as to why it did no substitute for the other obvious - to any reasonable OCR software - B's.)
So I wanted to see how parts of the document that no OCR software could recognize looked. Look at the little piece of signature at the upper right of my composite. THE PIXELS ARE ALL FOUR TIMES THE SIZE OF THE ONES IN THE IMAGE TO THE LEFT. (I.e. they are 2x2, whereas the ones in the B images are 1x1.) Common sense tells me that non-standard images like signatures should be rendered with the smallest pixels, if some intelligence is going to be applied to choosing pixel sizes for different part of an image. But here the opposite is the case.
These different pixel sizes are the sizes are the clearest evidence so far that different images were brought together to produce BBBCII and that it is a fraud. No movies are necessary; just these still images and some common sense.
Some additional thoughts ...
The green background is entirely composed of large pixels everywhere. I suppose the pdf producing software could recognize the background and reproduce it in this fashion, but why? Why not the best resolution? It's just memory and processing time which are dirt cheap these days.
The registration number is interesting to look at from a pixel standpoint. I know others have commented that the final one seems differently produced than the other ones in the same image. In fact, it looks like it was produced from a font set, whereas the others look like they were draw directly from the scan. But the final one is composed of the large, low resolution pixels and the direct scan stuff uses the small pixels. This is more what I would expect from software that applies some intelligence to pixel size selection. But it is opposite from the signature example.
Finally I consider the scan of the form graphics that identify Block 1a on the document. Certainly there is nothing here, except the one, which any OCR software might identify. The little 'a' and the period following are just a blob, and they are the only part of this piece of the image rendered in small pixels.
The bottom line for me is that different parts of the BBBCII image were captured and/or created at different times, because they are composed of different sized pixels; and in no consistent way that could be explained by any intelligent software algorithm.
ML/NJ
People can scream about the constitution all they want but removing Obama wouldn’t address the roots of our problems.
Obozo is NOT the source of our problems.
We’re teaching marxism from preschool thru college now and our government is overrun with radical progressive bureaucrats. Removing Obama won’t even begin to address those issues.
Not just yet he's not. But this little controversy will be added to that ever growing pile of crap that is tipping the scales AWAY from his favor.
They've been doing that now for 40+ years......we gotta lot of catching up to do....after the war.
You've been posting the same thing for a week. I guess no one else has bothered to ask.
What is a "back round"?
I’d expect no less from a childish man that gives opponents the bird while “debating”.
I suggest that when the truth comes out about the fraud, (Little Stevie Dunham, whether before or after the elections of 2012), that NO ONE....I mean NO ONE beside those that have done the Herculean research all along on this issue, get a damned DIME for their books, outlining the biggest scam ever perpetrated on America——Not a dime to Glenn Beck, not a dime to Bill O’Reilly, not a dime to Ann Coulter, not a dime to Karl Rove....NO ONE but the patriots that have done the heavy lifting.
You watch-—after the fraud is outed, all of these naysayers will be falling all over each other to “tell the truth” in THEIR “new” books....
NOT ONE DAMNED DIME to them.
Yes. If it's all we get to do is hammer away at Obama's credibility, then it's a worth while effort going after Obama and his new bogus birth certificate. Obama will need better than luck changing the minds of the majority that he's nothing but a lying louse as is his bogus birth certificates.
Ha! Spell check flags backround and suggests the two word "back round"
Me, I always thought it was one word.
But to the subject at hand, the paper its self has an image already printed on it, the type should overlay with the "backround" intact and complete with no compromise, i.e. "halo" affect.
I would expect some anomalies from almost any scan, but how many I'm not sure.
50 years ago we may hypothesize that a document was created using the most commonly used technology of the day.
We may further hypothesize that through the years the document was transformed into a fiche image, and that, in turn, was converted to a digital image, and finally it was sliced, diced, and analyzed in infinite detail to create a new "searchable" digital image.
Today it's resident as part of a database. When somebody wants a "copy" they download the database elements, stick it together, and write it out as a .jpg or some other format, and then print it. Printing invariably requires formatting to fit the capability of the printer.
Just because this document exhibits characteristics beyond what you can imagine doesn't mean it's fake, or that it's not fake. It is what it is.
You mean ‘background’ ?
The defenders of the COLB say that the layers have to do with scanners and OCR software arbitrarily separating things into layers. The newsies seem to be happy with that explanation. But, I have been looking for a reason this happens with this COLB. Here is what I have discovered.
Irrefutable proof of cut and paste assembly.
There are three types of text, pre-printed, typewritten, and ink stamped. And, then there are the pre-printed graphics. One would expect that the pre-printed graphics would be the same color as the preprinted text. One would expect the typewritten text somewhat different. And one would expect the ink stamps to be different again, and different from each other.
I have found that most of the pre-printed text matches the typewritten text, instead of the pre-printed graphics. OOPS! Also, The record number that is inkstamped, matches exactly to the typewritten and pre-printed text, EXCEPT for the last “1” which is a different color. So, we are supposed to believe that an ink stamp, or ink pad would make two different colors in one motion? The date accepted stamps are even stranger. The stamp in box 22 has two colors also, the 19 and the 1 at the end are different from the rest of it. The stamp in box 20 has identical digits to the stamp in box 22, but it has two colors also. But, not the same two as in box 22. So, here we are supposed to believe that one ink stamp can print two colors on a single motion, and two different set of two on the next motion.
Some other findings... Stanley’s signature is half one color and half another color. Part of the K in U K L Lee is the wrong color. The check boxes down to 6d are one color and the ones belox are another color. There are at least three different colors of ink in the Doctors check box.
None of the inconstancy is random, not one letter, number or line is partially one color and partially another. Only whole characters are the wrong color.
If you would like to verify what I see, try this. Open the COLB with Photoshop. Select Enhance, Adjust color, replace color. Click on one of the triangles next to the signatures and replace that color with something bright and distinctive. Take a look at what portions of the doc are still black. Repeat this procedure to replace the colors of various parts of the COLB with an assortment of distinctive colors. When you get to a point where there are no more black caricatures, you are ready to analyze the results. What this process does is emphasize the subtle differences in the printed colors.
You will notice that there are numerous. You will see that I have not begun to cover them all here.
I'm not saying it was changed. I'm saying it was composed. It's a fraud.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't care about this is brain dead.
ML/NJ
It's bogus. The M in AM or PM was preprinted in a small font as part of the form at that time.
ML/NJ
Just sayin.....
ML/NJ
I am curious what Corsi's book will bring to the fore, which is not in the current mix. I think birth in Kenya is nearly out of the question--I can't imagine any reason for Stanley Ann to go there unless accompanied by Obama senior, whose records supposedly show no travel back to Kenya before traveling from Hawaii to Harvard. I would not rule out Barack Jr. being born in Canada, since Stanley Ann was in Seattle shortly thereafter. I think that the Obama-Dunham marriage was a sham designed to cover the fact that Frank Davis was his father. Thus the divorce was required after a reasonable interval so she could get on with her life. I think this is a more likely scenario than grandpa Stan being the father and an unknown black woman being the mother.
I agree that this is a trivial issue compared to the whole country going down the toilet, but there is little we internet trolls can do to influence Congress, the Supreme Court or the Federal Reserve. So whether or not this leads to anything I still find it fascinating.
Oy, yes....Good God, do I feel stupid.....talk about a brain fart........shame shame, turning multiple shades of red here....
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.