Posted on 07/21/2008 3:31:32 AM PDT by Amityschild
or, so the legend goes.
It's been heading in that direction for a long time. Counterfeit money was probably the first government document to be forged. Teenagers got forged IDs to go drinking. 9/11 perps got forged drivers licenses from 7/11 parking lots. Voter registrars like Acorn forge signatures, candidates (like Obama) challenged candidate application signatures as forged or unqualified to eliminate opposition.
The MSM has run altered photos, darkened photos, mis-reported photos, staged photos, Middle East fauxtography. Just a few weeks ago we had the altered photo of Iran's missile launch.
One of my earliest FR vanity threads was about mandating passports for all citizens for voting purposes, only because tampering with passports for vote fraud would put at jeopardy the validity of the passport to other countries for free travel purposes, a trade-off that I presumed people just wouldn't be willing to make.
So now we have birth certificates. And now we're being asked to accept web facsimiles of parts of physical documents as if they were the real thing, with all the legal authority that comes with the real thing.
I'm concerned about the possible future precedent of reliance on web facsimiles of parts of documents, rather than the actual physical thing itself, especially for something as important as the presidency of the United States. Even with the forged Texas Air National Guard documents, CBS "experts" complained that they were only shown images of the documents, but never the actual documents themselves, and so were reluctant to authenticate them.
Have we learned nothing from that?
-PJ
Check his sign up date to answer your question.
Well, that's where I began six weeks ago.
At the same time he buys off on all the sample documents he received from others as being apparently legitimate even though they all have the same "kerning".
Why not? They have nothing to hide, and sent them in as soon as they were asked. The only one who refused and stonewalled was Obama.
Also, "kerning" is not the issue for me, and never was.
We'd need to know at each stage of the game ~ transformations from one format standard to another and back several times do create strange stuff.
Funny you should mention it. That is exactly what I talked about in my other posts. I'm not sure what you mean about a "low-res scanner." How much money does the Obama campaign have? Like $180 million? Did they get their scanner off of eBay? The original scan was at least as large as 2550 x 3300 pixels -- which is not too shabby. I think that it was more like 6600 x 5100, reduced 45% and then cropped.
We'd need to know at each stage of the game ~ transformations from one format standard to another and back several times do create strange stuff.
Again, that was the purpose of my experimentation. I'll be more than happy to send you the 320 test images I made in the process if you'd like to see how I arrived at my conclusions. I don't have the bandwidth to post them all.
BTW, One of my findings is that the image was once an 8-pp bitmap before it became a JPG.
Thank you. Unfortunately, for me it still seems to be “FORBIDDEN”!
“At the same time he buys off on all the sample documents he received from others as being apparently legitimate even though they all have the same “kerning”.:
I’m obviously at a disadvantage here, but one of Techdude’s points was that the layout and kerning on all the known to be genuine certificates (of which he had the originals) were identical, whereas the KOS version was different in both respects, as well as regards the security border.
I mentioned in my blog on June 20th that the Kos border looked nothing like any COLB I've seen. To me, it looked like it was added after the body of the COLB had been altered.
Besides being a drawn graphic, the border had traits similar to dry-transfer graphics, like LetraSet. On June 22. I sent him and TD an almost identical graphic comparing all of the different upper-left, border corners.
In other words, not exactly a TechDude "exclusive."
Try clicking on this link:
and see if it works.
Maybe your browser security settings are too high!
Thanks. I could get on in the office but I’m still not sure if I can at home. In any case, I can read it now.
First really good photoshop photo I ever saw was produced by some former Army intelligence types who put together Pope John Paul with Hillary Clinton. The picture had his hand on her butt.
It takes more than a photoshop image to convince anyone.
Still, I've noticed that most of the complainers who are kvetching about the two different website images (which were probably run off at different times) appear to be asking for Obama to post yet a third website image ~ which we are supposed to believe is true?
Get real guys, if it's on the net, it doesn't mean a thing.
Ditto! I could not agree more...but why do the Lefties insist that it is genuine?
Read my blog post. It’s simple, and to the point.
I said that the Kos image was very different a month ago.
Your typical Leftwingtard is simply not able to think beyond a couple of steps. They put great store in the value of “magical thinking”.
Great stuff there!
Thank you!
Exactly. I never knew just how loony these leftists liberals until I started reading what they said on the HuffingtonPost.com, which IMHO, is worse than the Daily Kos.
If you're looking for a fast acting emetic, read that.
There has been one, and only one image of Obama's COLB from six weeks ago to today. Copies of the same image are on the Kos, Fight the Smears, and FactCheck. The image is a forgery regardless of where it was posted.
Get real guys, if it's on the net, it doesn't mean a thing.
I wish that were the case, because everything about Obama on the net wouldn't mean a thing.
For the same reason they think Obama is the Messiah. It's called the "Barackholme Syndrome."
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.