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 ...
Thank you.
My guess is they scanned the black on white document and printed it on security paper. The negative type printing you received is probably a result of the print process, not the original document. Either way you can reverse the image in Photoshop or Gimp to take care of that. The trick is finding security paper, but I am sure you can buy it somewhere.
Guide to What is Wrong (So Far) with the Obama Long-Form Birth Certificate
is there a thread with the posting of that 2010 BC from Hawaii on FR from 2010?
I have not seen it, and would like to verify that is was out, and tracked on FR at the time.
I am suspicious that it is surfacing just now.
Thanks in advance,
3
I do know this. From a political standpoint, Obama thought he scored by dropping this on us Wednesday morning, then the taping on Oprah - "Why didn't you release it sooner?" Oprah asks, to get it out there, over and done with and now STFU. I wouldn't be surprised if Oprah and Valerie discussed this to "get it out of the way".
From a shrink angle I think most of America is po'ed about this from the standpoint of 1. waiting 3 years 2. his smug, "You folks are silly" comment 3. the whole Lakin thing 3. the time people have put in this trying, in their minds, to patriotically uphold the constitution 4. putting another scan, copy out there that means nothing - basically doesn't prove or disprove anything - nothing but the real original paper will do that with separate forensic document examination and verification.
Now the media meme is case closed and any further discussion of even the natural born citizen clarification by SCOTUS or a Constitutional Amendment is going to be viewed as fringe. That's fine, we'll push ahead. Hopefully the states will put Natural Born Citizen in their eligibility bills which will necessitate a court ruling, maybe up to SCOTUS.
Overall, I think he has miscalculated how much anger there is out there about this. In basic shrink training, you learn early on that beneath frustration, aggravation and disappointment, there's anger. If there's 'something every day' as I've alluded to, it builds. Have you felt frustrated, aggravated and disappointed with Obama? I guess we'll see how much it builds up to November 6, 2012. . . By then will America be angry enough?
I’m a computer illiterate and I was able to make the layers thing work. You’d think the Dictator of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, who has access to the CIA, NSA, and the Secret Service could have presented a better forgery job than this.
I’m going with option B, he’s a fraud.
Then you drop a signal on the copier (through a line, or a thumb drive, or even by placing another document into the "document feed".
You press the button to make it go and there she goes.
They have such machines available all over the place. Check Staples or Walmart.
Well, the OCR read the documents but most of the documents had some sort of stray marks placed there by the respondents.
OCR technology is now so advanced that the USPS can read virtually 100% of all handwritten addresses, or printed addresses of any font.
I'm thinking the OCR used to originally "scan" the source documents for input into the microfiche system was a low res standard TV camera. So there'd be all sorts of "noise" in the signal that a modern software with a gazillion pictel resolution could probably pick up and toss into separate "layers" or "buckets" or whatever we wanted.
I know most folks don't think of TV as being just another OCR since it's analog, but there you have it. If all you wanted was to spit out a downstream "photostat" you'd simply record the full analog image. Digitization of that image definitely has to be closer to 2000 than to 1961 I'll guarantee.
The message has to do with the RUBBER STAMP ~ not the document. They put that on everything that needs Okuba's signature.
So, this may be, under HI law, a "true copy" or it may be an "abstract".
Maybe it's just artful language designed to suck you in and there's only one rubber stamp.
Fur Shur, two rubber stamps ` one that says "true copy" and one that says "abstract" and one will always be missing when you need it.
The conclusion can only be that we don't really know what the statement means.
Your post previously as show by the link indeed deserves very careful reading. I immediately went to a web site that showed the 2007 stamp by Dr Alvin T. Onaka PhD. This on the back of the short form given out to quiet any misgivings about the nominee for the presidency. I also went to the latest stamp, 25th April 2011.
The first one showed possibly some deterioration due to much use. The "THE" is very plain, whereas the word file can hardly be read. The latest one does show TXE. It is obviously much cleaner than the 2007 stamp. I have to concede that a Freeper did show how heavy pressure could cause this. I am a bit of a dunce myself with my trusty computer, but my grand daughter showed me a little circle with a cross at the bottom of my computer. It allowed enlargement half as much again and double if one wished. It was TXE.
Getting a little late now and I will go through your post indicated tommorrow. I can only pose the question that should not the good Doctor, put his personal written signature on such an important document?.
Interesting info. Why released now?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2712271/posts?page=91 FOUND IT~! Uh, Little Jeremiah? Your buddy Mr. K ~ he claims you guys THINK THE SAME ~ he’s on your side in this ~ that post was in the same thread where you’ve posted and he posted. Didn’t either of you guys recall that?
That happens. I have seen copies of marriage certs of relatives in which the age(s) of participant(s) is off by 2 years. I just got a copy of a Soc Sec application for a deceased relative, and it has another birth date of hers. I have seen more than one. All of that said, I had issues with the fake looking BC that was released, among them, why the difference bewteen the AP and the WH?
I got Abobe Acrobat 1 with an OCR app in a scanner bundle in ‘96. The scanner was new but the software by that time was already a few years old. What a PITA that stuff was to use, and the results were horrible.
You are right, the process has come a very long way. Think about all those hand written checks running down the line at the federal reserve.
I ran the AP version of the BC through a little freeware app called PDF OCR X, for intel chipped Macs. It came out nearly completely converted. Each layer was labeled with corresponding text. Pretty impressive considering the resolution of that doc.
IIRC HDOH converted their documents in 2001? So we aren’t exactly talking about a stone tablet here.
I really don’t know what you’re talking about. If you’re talking about another bc with UKL Lee, I saw one posted.
At this point any graphic on the internet might be real, might not be real. If a list of registrar names working in 1961 could be found that would be best.
Or are you referring to something else? The link didn’t tell me and I’m really too busy to chase down other peoples’ replies to other comments and figure out what is the import?
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.
