Posted on 05/02/2011 6:32:31 AM PDT by ml/nj
In this single picture below it is easy to see that the signatures on the document come from different sources. The resolution on the Dunham signature (above) is higher than the resolution of the Sinclair signature (below) which is composed entirely of "big" pixels. The latest Bamie Birth Certificate is an obvious fraud.
Note that I had to convert the image to greyscale to get Photobucket to accept it.
For more info on Big and Little Pixes, please click to see a thread I posted yesterday about this.
ML/NJ
1. ORIGINAL: Is the original in a bound book like former health director Fukino said, or is it on microfilm or microfiche? That is, is the long form birth certificate that Obama displayed at his April 27, 2011 press conference taken from a certificate stored in a bound book, or was it taken from microfilm or microfiche?
2. NORDYKE TWINS: They were born one day after Obama on Aug. 5, but they have lower numbers.
3. Would the Nordyke twins' certificates be in the same bound book that Fukino said Obama's long form birth certificate was in?
4. I am having trouble understanding how they transferred Obama's long form birth certificate image from a bound book to a piece of paper that was sent to Obama. Did the certificate have anything on its back?
5. Could someone explain to a non-technical, average computer user like me how they did it?
6. For instance, if the certificate is in a bound book, how did they lay the book in a scanner? What type of scanner did they use? Is the scanner like one people have at home except much bigger?
7. If, for instance, Hawaii officials allowed reporters to examine the certificate in the bound book, what color would it be?
8. MICROFILM: The long form birth certificate seems to be bent downward on the left side. Does this mean that the image came from microfilm or a bound book?
9, If it came from a bound book, why isn't the certificate arranged and attached in the book in a way so that a person could easily slip it out of the book to scan it? Why do you have to carry the WHOLE book to the scanner, when one piece of paper would do?
10. GREEN BACKGROUND: Why is there a green background?
11. June 2007: Date stamped on Obama's short form we see on the FactCheck site.
12. June 2007: Why did Obama order a new Hawaii birth certificate in June 2007? Did he simply lose his long form in 2007 or earlier? People lose birth certificates all the time, but I find it strange that the President of the United States got so careless with his long form birth certificate that he lost it. And if Trump had not forced Obama to order a new long form birth certificate in April 2011, then Obama would still be without a long form birth certificate today.
13. Stanley signature: I have a problem believing that Obama's mother signed the document because of the way "Stanley" is clumsily placed in parenthesis above the main signature. It looks to me as if the person who signed it forgot the name "Stanley" and clumsily tried to add it to the main body of the signature, but for some unknown reason put it in parenthesis, even though "Stanley" was Obama's mother's legal first name. That is, why not just write "Stanley" WITHOUT parenthesis, because the parenthesis makes it look as if the name "Stanley" does not really belong there.
14. Stanley signature: I have looked at several signatures of Obama's mother on the internet, and it seems that she usually wrote out "Stanley" or used "S" when signing documents. Also, I didn't find that Obama's mother put parenthesis around "Stanley" in any of her signatures. NOTE: To me, for anyone to put parenthesis around their first name on a birth certificate would be bizarre.
15. Stanley name: Maybe when Obama's mother was growing up she came to resent the Stanley first name because it is normally a boy's name, but it looks like when it came to signing documents, she had no hesitation in signing "Stanley."
16. So, as I said, Obama's mother's signature just does not look right to me. To be honest, it looks like someone else signed that long form birth certificate.
ML/NJ
I could also create an image where the pixels were of uniform size by scanning at a lower resolution. If the smallest pixel in my rescan is the size of the smallest pixel (what I refer to a "Big" pixels) in the Sinclair (bottom) signature then the pixels in both signatures will be the same size. Subsequent rescans at any resolution would then show both signatures with the same size pixels.
ML/NJ
Just because you don’t understand some obscurity doesn’t mean it’s proof of malice.
By this point, that image has gone thru a great deal of repeated copying, scanning, rendering, compressing, scaling, processing, etc each of which leaves some odd artifacts which multiply and magnify with each iteration.
You want to make your allegation convincing? File a FOIA on the facts about the fiche, scanner, document processing software, etc ... the actual chain of media, hardware, and software used, then demonstrate how your allegation differs from what the actual processing should produce.
Nope. The AP version is a high contrast scan that omits all color except for some remaining gray in the left margin. It is not a digital photo (which starts with lesser quality) imported into a package like photoshop that does various processing like the layer creation. In any case, you need to explain how to go from your version:
to mine:
whereas I can easily explain how the original paper artifact was turned into your picture (digital photo, subsequently processed) and my picture (high contrast scan, no subsequent processing). It's the paper artifact and its content that we care about not some scan or photo, but we can't ignore any scans or photos.
I'm not going to start playing with these two images in the post I am responding to here. But it seems that they both show approximately the same magnification. If you take a look at the riser on the h in Dunham's signature in the image I supplied you can hardly see the pixels. In your image they are easy to see. My picture has more information.
As for you and the others who say they can "easily explain how the original paper artifact was turned into your picture," this gets old for me. Either point to some other pdf posted on the internet before April of this year which purports to be from a single scan of a single document that exhibits similar pixellation to that which the WH pdf exhibts, or cut the BS.
ML/NJ
I matched your magnification to show the differences. The magnified AP image shows anti-aliasing applied and the WH image (what I refered to as "yours") shows partial anti-aliasing (the upper Dunham is not, the lower "Sm" is somewhat anti-aliased. By anti-aliasing I mean that the software did partial picture shading to reduce the contrast between black and background, smooth the transition from black to background, and reduce the staircase effect.
The theory you seem to be offering is that the WH image ("yours") was produced by overlaying different images for the two signatures (from different sources) then producing the final PDF. The main problem with that theory is they also produced my document which you seem to claim was done by reducing the information. However, your Dunham has added pixels that are a false effect of not antialiasing (smoothing). That is not added information but photo artifacts. OTOH the AP scan has reduced information from the scanning process. The main reduction is due to it being high contrast (made in a brightly lit scanner bed) So it came out black and white and then was antialiased by the scanner SW.
Pointing to a "PDF" is nonspecific since PDF's can store images internally in a JPEG or other lossy or lossless formats. The image I posted is a jpeg. Perhaps you meant, point to a PDF with a lossless image in it? Then you want one before April? How am I supposed to do that? Finally you want one with similar pixellation to the WH PDF. Why?
The simple truth is that there are many different images of the original alleged paper artifact. The one you presented in this thread, the one I present from the AP, and others including both photos and scans. They are all originally from the WH (unless other people postprocessed or forged some of them). The WH claims that they were derived from a single paper artifact from HI. If you choose to contest that story, you have to explain how all the images were created, not just the one you displayed for this thread.
Nailed it. When all is said and done the truth will eventually prevail and my gut tells me us so-called "conspiracy theorists" will turn out to be 100% right.
Do you know what BS means?
Don't bother responding until you can find ONE (just ONE) f*****g pdf of a supposedly single scan document that was on the internet before April that exhibits multiple pixellations of signatures and post a link to it.
ML/NJ
Just to clarify, you are not looking for this particular image (Obama’s BC), but any document, preferably an official one like a BC, that was scanned from paper (preferably a hashed safety paper) and turned into a PDF and shows different pixellations for different parts of the image (e.g. two signatures). Ok? Well I’ll look as get the time.
I'm not here to blow smoke.
ML/NJ
In the original doc released by the wh in PDF form,
the pixels are different sizes as was first pointed out at ObamaNotQualified.com
the AP version was a scan of the PDF that was printed out,
therefore has only 1 pixel size.
The arguement that the AP version is good is crazy, bcuz regarldess if there were 10 different versions, the original one PDF downloaded from the source whitehouse.gov is the only one to discuss.
Even if there were 10 versions and all were fake, that white house PDF is the ONLY 1 to discuss.
On both documents is evidence of KERNING, also first discovered by www.ObamaNotQualified.com and kerning wasn’t possible in 1961, and both versions show the kerning, so proof that both are ALTERED!
You didn’t give a reason why the WH PDF is the only one to discuss. My argument is that you have to explain all images that are released from the WH. The AP image was released from the WH, probably on a paper handout, then likely subsequently scanned by the AP on a high contrast scanner. Along the way it lost most of the security hashing. Your claim of kerning is not supported on your website (you merely describe what it is, but don’t relate it to the recently released docs). Kerning is present on the printed docs (which is typical for typeset forms), but not in the typewritten portions which is a fixed width font.
It could be a fountain pen.
Are you guys trolls from the left or just divorced from reality?
Yeah. That's me, troll from the left!
Do you have a clue how to search someones posting history? Are there really people on the left who believe that Obama is a complete FRAUD, and a clear and present danger to the United States of America?
ML/NJ
Well, since you are not troll you must be divorced from reality.
ML/NJ
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.
