Posted on 05/01/2011 6:45:48 AM PDT by eastexsteve
Bear with me, as I am rather new to this forum. The following is my unbiased examination of the Obama LFBC without any comment or input from outside sources. I'm sure others have made some of the same observations I have, but I assembled some observations that you can see yourself without using any specialized software whatsoever. I haven't seen some of these observations out on the web by anyone else yet. (Although, I'm sure I haven't looked everywhere.) Please feel free to copy the file from Google Docs and do what you wish with it.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1eQRJILO2U0ZWUwODM0ZDktZTg2OC00Yzc0LWI4YzAtODBkZWU2YjBhZDU1&hl=en&authkey=CKv6_hg
Sorry LJ, I got my videos mixed up, but I have to say the Mr Winston is being quite unforgiving. There is no question that the new BC is a phony. But point taken on my theory, and still i think my theory is valid just on a different point. THE BC IS FAKE so someone needs to come forward.
Some people on FR - quite a few, lately - seem to have as their sole interest “debunking” anyone who gives some evidecence that this new and improved abstract is a forgery.
If you get my drift...
Please pardon me if I've been in any way unforgiving.
Personally though, before I post something, I try and verify whether it's actually true. In this case, that would've been very easy to do.
The reason for this is that I value the truth.
As far as there being no question that the new BC is a phony, the reality is that, so far, I've been unable to find any compelling evidence that it is. And believe me, it hasn't been for lack of trying. If you want some detailed and honest analysis, just review my posting history.
Thank you for that. I had watched so many videos and read so many pieces yesterday that it probably inevitable that mixed something up.
It happens. I must confess that I’m a bit tired myself at the moment. Too little sleep from reading and researching this very issue.
We will prevail, even if only in the history books....
I believe we will prevail, for the simple reason that I think there are an awful lot of good people in this country. But we may have to go through some awful times before we do, and history is likely to always be a back-and-forth between right and wrong.
I can tell you where the green background is supposed to have come from: the Hawaii folks say that they printed their image on green “safety paper.”
>> “Some people on FR - quite a few, lately - seem to have as their sole interest “debunking” anyone who gives some evidecence that this new and improved abstract is a forgery.
If you get my drift” <<
.
There is a word for them: SHILL.
I believe it possible that the BC was made to look phony deliberately to get our goat so to speak.
It matters little, since the BC that he produced proves him to be inelligible to the office of president or vice president, and that is the real issue.
Do you have a source for this? I did a quick search but don't seem to see an obvious source.
I got it on the radio; I’ve been away from computers for the last three days.
Yeah, so I heard. Was it something like the one linked below? I didn’t have any “safety paper” handy, so I had to “borrow” some. Does the pattern look familiar? Feel free to “download original” from the FILE menu, and examine it. I don’t think your going to find multiple layers of artifacts and doctored text in this one.
Amazing ... if Hawaii sent a paper document to barry bassturd and the white house made a photocopy to hand out, would there be any layering in the imagery when opened via the internet? ... And the way you answer that question tells us what we need to know about whom you serve, n00b. The thing the white hut is touting as a genuine BC is a composite made from more than one image latered together, either by someone in Hawaii carrying your pres_ _ent’s fraud for him, or after a paper document arrived on the mainland.
LOL!
There's a lot I could tell you at this point, MHG. But I'm afraid you're going to have to wait.
I will say this: the known facts just simply aren't with you.
Do I take any joy in that? No. Well, yes. But not because of Obama. Him I'd rather see impeached and removed from office.
But at least I can say that I seem to be at the end of my own 5-1/2 days of research, and now know quite a bit about what's what. And really being able to come to conclusion, whether or not it was the one I wanted, is something to be happy about. Now I can move on to other things.
Steve! Very glad to see you back. I am very much looking forward to your response to my 189/ 190.
You seem to working under a false assumption here. Maybe I can clear that up. You said:
- - -
“However, if they were tampered with, then we have two possibilities:
1) They were tampered with after the layers were separated..
2) They were tampered with before the layers were separated by the computer process;”
- - -
They were neither. The layers were created during the editing process by Photoshop itself. That’s what Photoshop and most other high-powered graphics programs do. They allow you to organize you editing into separate layers or panes in real time so you can do things like bring them front to back in the image, or do away with a particular edit all together without affecting the editing in other layers/panes.
I think what you keep fishing for is for someone to tell you the exact process they used. That’s anyone’s guess. But, I can tell you how I (for the most part) did it with the fake example I posted earlier that is much cleaner than Obama’s. And, here is how I can imagine they did it:
What I’m proposing is they started out with a flat-scanned white-reversed negative image (black text on white background) of a microfilm/microfiche of someone’s Hawaii birth certificate of the day. (The Nordyke twins birth certificate in white is an excellent example of what they started out with.)
They loaded the graphic image into Photoshop, and began carefully erasing all the data they didn’t want with the eraser tool. Since it wasn’t Obama’s birth certificate, that meant erasing all or most everything in the typed data fields.
The author(s) then started another editing layer/pane to add data back to the image. Since they had to use typewritten characters from typewriters used in the 1961 era, this presented a problem. So, they chased down what they could of some old typewritten and printed documents of that day, scanned them, and began copying and pasting IMAGES of characters and words from the secondary documents into their editing layer/pane in Photoshop. Of course, when building words from IMAGES of typewritten characters, it’s easy to not get them perfectly aligned. And, they weren’t careful about what images they selected from secondary documents, because they accidentally selected some typeset proportional font text and kerned font text (possibly from a magazine of that era, or a later printed document) and included it in their primary editing layer. Typewriters in 1961 could not do proportional spacing. That didn’t happen until IBM released a special machine in 1966, and then the Selectric III in 1980. It is blatantly obvious that the inserted text images came from many sources, some modern, and not just one old 1961 typewriter.
Now, some of these character and word IMAGES they needed to copy weren’t clean, and had some unwanted artifacts. So, they had to omit them from the primary editing layer. And, they couldn’t come up with IMAGES they could copy to replace them, so they started another editing layer to create character images via computer generation that they could place into the main image to finish the words in the fields. These are the anti-aliased characters you see. This is where they also added the green background. (This is where I added mine in the example I built.)
They also started another editing layer/pane to add the certification stamp at the bottom of the document, and the two dates on rows 20 and 22. They saved the complete image from the FILE menu in Photoshop, and also exported it as a PDF file. The big mistake these rank amateurs made, was they didn’t “flatten” the image into one layer first.
Now, having put forth the theory above, it is all a moot point. I say again, the theory above is a moot point. Why? Because in August 1961, they did not have:
1) Typewriters that produced proportional spacing
2) Typewriters that produced kerned fonts
3) Computer word processing and publishing
4) Graphics editing software
5) computer disk/tape digital document storage
What you are seeing in the LFBC is a document that was created at a much later date, and from many sources. And, it is a somewhat careless job. This is the best I can do to explain what is there. I don’t know what else I can tell you.
By “unforgiving” you must mean that he’s not cutting anyone any slack on their sloppy arguments, because from where I’m sitting it looks like he’s being *quite* patient in putting up with the conspiracy buffs’ temper tantrums.
You lie ... for barry the bassturd. *LOL*
Well, where’d you go, JW?
Eastexsteve makes some pretty good points in his #217.
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.