Please click for comparison --
Penetrating Insights into the Obvious
Posted on 08/24/2008 6:46:17 PM PDT by Kevmo
Factcheck Obama Birth Certificate Alignment problem August 23, 2008 http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/factcheckorg-has-new-birth-certificate-story/
Snoopy said, on August 22nd, 2008 at 4:32 pm Anyone notice the certificate number isn’t level with the security pattern. Looks like it was added later.
The old COLB certificate number was level to the pattern.
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg
(when you follow above link, click the mouse to expand the image. On some images, you can right click and click view image and then expand the image. This is the case at the Obama webpage.)
The word certificate may be pre-printed. The certificate number is variable information like Honolulu below. Honolulu is level with the background. But the certificate number doesn’t appear to be. Certificate number is
151-1961-010641
In the 151, the 151 are close to the lower horizontal bar in the background. But by the end of the certificate number, the end 41 is far above the horizontal bar. The initial 1’s top seems to be slightly below the horizontal bar above the number. The final 1 seems to go into and overlap the horizontal bar above the number. Of course, we are looking at it at an angle. Someone may wish to reorient it for us.
The 0 6 in the last segment of the number also seem to be inside the horizontal bar above the number. The 5 in the 151 has its top appear to have a small gap between it and the horizontal bar above it. These gaps would seemingly be independent of original camera angle and the orientation that Factcheck has chosen to give us, but perhaps they do? Mabye COLB defenders may want to do experiments and show us its an angle issue? Right now it seems not.
If you look down the form, Honolulu stays level with the horizontal bars.
The Certificate Number was originally blacked out on the Obama webpage and Daily Kos. So if FactCheck or someone added this certificate number, they might have put it out of line.
The Patricia Decosta COLB
http://www.againstobama.com/2008/07/barack-obamas-forged-birth-certificate-the-smoking-gun-has-been-found/
or here
http://www.againstobama.com/wp-content/uploads/doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg
The Decosta COLB does not appear to have a misalignment problem.
http://www.valeehill.net/genealogy/getperson.php?personID=I4525&tree=0001
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert
http://www.barackobama.com/images/fts/BO_birthcert.jpg
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate_thumb.jpg
Perhaps if the COLB, certificate of live birth, was manufactured outside normal means, then someone made a mistake on the alignment. So the reason for the blackout may have been this alignment was wrong in the first place. The purported reasons were to protect security or confidentiality or privacy. But perhaps it was to cover up the misalignment all along.
According to Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, the Factcheck photo images contain date indicators indicating a March 12, 2008 date for when they were taken. So at that point, Factcheck and the Obama campaign under David Axelrod may have decided to conceal the Certificate Number because it was out of alignment.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/08/annenberg-fact.html
DateTimeOriginal - 2008:03:12 22:40:18 DateTimeDigitized - 2008:03:12 22:40:18
This is draft and preliminary and subject to revision. Comments and corrections welcome. This is hypotheses or speculation. All other disclaimers apply.
All it takes is one feature that both the scan and the photo have in common but are represented differently
***That’s enough for those of us who are familiar with the evidence. But there are thousands of lurkers who are trying to get a handle on this and if they only encounter one feature it might not be compelling enough. We need to find dozens, an overwhelming amount, so that the peanut gallery is quieted.
From a second look at all of the features I found on the photograph versus their matching features on the scan image, the conclusion I reached is that this "paper COLB" is not the same COLB depicted in the image allegedly made from it. What is a dead giveaway was the absence of a second fold -- a fold not visible at all, despite every image enhancement trick in the book. If this was the paper COLB used to make the scan, there is no way that its sharply creased, second fold would not have been picked up by the scanner.
The conclusion is that this "paper COLB" (we don't know what it is because FactCheck refuses to scan it) was never used to make the alleged scan image posted to the FactCheck.org, the Daily Kos.com, and the Fightthesmears.com websites.
Now, if the absence of the second fold is not enough to convince you, take a good look at the top fold in the allegedly photographed "paper COLB." That fold was made on a diagonal, while the fold on the FactCheck COLB is perfectly horizontal and parallel with the border. I measured at least a 20 pixel difference between the fold and border on the left side, and between the fold and border on the right side.
Now, don't let anyone tell you that it was folded "Twice," because each of the two folds appear in the photos as clean creases.
I removed the other differences I originally listed because it was too difficult to match the image to the photos, given that FactCheck did not take a shot of the entire back of the COLB. No, what they did post was cropped images of three small sections on the back.
The was not even one photo showing the entire Seal, date stamp and entire signature block.
FactCheck has shown itself to be dumb as well as deceitful. They did not get the significance of the Certification Number -- that it contained the birth year, which if it was not 1961, then Obama would have been nailed right away. They brushed aside my research on the lack of colored pixels between the letters, by calling them "pixel halos that were articfacts of the scanning process."
Can you say, "BALONEY?" no matter how hard you search, you will never find any image or photo of "scanner artifacts" on the Internet. Not on Google. Not on Photobucket. Not as of August 24, 2008. And, certainly not like anything I found on the bogus Obama COLB.
Those colorless pixels came from graphic alterations of an existing image, not "scanner artifacts." End of story.
I think it should be patently clear here that nothing presented by FactCheck or the Obama campaign represents reality. America still has never seen Obama's current birth record. Obama made a special trip to Hawaii. He absolutely should have gotten a current copy of his birth record while in Hawaii. That is, if he had nothing to hide. People who support him need to stop making excuses for his perfidy and deceit. Most importantly, as Frank Sinatra would sing, Start spreading the news.
PLEASE, tell the faithful that the COLB issue is not dead, but given new life. The COLB forgery really does have a life of its own, and it is up to you to let these lowlifes know that we are not going to let them get away with perfidy.
I keep coming back to that book you get to write. You are the one who gets to make money off of this imbroglio, regardless of the outcome. You could self-publish and have something soon after the Democratic convention. You have done all the heavy lifting till now, the rest is just tidying up loose ends. Don’t let this opportunity pass you by — you will always regret it.
Very, very, very reluctantly I am going to disagree with you about the fold. I don’t know about counting pixels but I do know how to count the visible pattern in the background design made up of 2 horizontal lines and 2 vertical lines.
Using Photos 2 and 4 from the Fact Check site: The first row of pattern begins with the vertical lines meeting the border. There are 4 sets of verticals and 4 sets of horizontals down to the fold line. This is the same on the FC scan you have posted in your comparison to the other 2007 COLB.
The border is not printed straight in terms of the pattern because on the right side the pattern shows part of the the row that is just above the row that the border starts at on the left.
On the right side of the photo image there are 3.5 verticals until you hit the fold and also 3.5 horizontals. This is starting at the same row that was on the left side not including the little bit extra at the top by the border. On the scanned FC image the count is the same. So I am not convinced that the fold in the photo is “diagonal”. I really wish I was because I want you to be right.
How is that proof positive of a forgery?
It wasn't folded twice. And it wasn't folded on any significant diagonal. And the fold in the photos is perfectly consistent with the fold in the scan.
Photo 2 makes it appear that the fold was made on an diagonal. But that's simply because the angle of the page above the fold on the "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH" side was more extreme than the angle above the fold on the "STATE OF HAWAII" side.
Take a look at photo 5 and you'll see that the distance from the fold to the top inside edge of the border does not vary in any significant way.
But sticking to photo 2 for the moment, pull it up, make it full size, and then scroll to get to where the fold meets up with the left side of the border.
As you can see, the fold there is located just above the pair of horizontal (or vertical with respect to the photo itself but I'm going to reference them as they would appear with the document right reading) bars, and right at the ends of the pair of vertical bars above them.
Then scroll down, following the fold until you get to the point where it meets up with the right side of the border.
As you can see, it's moved further above the horizontal pairs to the point that nearly half of the vertical pair above them is now below the fold.
Now pull up the Kos or FactCheck scanned images and you will find the exact same thing.
k
obumpa
I wonder how long you’ll be a freeper, since the consensus is that you’re a CoLB troll.
Photo 2 makes it appear that the fold was made on an diagonal. But that's simply because the angle of the page above the fold on the "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH" side was more extreme than the angle above the fold on the "STATE OF HAWAII" side.
Here's photo 2 and it is diagonally folded twice.
He has now been banned but I still go after his assertions and BS. See the post above this one.
For them to breath new life into this COLB controversy by publishing photos of the alleged “real” COLB and continue to avoid the simple act of publishing a certified vault copy of Obama’s actual birth certificate(s), they really look completely incompetent. They will disappear as soon as Obama’s failing campaign is finished.
No way, Jose.
I checked all of your prior posts, and you never said "Boo" about it before you ever saw others monkeying around with the color balance.
You also don't understand the principle of perspective: objects further away from an observer will look smaller than objects close to the observer. Yet the the distance from the border to the fold on the left side is greater than the right side. It's like 123 pixels to 145 pixels.
Take a look at photo 5 and you'll see that the distance from the fold to the top inside edge of the border does not vary in any significant way.
Measure it. You're slicing soime more balooney I've measured it before removing the perspective as well as afterwards, and I'll post a few pictures.
THe fold on the Kos image is horizontal and parallel -- not so for the FactCheck image
You need to show us the actual measurements. Again, you say a lot but show very little.
Here are the comparisons and measurements, via GIMP measure tool.
Left side measurements were taken from the bottom of the "T" in STATE down to the fold line.
Right side measurements were taken from the bottom of the "T" in HEALTH down to the fold line.
FACTCHECK PHOTO LEFT SIDE:
FACTCHECK PHOTO RIGHT SIDE:
FACTCHECK IMAGE LEFT SIDE:
FACTCHECK IMAGE RIGHT SIDE:
The left side of this FactCheck photo (BC #5) is only slightly slanted away from the POV, and if the law of perspective is going to be claimed, then you would expect the left side, that's further away, to be smaller than the right side, which is closer to the POV.
You can also try measuring the distance from the inside borders to the fold.
Next?
Now, for a little touch of Polarik.
Here's a synopsis of my update here.
Some of the suspicious elements I first noticed about the FactCheck photo last Friday, turned out to be too problematic to use them as points of contention. In particular, the location of the date stamp, the location of the signature stamp, the size of the borders, and the look of the borders were not sufficiently different for me to make a judgment call. So I redacted them from my original post.
However, there are a few, highly significant differences between the COLB photo and the COLB image.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 10
FIGURE 11
FIGURE 12
FIGURE 13
Now, for a little touch of Polarik.
Here's a synopsis of my update here.
Some of the suspicious elements I first noticed about the FactCheck photo last Friday, turned out to be too problematic to use them as points of contention. In particular, the location of the date stamp, the location of the signature stamp, the size of the borders, and the look of the borders were not sufficiently different for me to make a judgment call. So I redacted them from my original post.
However, there are a few, highly significant differences between the COLB photo and the COLB image.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 10
FIGURE 11
FIGURE 12
FIGURE 13
Seeing the “II” after his name on the certificate is very questionable. I believe the rules are: If a child is named after his father, he’s a “Jr.” on the birth certificate. He doesn’t become a “II” until he has a child and gives him the same name, and that child becomes “III” (the third). So this idiot wouldn’t be Barak Hussein Obama II until his son is born and named Barak Hussein Obama III. In any case, a “II” wouldn’t be on a birth certificate.
I could be wrong, but that’s how I learned the system.
In every photo of the embossed Seal on the backside of the COLB, the top part is cropped out right where the bottom fold should be.
Coincidence? Or intentional?
I first have to finish the one that I started ten years ago.
THere's allso my wife who goes ballistic every time she sees a COLB image on my computer. She thinks that I'm addicted to it.
If you make money at it, she won’t mind. You have enough material. The time is ripe. You could have it self-published and up on Amazon in a matter of a few short weeks, even before November. Opportunities like this only come along once per decade or so.
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.