Replies

"Dear Vick,

Patiently waiting for your reply..."

Holy crap! Has it really been over TWO HOURS since you asked me to do some graphic work for you? I apologize for not dropping everything I was doing so I could get to work doing the factchecking you obviously haven't bothered to do at any point to date, considering that you just pointed me to a tiny graphic on somebody else's website. Your patience obviously knows no bounds to put up with a whole two hours of waiting.

Anyhow, here's the comparison of the "1st" and "2nd" boxes.

Incredibly similar? Yes. And not surprising considering that they represent identical pre-printed boxes on the same form. But they're not pixel-for-pixel identical. Which is exactly what you claimed they were.

Maybe you think somebody cut-and-pasted the box but then fudged with a bunch of individual pixels around the edge to brighten or darken the black, and then completely changed the interior of the box?

Also, you should watch the video I posted above. There are some other people who found some 'identical' looking details in images that they deem quite suspicious and evidence of fraud. You clearly have a lot in common.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDdzNSXDaRI

Dear Vick, I understand you are adjusting the layer with the boxes in Photo shop or some other tool, with the underlying layer of the security paper that was not a part of the original scan. They introduced that green “security” paper into the document.

As you adjust the first layer to be more translucent, the bottom layer that is the security pattern mated to the PDF document will then distort the upper layer , randomly.

This is not evidence of uniqueness. It is evidence of distortion by your computer, melding two unique and distinct layers, one created in 1961, and the other added to it 50 years later, and providing you with a brand new view of the composite.

You can't modify the document to prove the boxes are unique. That is creating distortions between layers.

I appreciate your joke, very funny. Years after the moon landing I met a few of the engineers that worked at NASA. At the time I was working with a group that was developing GPS for the United states army. Cool stuff.

Trust me , we landed on the moon. And the two boxes are Identical without your computer driven distortions.

Dear Vick, take a break and think about my analysis, do a little more work, and we'll talk tomorrow.

You have to remember, when dealing with Obama, your basically dealing with a common criminal with a gift for acting confident. They do this kind of stuff. They are called Con men. For example, his book, Audacity of Hope was written by Bill Ayers. Yet he tells everyone he himself is a gifted author who wrote it. We all know its a fabrication.

It takes four people to pull this off. Obama, Governor Abercromby, and one or two people in the Hawaii Health department. Putting people on the moon required thousands of highly educated people.

So take another look, and strip out the security layer. Just get the single layer, and lets have another look see.

Thanks,
PA

Dear Vick, Good Morning!

How is your analysis going? Have you been able to remove the 2011 green security layer and set the opacity adjustment off?

I'm certain you will find we have two sets of twin boxes when using the distinct layer, exactly where required to alter a Twins document to that of a single birth document.

This is the dead giveaway. It's like having ten fingers with four of them having identical fingerprints. An impossibility in nature. When a document is printed in 1959 or 1960, its paper is not perfect. The Ink may vary as it is melded into the paper. The Typeset is not perfect, like ballistics in a gun, each revolver produces it's own signature, even though they are machined to the exact same standards. You can see these microscopic differences in the other boxes, but the “Twin boxes” are replicated, alone, for a reason.

Mathematical odds and logic tells us that this document is a composite, not a scan of a single existing document.

NASA, men on the moon ?

I rather view this as comparable to the earth revolving around the Sun. At one time, it was established fact that the sun revolved around the earth. Then some lone little prick insisted it was the other way around.

If indeed this document is a copy of Obamas certificate, when the original in Hawaii is allowed public viewing, it will prove it. You can take it to the bank that the Document will be burned before anyone is allowed to view it.
You can take it to the bank that no one outside of the three or four people who have “seen it” and produced the copies will ever see it. Much like a flying saucer, Obamas original certificate will vanish, just as mysteriously as “copies” of it arrived in April 2011. The only witnesses describing it, just as the people describe the Head shot from the Grassy Knoll.

Vick, if your not seeing my point, maybe if you take the document down to the community college, they could probably show you why setting opacity and combining these layers is creating the distortions that you are fabricating when viewing the twin check boxes. Is there a local college or vocational school nearby? Or maybe you have seen it for yourself? Have you seen the light, Grasshopper? :)

You been punked By Obama! :)

Vick, are you still with us? Are you OK?

I’ve been pushing electrons through chips for three decades.
Working with documents and ink for three decades. Machines for three decades. Don't be angry with me for pointing out the obvious and making you look like a fool. And I'm not racist. I have family with darker skin than the Messiah.

I take it from your non-reply that we can call this settled. The Boxes are Identical, and the document is a fraud. That we landed on the moon and our president has committed a felony.

Thanks for the input and clarity Vick.

Re: your expanded photos of the two check boxes.

How did you get the "pixelation" edge effects on your photos? When I expand the Obama BC with Adobe Reader to 6400%, I get only sharp, clear edges.....none of the "fuzzy edges" you are showing.

What did you use to make those photos? You have done something wrong, IMHO. Use Adobe Reader, expand, and try posting them again.

Nice try.