Posted on 04/29/2011 5:52:16 PM PDT by Nachum
It didn’t take long for some of President Obama’s doubters to claim the long-awaited birth certificate posted online by the White House on Wednesday had been altered or might be a fake.
But a leading software expert says there’s no doubt about its authenticity, and he dismisses claims of fraud as flat-out wrong.
The doubters have latched onto the idea that Adobe Illustrator — the premier program for computer graphic artists — “reveals” evidence of document manipulation in the Obama birth certificate. They note Illustrator reveals nine separate layers of the document, and claim it’s “proof” the file has been altered.
But that’s not so, says Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator.
“You should not be so suspicious about this,” Tremblay told FoxNews.com, dismissing the allegations.
Related Links Obama Birth Certificate Moved to More Secure Location Months Ago
He said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery. “I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.
Tremblay explained that the scanner optical character recognition (OCR) software attempts to translate characters or words in a photograph into text. He said the layers cited by the doubters shows that software at work – and nothing more.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
No, I just download the images and keep moving...
I have various LFBCs. The ones created since at least 1981 do not show this obvious ‘bend’ on the left. They were likely scanned into an image library (likely an optical library) at the time and they likely done using a flatbed type scanner - so no bend.
But in 1966, when the Nordykes certified copies were made they just took photograph of the a document with that obvious bend laying on top of a template with the DOH and Registrars signatures. The document looks like it was dry and thus curled downward and away from the camera.
This ‘bend’ is in Obama’s copy. Why? It was printed in 2011. It should like all other newly printed LFBCs that were likely converted and stored in a digital image library. It SHOULD be flat. But it is not. It looks like one created in.....1966!
Nothing to be embarrassed about here. The imposter spending the amount of money and allowing this situation to fester this long only bears onto himself negatively.
It’s not from the WH. The documents are from a woman whose biography of Sr. is due out very shortly.
So have you found any OTHER LFBCs that look like that?
Create a video on how to do this on youtube. We would love this ancient art.
The big mistake here was that the eligibility issue should have been jumped on when the released document (fake or not)because of the birth place of his dad. That was the real smoking gun. But was ignored.
But instead, the very act of inspecting its authenticity was acceptance that a digital document would be ok as long as it's not a fake.
What do you think happened? Her friend from high school said that she was in Kenya meeting her new family and unable to get back to Hawaii in time, so she had the baby in Kenya and then came to Washington from there.
No sweat, glad to help :-]
how come I’m the only one who thinks the scrubbed out green herringbonelike layer, that shows up somewhat dramatically as white, under the previous test, when the major text layer is turned off, is very telling? wt*? looks like previous lettering was removed.....It freakin’ screams at me. wt*? if someone doesn’t tell me, i’m gonna stop using the *.
That would be correct if they do actually have a digital image library of the original documents. This is the first I am hearing of such a library. But if, for whatever reason, they did return to the bound book and laid it on a scanner or copier, then the bend would indeed show.
I'll have to find my link for the BC received in March 2011 when I can get on my other computer. Thanks!
HA! I was like WHAAAATTT??? Then I realized you were the one who apologized. No problem LVR!
I think it would be obvious to you by now that I think she gave birth in Hawaii.
She was in Washington in August.
She did and the INS makes note of it in a memo dated 8/31/61, 27 days after Junior’s birth.
Your one post is proof solid.
The flat, B/W image versus the gray scale “1”.
That’s it.
End of debate.
Scanners can be set for:
Color OR GreyScale OR B/W.
Not two of the three.
The CDC’s 1961 Natality Report uses 50% sampling and justifies it because the BC’s were numbered at the state DOH offices as they were received there.
That matches what Janice Okubo, Communications Director for the Hawaii DOH, says.
And the numbers for the BC’s late in the year, compared to the number of births reported to the CDC, leave precious little wiggle room for there to be blocks of numbers that never got used.
Substantiate your claim that they did it some other way than how the CDC, the HDOH Communications Director, and the actual data all say they did it.
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.