Your conclusion is that this is the fraud:
Your saying this is the fraud (Kenyan)?
Your saying this is the truth (Australian)?
Anticipating your expert and reasoned reply!
Posted on 08/04/2009 5:55:59 AM PDT by markomalley
You mean the link to another post on another thread? Or the “pwned” comment?
We have been “pwned”. Badly.
I’m pretty sure the file I have saved is the original one, but I can’t be totally certain.
I routinely use Photoshop Elements to clean up photos from my camera, to adjust lighting, color, to do cropping, or any number of innocent things that don’t involve the intent to deceive.
The Kenyan image was obviously a photograph of a piece of paper. The image properties tell me it’s 72 dpi resolution, a normal thing to see from a digital camera.
The Australian image appears to be a scan of a piece of paper. The image properties tell me it’s 150 dpi resolution, a normal scanner setting.
Of course, neither image tells me anything conclusively what was involved in creating the pieces of paper that were either photographed or scanned.
But to take an image and draw conclusions about it based on what a piece of software does to it, when the person making those conclusions is ignorant of what the software is actually supposed to be doing is just crazy.
oops
True.
It was the layering info that got the ball rolling to find many anomalies in the Australian B.C.
You missed my main point. The command that was run on the image file does not reveal layers in the image because the layer information is not there to begin with in a .jpg image.
If you plop multiple photographs onto your scanner bed and scan all of them, the command will isolate each of the photographs into separate files so that you don't have to do that manually or do multiple scans. It's a handy time saver. If you do it on a single image, the software is trying to find boundaries that don't exist. That's why it chopped the Australian image into multiple parts, which were erroneously called "layers". It didn't do anything with the "Kenyan" image probably because of the geometric distortion (the software is looking for clear horizontal and vertical divisions).
Start here and read on
Can't now, gotta go.
DINA ROSENDORFF: Internet security expert Dr Asha Rao from RMIT University says although this case is quite funny, it's also very dangerous.And that's the main reason we MUST have in reliable trusted hands, the actual birth documents and not just accept a digital image of Obama's.ASHA RAO: It just shows you what is possible on the Internet; that ultimately digital documents come down to a string of zeros and ones. This is an extreme case. Of course they must have trawled around and found something they could use.
Now there's a new piece of information unearthed by our ever vigilant press. < /sarc>
This is all so confusing. Who and what is a fraud? If there is a place where you could find all the arguments pro or con the Kenyan BC (without readuing 13,000 posts), that would be helpful.
Yes, he’s a PUBLIC SERVANT (with access to old documents?) who ‘used to not like Obama but now thinks he just great’, and is himself a conspirist?
What does DNA prove? DNA doesn’t list location of birth?
God, the libs are so stupid and remind me of my dog that I can pretend to throw something and he’ll run after *it* everytime.
Opening the Bromford B.C. in notepad shows ‘Lead Technologies Inc. V1.01’
Opening the ‘original’ Kenya B.C. (before it was changed at the website) shows nothing.
I just opened the replaced copy of the Kenya B.C. and it says...”Ducky.......Adobe”
“ASHA RAO: It just shows you what is possible on the Internet; that ultimately digital documents come down to a string of zeros and ones. This is an extreme case. Of course they must have trawled around and found something they could use.”
That has been what has cracked me up from the beginning.
Their logic is that this ‘could be photoshopped digital’ image is just trying to prove that Obama’s ‘could be photoshopped digital’ image is a fake.
Huh?
This is why we want the ORIGINAL from HAWAII presented as evidence IN A COURT OF LAW.
Not judge some judge (as one has actually said) saying “This is has been twittered and texted and it’s settled”. WTF? “Twittered and texted” is now what the court deems as submissable evidence?
Ok for the non tech folks ...who is right you or Fresh Wind...?
Last night after being convince the Kenya doc was a fake I became convinced that the Aussie doc was a fake .
There was no need for the Aussies to be hacked (if they were hacked) ...the image could be lifted from the internet and doctored.
all that I have read says the Aussie deal is the fake
This Mr. Bomford and his “birth certificate” seem a bit too slick and convenient to me.
More background on the man might be useful.
Zettaini sou desu!
from another thread:
To: Fresh Wind
Opening the Bromford B.C. in notepad shows ‘Lead Technologies Inc. V1.01’
Opening the ‘original’ Kenya B.C. (before it was changed at the website) shows nothing.
30 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 11:05:35 AM by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
Opening the Bromford B.C. in notepad shows ‘Lead Technologies Inc. V1.01’
Opening the ‘original’ Kenya B.C. (before it was changed at the website) shows nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is from last night
So why would you say what you said about adobe?
I saved a copy from the Bomford URL:
http://www.bomford.net/worcestershire/images/DavidJeffreyBomfordBirthCertDoc65.jpg
and verify this statement as true.
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.