[visually_augmented]

B.D. : “Why are you continuing to defend his birth certificate?”

---

I’m not “defending the birth certificate”. I am merely responding to your “finding”. You seem to think the alignment of the type on Obama’s image proves it is a fraud. I don’t think your argument would hold up as evidence in a court of law that the image was fraudulent.

Personally, I don’t really think you can make determinations of fraud based on this digital image - you would need to have an “original” copy of the document since this image is not admissible as evidence in any court. So this image cannot be used as proof Obama is born in HI nor can it be used to disprove the fact.

Now if you can prove the INFORMATION given on the document is fraudulent, that is a completely different story. That is why I think we need to concentrate on the content and not the “layers”, OCR, or typed or stamped text.

[Sylvester McMonkey McBean]

Now if you can prove the INFORMATION given on the document is fraudulent, that is a completely different story. That is why I think we need to concentrate on the content and not the “layers”, OCR, or typed or stamped text.
******************
Right. Just like we did with the Bush TexANG document - aka the “throbbing memo” / Killian Document.

Why the either or approach? How about both? Attack presentation AND content. We are Freepers and probably capable of both.

[Brown Deer]

That is why I think we need to concentrate on the content and not the “layers”, OCR, or typed or stamped text.

Then maybe you should spend your time researching that, instead of arguing against other people's findings.