Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Puckster
Different elements on that form occurred at different times ~ the name of the hospital, for example, happened once. The date happened different times. The baby was born once. He was named once. The witness who provided the information was able to do so probably a couple of times (that was his mother BTW and she had a saddle block eh) ~ bet she was happy but was she lucid?)

So, the form went into and out of typewriters.

Did you imagine someone just sat down at a typewriter and whizzed through this document? Hardly likely. This was a working form and was handled by several people ~ e.g. nurses, clerks, volunteers, doctors, etc.

Think through the process ~ it takes place whether or not there's a form there!

14 posted on 04/29/2011 4:17:54 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: muawiyah
Here is a “possible” explanation for some of the “possible” perceived discrepancies.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/nro-on-the-pdf/

We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.

The PDF is composed of multiple images. That’s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they’re being called, aren’t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They’re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.

What’s plausible is that somewhere along the way — from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) — these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What’s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama’s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It’s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let’s leave it at that.

UPDATE: I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.

http://www.nationalreview.com/

17 posted on 04/29/2011 4:27:12 AM PDT by Puckster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: muawiyah

Just a break from all seriousness:

Four worms and a lesson to be learned!!!!

A minister decided that a visual demonstration would add emphasis to his Sunday sermon.

Four worms were placed into four separate jars.

The first worm was put into a container of alcohol.

The second worm was put into a container of cigarette smoke.

The third worm was put into a container of chocolate syrup.

The fourth worm was put into a container of good clean soil.

At the conclusion of the sermon, the Minister reported the following results:

The first worm in alcohol ... Dead.
The second worm in cigarette smoke ... Dead.
Third worm in chocolate syrup ... Dead.
Fourth worm in good clean soil ... Alive.

So the Minister asked the congregation,
What did you learn from this demonstration?

Maxine was sitting in the back, quickly raised her hand and said, ‘As long as you drink, smoke and eat chocolate, you won’t have worms!’

That pretty much ended the service!


20 posted on 04/29/2011 4:35:10 AM PDT by Puckster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: muawiyah
So, the form went into and out of typewriters. Did you imagine someone just sat down at a typewriter and whizzed through this document? Hardly likely. This was a working form and was handled by several people ~ e.g. nurses, clerks, volunteers, doctors, etc.

I hardly think that was the case. The information is kept on a form (usually on one of those hospital clipboards where the nurses are jotting down the patient's medical records). Then after the birth, the nurse asks the parents to help her with information to fill in the blanks with baby's name, etc. No one carried a typewriter around from hospital room to room filling in blanks. The form, filled out by hand, was then given to a clerk (typist) to type up. The typed form was presented for signatures, then filed with the state.

28 posted on 04/29/2011 5:53:05 AM PDT by Apple Pan Dowdy (... as American as Apple Pie mmm mmm mmm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: muawiyah
Different elements on that form occurred at different times ~ the name of the hospital, for example, happened once. The date happened different times. The baby was born once. He was named once.

Explain then why "Kapiolani" is very slightly misaligned with the "Maternity & Gynecological Hospital" typewritten text which follows it. "Kapiolani" also appears to be straight, but dips slightly at the left, as if a typist was attempting to make it appear to have been following the form's curve which resulted from copying from a book. (You may need to expand the PDF to 400% or 600% and use a straightedge aligned with the serifs on the bottom of the typewritten text to see this.) Either "Kapiolani" was typed on a different manual typewriter or the typist, after typing "Kapiolani", released the carriage tension and minutely moved the form down before typing the rest of the line.

"BARACK", similarly, is noticeably lower than "HUSSEIN" and "OBAMA" typewritten further along in the same box. Again, "BARACK" was either typed at a different time on the same or a different typewriter, or the typeist adjusted the form in the carriage after typeing "BARACK".

I'm no documents expert, but I typed tens of thousands of army forms with manual typewriters while in the service, and anyone who has had a similar mind-numbing experience can easily recognize a form which was being very carefully moved around in the carriage as it was being typed, very likely in order to appear to follow the slight curvature of the form resulting from the copying on the platen of a copier from a large book. Very carefully, but not carefully enough.

I can understand different boxes on the form being typed at different times, on different typewriters, and by different typists. Indeed, I often comnpleted or added to forms started in different offices. But why would "Kapiolani" be typed at a different time than "Maternity & Gynecologal Hospital", and "BARACK" typed at a different time than "HUSSEIN" and "OBAMA"?

I'm increasing convinced that we will have to defeat this useless moron on other issues in 2012, and should be able to do so, but I'm still a skeptic on this BC stuff. Hopefully, in the next few days or weeks we'll hear from some genuine documents experts. Others with the wherewithal (hello, Donald) might also be pursuing other lines of investigation. In a real serious investigation (which this should be), for example, I'd be attempting to see what type of records Kapiolani had of physicians on duty - be interesting, for example, to find that Sinclair was at a medical conference in Los Angeles on August 4 (and incidently, what happened to Dr. West, who according to Snopes was the attending physician?).

Lots of potential angles to pursue. Don't think this is dead. But we need to turn up the pressure on college records and other matters as well. I think this sucker is hiding some really really interesting stuff.

34 posted on 04/29/2011 6:14:05 AM PDT by Spartan79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson