Posted on 06/29/2008 11:18:17 PM PDT by Kevmo
“So we should not question Obama’s certificate even though there is plenty of evidence it might be fraudulent.”
I have yet to see any evidence that it is fraudulent. Every tinfoil hat theory has proven to be bu!!sh!t.
Others have clearly seen it without a problem.
Please continue with the BS that it does not have folds and that it is a electronic version and not a scanned image of previously folded BC.
“Even the forged birth certificate doesn’t meet the 5 year rule”
Of course, if he wasn’t born in the U.S. (or U.S. territories), and his only citizen parent was under 19, then he couldn’t have been a U.S. citizen at birth and would not be eligible to serve as president.
Wow, with what you posted, I can see the fold crease as plain as day. It’s even spelled out for us. ;-)
If so, folks here were willing to play the silly game. Perhaps now we could actually start focusing on issues! Imagine that?
figures, thx...
sorry for the double post...
Jpeg is a lossy compression scheme for pixel images. There are degrees of quality, the higher the quality the closer the jpeg image will match the original and the larger the jpeg file will be, but so far as I am aware none will match the original. The differences are small, but for close examination such as here jpeg images may not be good enough. There was a thread over the weekend where someone "proved" that the Obama image was a fake because his image of the certificate looked like it had the letters OHBM in the lower left corner rather than OHSM on a higher resolution image of a genuine certificate. This too, was almost certainly an example of the problems on can see with jpeg compression.
ML/NJ
Yeah. That's me again, and I don't know how to enlarge thing either.
You seem suspiciously over-interested in this. It looks to me as if you have over 200 posts about it. Your fold/crease may also be a jpeg artifact.
ML/NJ
Yup! The folds are there! Thanks for making it easier with the row count. No doubt about it. My monitor is an older flatscreen, but the folds show up quite clearly.
Sorry but I don’t follow the sheeple. I investigate things for myself. I am sorry if you think my interest in this means anything else.
Most of the rumors that have been posted on FR about this cert has been proven false. (like it is not a folded copy, nor a scanned version of the cert, etc)
The false rumors about this keep spreading all over FR and it looks really bad for us as a group. It is going to come back and work in BO’s favor if it keeps up.
Actually I think you might be right. I use an embosser to stamp the books I own on one or two pages. Some of these embossings are quite old and some of the books have been stacked horizontally. I just scanned one of these, and it took Photoshop to increase the contrast sufficiently to bring it out on my monitor. I made similar enhancements to the Obama certificate and I can see the signature if I want to believe it's there. So maybe it is real, and maybe you are correct. I'm still not as convinced as you seem to be though.
ML/NJ
Agreed, and thank heaven!
So.... The first issue is, can a homosexual crackhead like Obama be trusted to serve as Commander-in-Chief?
So you agree now that embossing can get flatten out if something of weight sits on top of it for a period of time?
So if a folded piece of paper if left unfolded for a period of time and if it sits unfolded under a stack of papers or books that the paper folds also could fade out over time?
You seen to agree because of your own experiment with the book embossing and that the embossing tends to flatten out and that it is hard for a scanner to pick it up if the embossing has flattened out to some degree.
What are the chances that this once folded BO BC was stored flat and under a bunch of other documents on BO’s desk at home or in his office? Or maybe it was stored unfolded in a file cabinet in a file folder but the file cabinet was stuffed tightly with other documents?
Basically we cannot say 100% that both the seal and sig embossing is there, but there are remnants of something being on the back of the BO BC. But to call this BC a fake is wrong and foolish because there is no hard evidence that points to it being a true blue fake.
Yes... BO needs to get off his duff and show the American people what they want. We want to see the Vital Record version of his birth. (The long form that tells us where he was born and in which hospital)
Even if BO produces a better scan of this “current BC”, people are not going to be happy because we really want the Vital Record version. So why should we even carry on that this current BC is a fake because some people think it shows no folds, that it looks like a electronic copy, and that there is no embossing popping out on it.
But really it is not the proof we want in the first place.
Instead of saying this current BC is a fake, why not say this BC is not what the people want, we want a copy of your Vital Records of when you were born. Then we can pick that one apart to see if it was altered. (hospital name change, etc). Crying that the first one is a fake, is only going to get him to produce a better scan of the same first BC. Why not cry out loud that this BC is not good enough, that we want the Vital Records version.
It amazes me that so many people are taking this newbie's (polorik) word. Personally I think he is a attention seeker who wants hits to his blog. Everything he has come up has been proved to be false by me and other Freepers.
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.
