Skip to comments.Obama's long-form birth certificate debunked - with illustrations
Posted on 05/01/2011 6:45:48 AM PDT by eastexsteve
click here to read article
For what it’s worth. Do you think the following is a fake with U K LeLee? click the link to see the image and then scroll down to post #57 or click the other link.
Same thing....oh, well.
Try it now and let me know what happens.
No change....Don’t worry about it. Maybe the trouble is on my end.
Perhaps you should take your own advise and get the hell off this thread.
But having worked with digital scanning technology and OCR, has anyone investigated if these layers in the PDF are actually created by the scanning process itself? OCR scanning is now above 99% accurate, but it is not perfect. This means that all characters in an scanned physical piece of paper are not always converted to text. This would explain the "R" in BA_ACK that is on a different layer than the text layer.
(I am referring to the link NoGrayZone used in post 6 of this thread.)
Maybe someone should scan a physical BC themselves and see what if an OCR-capable scanner creates these layers as well.
Welcome to FR.
I don’t think it’s on your end. A lot of people have had trouble opening this doc.
Perhaps I still can because I still have it up on my computer (google took it down soon after it was posted)so I refuse to close it!
Mesta Machine sent it to someone to take a screen shot of it (I have NO clue on how to do so). I tried all suggestions given, but was only able to get a screen shot of the 1st 1/4 top of page 1.
Or a stroll in Fort Marcy Park.
If I had a scanner, I would scan mine. Perhaps when I go to work on Tuesday, I’ll scan it there and see what happens.
I agree the birth certicatre issue is a huge waste of energy. I wish it was over. But, either we’re a nation of laws or we aren’t. By not addressing this obvious and sophomoric lie, are we not bestowing King status on obama?
Here is ANOTHER lie, posted on another thread.
Uh, try this: http://tinyurl.com/BC-Debunked
Welcome to FR. You may find that some don’t take kindly to vanity posts by newbies, but you will find a home with the conspiracy buffs.
Occam’s razor isn’t a law. But it’s a pretty good way of analyzing competing theories.
How do you explain why Barack Obama would have to do a substitution on the letter “R” in his name as part of a forgery/modification of other birth certificates.
How do you explain what word ended in “enya” on other birth certificates, that the Obama team felt they had to change the first letter to a “K”?
In other words, you are looking a scanned, possibly multiply-scanned, document, pointing out random anomalies, and arguing that these random anomalies are evidence of a well-planned but poorly-executed conspiracy. But with no explanation as to WHY someone would generate these particular anomalies, or how they play a part in the conspiracy, you have nothing.
Which isn’t surprising for conspiracy theories. You don’t try to disprove conspiracies, because those you can convince never fell for it, and those who fell for it are unlikely to be persuaded by any evidence.
For extra credit, list the facts that, if they were presented, would change your opinion of the consipiracy:
1. A video of Obama being born? Could be faked, they didn’t have videos, “we know he was born, the question is where”.
2. A signed affidavit by a hospital employee? It was years ago, they might have been bought off, or Obama has something on them, or they are an Obama syncophant, or they are mis-remembering. Why didn’t they come out before? Too convenient.
3. Birth announcement in the paper — already been conspiricized away.
4. Sworn oaths by HI officials — they don’t know what they are talking about, my grandmother says that’s not how it works, they are Obama enablers, you can parse their words to say they didn’t actually claim what they said they claimed.
5. Released documents — forgeries, determined by examining copies of copies of copies produced through unknown means using various computer programs.
6. Statements of people who have seen the original — the original doesn’t exist, they can’t be trusted, journalists are in the bag for Obama.
Seriously, I can’t think of any possible evidence that could be shown that wouldn’t be dismissed by the conspiracy crowd. That is what makes a good conspiracy.
People keep comparing this to the Rathergate forgeries. But there was a reason for those forgeries, and they were revealed almost immediately, and were obvious based on the nature of what the original documents would have looked like, and comparison with other documents.
The argument wasn’t over how an OCR program tried to make sense out of a copy of a document scanned on security paper; the Rathergate papers were supposed to be scans of originals from actual files, not officially provided copies per current computer storage and transmission rules.
We knew the chain of evidence in that case, knew the source was someone with a motive, opportunity, and a proven propensity to lie about papers; it made sense they might have tried to forge papers. It wasn’t a claim that official government workers and major public officials and politicians were PART of the conspiracy.
In fact, Rathergate wasn’t much of a conspiracy. It was about one or two people hatching a plan, pulling it off, and fooling others who wanted to believe. That’s why it was believable.
If you can find a different link, please ping me.
Sorry to bother you so much, but here is another ping.
Same deal: “Website cannot be found”
Bad Request. Error 400 is what I get.
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.