Posted on 05/22/2011 5:54:39 PM PDT by Nachum
NEW YORK – Recalling Dan Brown's bestselling novel "The Da Vinci Code," computer experts have discovered strange anomalies in the Obama birth record released by the White House.
They include a different birth registration number that shows up in "hidden text," remnants of the short-form certificate apparently bleeding through the long-form and a "smiley face" in the registrar's stamp that does not show up on other recently issued Hawaii birth records.
Curiously, in a simple process run by Optical Character Recognition software that reveals hidden text, the registration number 10611 turns up, instead of 10641, the number displayed on the two birth records authorized for publication by the White House.
Application of the Adobe Acrobat's "Examine Document" function on the Obama long-form document produces the following hidden text:
Read more: 'The Obama code': Hidden messages in birth document? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=301329#ixzz1N8EbVDOQ
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Obots, yes I agree they only want to confuse the issue.
I saw some of that here on FR.
Obviously Corsi is a huckster because if he had written anything useful he’d be giving his book away for free and not charging anyone a penny, just like all real honest authors.
But wait, there's more!
If you print out the .pdf BC with the color values reversed you get Ovaltine 50% off coupons.
The conspiracy runs deep indeed.
I have some questions:
1. Hawaii Health Department: Why won't the Hawaii Health Department let reporters openly and freely examine the original long form birth certificate that is supposedly bound in a book, because Obama has already shown the world his long form birth certificate on April 27, 2011?
2. That is, why is the Hawaii Health Department playing hardball by not allowing reporters to examine the original birth certificate that the President of the United States has already released to the public for all the world to see?
3. It makes no sense to me why the Hawaii Department of Health is stonewalling when reporters ask to see the original long form birth certificate. Is the bound book too heavy to lift for those poor, overworked Hawaii Health Department clerks?
4. Think about this: When the Health Department made a copy Obama's long form birth certificate and gave it to Obama's personal lawyer: Why didn't the director simply invite a select group of reporters representing national news organizations to witness how the Health Department was making a certified copy for the President of the United States?
5. If the Hawaii Health Department, in my opinion, had invited reporters to witness how the Health department made certified copies of the certificate that is in a a bound book, there might not be as much of a controversy today about whether or not the long form birth certificate is a fogery.
6. Come to think about it, why doesn't Obama give Hawaii Health Department officials permission to re-create in front of reporters how Health Departmen officials made a copy of Obama's long form birth certificate?
7. KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL is an obvious coward: Of course, Kapiolani Hospital officials could help drive a final deadly dagger through the heart of birther nation by simply publicly announcing that President Obama is allowing Kapiolani Hospital to release his mother's Aug. 4, 1961---the day Obama claims he was born at Kapiolani---records to a select group of reporters from the national news agencies. But Kapiolani officials are CONSPICUOUSLY silent. Why is that?
8. Of course, we all know that Kapiolani Hospital officials are CONSPICOUSLY silent for a reason. And I say that the reason is that Obama's mother was not a patient at Kapiolani Hospital on Aug. 4, 1961, Obama's claimed birth date, and Kapiolani officials, sad to say, know it.
9. And the longer Kapiolani Hospital officials remain silent during the long 2012 presidential campaign, the more votes Obama will lose on election day Nov. 2012.
The secret code references the date May 21, 2011. What could it mean?
May 21? Not a clue.
Makes one wonder if they ‘re really conservatives... Of all books published - fiction and non-fiction - I’d bet conservatives author fewer than five percent. Liberal editors tend to like what liberals write - - and most editors are liberal. It’s a rough world for conservatives.
“multiple pixel size issues. That indicates a pieced together document.”
Old digital document management systems operated with an extreme restriction on image size. Never expecting anyone to mount legal challenges against simple standard forms and typed content down to the pixel level, the systems would scan the original, identify the parts deemed important (signatures), needed (typed and preprinted form text), and irrelevant (blank space, background noise), separate them by blocking out sections as needed, keep the important stuff at high quality high resolution high bit depth, downgrade the needed stuff to low resolution low (single) bit depth, and throw away the rest - all in accordance with what lawyers deemed necessary to recreate a legal duplicate of the original. They did not keep a complete >150 dpi >8 bit image of the entire document when storage space was precious. Then, when the document was needed, the software would paste all these pieces back together in a manner consistent with legal needs: all content was sufficiently clear, and sensitive stuff like signatures was of higher quality.
They never expected people would be arguing over the meaning of individual pixels in seemingly trivial parts of a then unremarkable BC.
Compare: if studying conspiratorial possibilities in the Kennedy assassination, one may get suspicious of a stray pixel in a H.264 reencoded copy of an MPEG1 compression of a DV transfer of a VHS recording of an NTSC broadcast of an SVHS copy of a 35mm print of a third-generation 8mm copy of the original Zapruder film. You can see how some things may be distorted along the way to the point of suspicion, especially by those unclear on how video transfer artifacts form and propagate. Screaming that a few odd pixels, easily explained by those who understand such things and confusing to those who don’t understand and don’t want to, constitute proof of conspiracy does not garner enough evidence or respect to get access to the original Zapruder film itself. Claiming that the copy made available to the public does not prove Kennedy’s brains were blown out that day proves one is an idiot.
No question about that!
See #88.
What year was the digital document imaging system installed? I think you are full of bull. Not from MO, but show me.
Ukulele - in your face - the finger?
******
Yes. I believe that "Lee" was a real person back in 1961, because on a birth certificate for a person named "Coats"---I believe that was the name---for 1962 that has been displayed on the internet, the same "Lee" signed it, but it was for a different hospital than Kapiolani Hospital.
NOTE: However, if it is ever discovered that "Lee" signed ONLY Obama's long form birth certificate out of Kapiolani Hospital for August 1961, then I would start thinking that something is not right with having "Lee's" signature ONLY on Obama's long form birth certificate out of all the birth certificates that came out of Kapiolani Hospital in August 1961.
So 0bama’s birth certificate is genuine then?
******
STANLEY: I'm sorry, but the way "Stanley" is placed clumsily on the upper left corner---especially how it is placed in parentheses---bothers me so much.
1. I don't know what it is about the signature, but to me, it looks like a man wrote it.
2. Putting "Stanley" in parentheses seems to me to show disrespect for Obama's mother's first name, even if it is normally a boy's name.
3. The "Stanley" on the Obama long form birth certificate looks different to me than the "Stanley" I have seen written on other Obama's mother's documents that I see on the internet.
4. I think that the person who wrote "Stanley" was in such a hurry to add "Stanley" to the signature that he forgot to look at a real "Stanley" signature so he could he make sure that his "Stanley" matched the real "Stanley" signature.
5. But in his haste to add "Stanley" to the signature, he made matters worse, because many of us quickly focused on how odd the "Stanley" signature was placed and how it was in parentheses.
6. To me, the person who wrote "Stanley" might have gotten away with the way he clumsily wrote "Stanley" if he had NOT made matters worse by placing Obama's mother's legal first name in parentheses.
7. In addition, as far as I can tell, every Obama's mother's signature I have seen on the internet begins with either a "S" or with "Stanley". That is, I didn't see one signature that began only with "Ann", Obama's mother's middle name.
8. Again, to me, the "Stanley" signature looks like it was written by a man, and it looks so awkwardly out of place---especially with parentheses around it---that I can only conclude that Obama's mother did not write her name. Someone else did it, and he made a terrible mistake by clumsily placing parentheses around the name "Stanley", parentheses that quickly attracted the attention and close examination of anti-Obama people like me.
From everything I’ve read and viewed, and being a techtard I have to learn from those who are, the things shown by 0bama (and on this thread it’s obvious two different things were shown) they are total forged crap. Check Herbster’s comments.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2723118/posts?page=1096
But my question was really saying “if it’s conspiracy kookdom to discuss the forgeries then they must be real, then?”
And on what basis, pray tell, do you accuse me of being full of bull?
I’ve given a viable theory consistent with 30+ years in the industry. “I think you are full of bull” is hardly a counter-argument worth acknowledging.
Bump that. Right on!
I appologize for being rude, it is not my normal mode, and was uncalled for.
—
I do not believe the document released was simply retreived from some database as presented. I am convinced it was conjured.
Some reasons.
1. There were no digital document management systems in 1961.
2. The early systems for eliminating paper copies was microfiche.
http://www.thecrowleycompany.com/scanning-equipment/faqs.html
“In 1989, Mekel Technology introduced the first microfilm scanner to the world, followed closely by its first microfiche scanner.”
3. PDF format documents began use in 1993.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format
Portable Document Format (PDF) is an open standard for document exchange. This file format created by Adobe Systems in 1993 is used for representing documents in a manner independent of application software, hardware, and operating systems.[2] Each PDF file encapsulates a complete description of a fixed-layout flat document, including the text, fonts, graphics, and other information needed to display it.
PDF was officially released as an open standard on July 1, 2008
4. I don’t know when HI Department of Health undertook to create a document image database (or if they have). A database for indexing is one thing, but a database as you described is another. In a high tech company what you described might be possible, but I do not believe that a state department could pull off what you describe. And it would be a fairly recent development. So, I am confident they still have the original documents up to some date and after that date the data is stored in an image format scanned from paper. That storage system is probably in a .pdf format, it is an open standard now.
5. Electronic document management (EDM) systems are a fairly recent technology. In the mid 1990’s they were beginning to become successful in business environments.
So without 1st hand knowledge of the system in place in HI Dept. of Health, I doubt their COLB’s are stored in a fragmented form, even today.
Sorry it is just not credible.
Corsi is a drooling idiot.
Chiyome Fukino has said the paper copy is bound into a book stored somewhere at the Department of Health. She said she has personally examined it twice. And, indeed, the image put out by the White House does look like a copy made by pressing a book down on a copier glass. Not unlike what you'd find at a pre-computer deeds registry. I've visited one or two of those. They have tens of thousands of books, each with hundreds of pages of documents, chained to one another by book, page references.
If it were that simple, they would have simply looked it up and scanned it and release it year ago. There is more to this than that.
They have a law against that. Absent a special court order, only the subject of the document or his close relative or legal representative can get a copy. That's what's enabled Zero to make the most of the controversy.
From microfiche or microfilm there is no issue with resolution. It is not stored in memory for that purpose. Once it is scanned to a file and burned to the microfiche it is not retained in computer memory. That was the way it was done years ago. Some records probably do exist in a database today, but they are not the document itself, but only the reference information for the document.
You got that right.
They should have scanned all their documents at a good resolution (300 dpi?) into a database. They could easily replicate the database on the mainland, in case Mauna Loa blows.
And there's no point in giving out paper documents, anyway. They should just give out links to document images in their database. That way, there would be no room for disputes about what may have been done to a paper document after it left the Health Department.
Have you ever created an index? I have. For 5-1/2 years I created and maintained a 3,000 page catalog for a wholesaler (37,000 items). The index entries were about 11,000 lines in a spreadsheet. (index entries, cross index entries, reverse naming index entries)
I extracted the final item sequencing from the print PDF so I could sort for reprinting the sections. Used PDFTK to open the .pdf, used an editor to remover the proportional spacing syntax where the numeral "1" was followed by the numeral "1". Then I used Grep to extract the numeric item numbers in sequence. Splashed that in a database with the new item description data and all I had to manually sort were the "new items". Then I would import the .txt file into Quark using Xdata. It worked great.
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.