Posted on 05/01/2011 6:40:13 PM PDT by ml/nj
I'm not any sort of graphics expert. I invite the comments of those who are. But if any are going to tell me that Adobe Acrobat or Illustrator do these things to a pdf file, then please provide me with some example from the Internet of a pdf file that was posted before April of this year that purports to be derived from a single scan of a single document, that exhibits the same peculiarities as those I show here, which are present in what I will refer to as Bamie's Bogus Birth Certificate II (BBBCII).
I think all must agree that the human who created the White House pdf file had to have done so by once scanning, or photographing, a single document; and then importing the entire image so derived into some one program that produced the file. If more than one image was used to produce the file, then it is a fraud.
I came to my discovery about the varying pixel sizes as a result of reading a thread here on FR about a pair of letter B's which exhibited identical pixellation in the WH document. These can be seen in the upper left in the image below. The details are inside a four minute video at the link given in that thread.
I really wanted to post little pictures to exhibit what I will be talking about here as I go. For some reason, Photobucket (the hosting site I use and pay for) would not let me do that. Numerous attempts to upload the individual images in the composite shown below failed. (I thought the individual files might be too small, but I was able to upload an image of my granddaughter's two front teeth created exactly as these images from BBBCII were created.)
I should say something about how they were created. I opened the White House pdf file in Photoshop. (I have Version 6.) When one does this, Photo shop asks for some parameters. I took the defaults (8.5 x 11, CMYK color, Anti aliasing and Constrain Proportions on) except that I asked for 1200 pixels per inch. All of the little images in the composite below were isolated and copied from the resultant image that Photoshop created; and pasted into a new image. I did add some captions to the composite until Photoshop got made at me and wouldn't let me caption the last to images I added. Anyway, here it is:
(I've constrained the width of the image a bit, in order that the text not force one to scroll every line to see beginning and end. I think this smaller image makes my point, but one can see the full size image here.)
At the upper left are the two identically pixellated B's, and below them are images of two other B's from the document when demonstrate why it is so unlikely that teo typewritten B's would present identically in a scanned document such as this. The presenter in the video thinks they were pasted into a composite document. (And I think he is right. But that won't be my point here, though ANY pasting is prima facie evidence of fraud SFAIAC.)
I thought maybe the B's were identical only because they weren't scanned with high enough resolution. That's why I chose 1200 pixels per inch. I wanted my resolution to be higher than any sane scanning resolution.
There's another reason the B's could be identical. If the pdf producing program recognized these as B's then maybe it would substitute it's own B for whatever it actually saw there. (Which sort of leaves the open question as to why it did no substitute for the other obvious - to any reasonable OCR software - B's.)
So I wanted to see how parts of the document that no OCR software could recognize looked. Look at the little piece of signature at the upper right of my composite. THE PIXELS ARE ALL FOUR TIMES THE SIZE OF THE ONES IN THE IMAGE TO THE LEFT. (I.e. they are 2x2, whereas the ones in the B images are 1x1.) Common sense tells me that non-standard images like signatures should be rendered with the smallest pixels, if some intelligence is going to be applied to choosing pixel sizes for different part of an image. But here the opposite is the case.
These different pixel sizes are the sizes are the clearest evidence so far that different images were brought together to produce BBBCII and that it is a fraud. No movies are necessary; just these still images and some common sense.
Some additional thoughts ...
The green background is entirely composed of large pixels everywhere. I suppose the pdf producing software could recognize the background and reproduce it in this fashion, but why? Why not the best resolution? It's just memory and processing time which are dirt cheap these days.
The registration number is interesting to look at from a pixel standpoint. I know others have commented that the final one seems differently produced than the other ones in the same image. In fact, it looks like it was produced from a font set, whereas the others look like they were draw directly from the scan. But the final one is composed of the large, low resolution pixels and the direct scan stuff uses the small pixels. This is more what I would expect from software that applies some intelligence to pixel size selection. But it is opposite from the signature example.
Finally I consider the scan of the form graphics that identify Block 1a on the document. Certainly there is nothing here, except the one, which any OCR software might identify. The little 'a' and the period following are just a blob, and they are the only part of this piece of the image rendered in small pixels.
The bottom line for me is that different parts of the BBBCII image were captured and/or created at different times, because they are composed of different sized pixels; and in no consistent way that could be explained by any intelligent software algorithm.
ML/NJ
I keep reading that or variations of it over and over - yet how does that make it any more true? In the year of his birth, one didn't require both parents to be US Citizens for the child to be an automatic citizen (natural born).
Or conscience dead.
Fortunately, no one else here has ever made mistakes.
:-D
“Citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are not interchangeable or synonymous.
You can find the information on FR if you’re interested.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~rxsid/
Scroll down and pay special attention to what John Bingham had to say. He is the father of the 14th amendment.
Is it to keep the Eligibility Questioners (or "EQ"s - my preferred term) focused on the place of birth, to the exclusion of the requirement that both parents be citizens?
Is it to keep the EQs aligned with Trump, so as to encourage a third-party run?
Do they just want to continue, with the assistance of the MSM, flagging EQs as tin-foil hat wearing loonies, in the hope of scaring Independents off? Or are they just so arrogant and contemptuous of Congress & the MSM, that they saw no need to be careful? (After all, most of the MSM still believes the Texas ANG memos were authentic.)
At this point anyone who doesn’t get what a NBC is doesn’t want to know. I’ve never seen FR with such a huge number of aggressive trolls before.
0h0m0’s giving those who want to believe him or go along with the insane road show and excuse to continue believing, while giving everyone the middle finger salute since the “documents” are obvious forgeries.
It’s sickening.
I need your help.
Whats your opinion of this blog article:
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/the-odds-are-racist/
I have already tried to post this as a new thread and failed due to the blocked source. Wordpress.com is blocked I think.
Are the pixel duplications present in all versions of the document??
ML/NJ
I thought the thing about the check boxes was interesting. I'm not where I can easily check this out myself now. Maybe I'll be able to look later this evening.
The comma after the four could just be due to someone forgetting to type it and then back spacing. On most old typewriters if you hold the backspace key down while typing a character, that character gets typed at a halfway position.
Are the pixel duplications present in all versions of the document??
The only versions that matter are the White House pdf and faithful representations of it. I don't know what other versions you might have in mind.
ML/NJ
Read this please.
There’s something that we need to know for sure.
The explanation on HRS 333.17.8 does not hold water. “People” say it was not enacted until 1982. But that isn’t the end of the story.
It could merely be section (c) that was added or changed in 1982. Or some other change was made.
We need a PRINT COPY of a Statute book from sometime before 1982. From HI.
*OR*
Someone in HI to do a physical check on the SESSIONS OF CONGRESS from HI to see WHAT WAS CHANGED according to the notations at the end of HRS 338.17.8.
The session history will tell the EXACT amendment to the laws. It’s not something they can hide.
If it can be proved that 338.17.8 existed PRIOR to 1982, then the “Forgery” may not be one.
A physical examination of the written Congressional Session from HI will tell the tale. Someone on the ground needs to go look and post a copy. Not trust a (leftist) law librarian.
I Find it VERY ODD that the statue (Supposedly written in 1982) reference filing a birth certificate for TERRITORIAL CHILDREN when the territory ended in 1959.
Lady and butter - I thought you might be interested in EvasiveManuever’s idea. And maybe even have an idea how to find out the answer.
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.