Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Garnering attention after alleging that Sen. Barack Obama was not born in U.S.
Times Herald ^ | 9/6/08 | Keth Phucas

Posted on 09/06/2008 9:31:56 AM PDT by pissant

WHITEMARSH - In a society criticized for being too litigious, lawsuits filed by local maverick attorney Philip Berg rank as some of the most sensational. In the past decade, Berg challenged the results of the 2000 presidential election, sued the Bush administration in 2004 for alleged complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks and filed a suit recently claiming that Sen. Barack Obama is not really a U.S. citizen.

After the U.S. Supreme Court's election decision, the Lafayette Hill lawyer demanded that three Supreme Court justices be disbarred for alleged conflict of interest. Several counts in the Sept. 11 lawsuit were eventually dismissed, Berg said, and the plaintiff, William Rodriguez, eventually withdrew the suit.

But the 64-year-old's legal challenge to Sen. Obama's birth records is currently percolating across the Internet blogosphere and has generated near 8 million hits on the attorney's Internet site, www.obamacrimes.com, he said during an interview Friday.

He has received about $2,500 in donations to help support the legal action.

Berg, a former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general and Montgomery County Democratic Party chairman, was prepared for an onslaught of e-mail messages and phone calls attacking him. However, the opposite has occurred. "I'm totally amazed by the positive responses we're getting," he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at timesherald.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: barrydunham; barrysoetoro; berg; bergvobama; birthcertificate; certifigate; citizenship; colb; colbaquiddic; dnc; dunham; larrysinclairslover; lawsuit; obama; obamacolb; obamafamily; obamatruth; obamatruthfile; passport; philberg; philipberg; puma; soetoro
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Certifigate rages on.....
1 posted on 09/06/2008 9:31:57 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SE Mom; Kevmo; Calpernia; Polarik

Ping


2 posted on 09/06/2008 9:32:32 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Nothing on this will happen until after the election. And if he is elected it will be buried.

If he isn't elected, look for Hillary's people to dig into this.


3 posted on 09/06/2008 9:37:17 AM PDT by Brookhaven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant

News you won’t find at AP...


4 posted on 09/06/2008 9:37:24 AM PDT by TommyDale (I) (Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

This NEEDS to be dealt with.


5 posted on 09/06/2008 9:42:40 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys--Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I'll bet this is front-page stuff in all the MSM now. There are probably hundreds of investigative reporters digging feverishly to get to the bottom of this.
6 posted on 09/06/2008 9:47:09 AM PDT by Proud2BeRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
When a politician can easily settle the question and does not, that is it. This kind of a person could never be trusted with anything much less as CIC of America.
7 posted on 09/06/2008 9:50:13 AM PDT by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BeRight

But first they have to finish digging up every back yard in and around Wasilla to find evidence that Sarah committed a crime in the last 44 years.


8 posted on 09/06/2008 10:00:04 AM PDT by Stayfree (***********************************************If it is left, it can't be right!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
When a politician can easily settle the question and does not, that is it. This kind of a person could never be trusted with anything much less as CIC of America.

You're making way too much sense.

9 posted on 09/06/2008 10:09:54 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pissant
If it was determined after Obama was elected that he isn't a U.S. citizen, it would be an unprecedented case in American history.

"We could have a constitutional crisis," he said. Next week, Berg plans to petition the court for "expedited discovery" in an effort to compel Obama to release the complete version of his birth records for examination. He said Obama has 60 days to respond to the lawsuit.

Less than 60 days until the election.

10 posted on 09/06/2008 10:22:45 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Cue Springsteen: Born in the U.S.A..

11 posted on 09/06/2008 10:25:45 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Vote against the dem party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5

Seen it many times. It’s a forgery.


12 posted on 09/06/2008 10:34:35 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Not this one. This is the real deal by the certification number that the photoshopped one doesn’t have. This one also has the raised seal.

Still waiting for the guy to produce his daughter’s birth certificate for a side by side comparison.


13 posted on 09/06/2008 10:38:18 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Vote against the dem party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5

Trust me, I’m far, far more familiar with this story and Factcheck’s photos than you are. It is a forgery.


14 posted on 09/06/2008 10:42:23 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pissant; Stayfree

I have absolutely no reason in the world to trust you at all. I am still waiting for Stayfree to post the photo of his daughter’s birth certificate.


15 posted on 09/06/2008 10:54:11 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Vote against the dem party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5


what happened to http://www.birthcertificatenow.com/



16 posted on 09/06/2008 11:04:23 AM PDT by ncfool (Making Obama look patriotic is above my pay grade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5

True. You may have no reason to trust me. Just as I have no reason to believe you aren’t an ignorant stooge with very limited knowledge of the entire controversy over Factcheck’s story and photos.


17 posted on 09/06/2008 11:09:43 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I notice I’m the one asking for another birth certificate for a comparison and not you. The photo I posted is real. It’s up to you to prove it’s not. Ask Stayfree to post that picture of his daughter’s certificate and help learn the truth.


18 posted on 09/06/2008 11:12:31 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Vote against the dem party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5; Polarik

I have no idea who Stayfree is, so why should I ask him/her anything?

Here is a primer for you. It is by no means complete, but it will get you started.

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/


19 posted on 09/06/2008 11:18:31 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5

BTW, no one is doubting that the photo is not a real photo.


20 posted on 09/06/2008 11:19:18 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Personally, I think we should let this slide until after the election. I’d rather not open Pandora’s Box and allow Hillary back into the race. Obama is far easier to beat, and probably has far less-talented cheating organizations.


21 posted on 09/06/2008 11:36:21 AM PDT by Teacher317 (Suddenly a big time Palin supporter... who's that McCabe guy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I just wrote a nice letter to Mr. Keith Phucas (is his last name pronounced like I think it is?)

Here is my email letter


You wrote:

“When the birth certificate rumors began swirling in June, the Obama campaign posted a “Certification Of Live Birth” document [a COLB] on a special section on its web site, “Fight the Smears,” that debunks the many questionable stories that have circulated about the senator during the campaign.”

Are you always this far off the mark? First of all, Which part of “Obama refuses to show his current birth record,” did you NOT understand?

Secondly, the “smeared” image posted by “Fight The Smears” is totally bogus, as I have proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is a graphically altered image, aka, a forgery.

For your reference:

polarik.blogtownhall.com

Before you make any more sweeping claims like the one above, you really need to do a little investigative journalism first.

Sincerely,

Ron Polarik


22 posted on 09/06/2008 12:45:15 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Not this one. This is the real deal by the certification number that the photoshopped one doesn’t have. This one also has the raised seal.

Sorry, but the photo is even a bigger forgery.

There is no way in Hell that this extremely embossed Seal on this "paper COLB" would NOT show up on a scan it of. Heck, you cannot even hide it in the photos.

Somebody tell me how it is that the top of this seal is reflecting light when no other part of the paper around it is lit?

Not to mention the fact that the actual seal on a 2007 and 2008 COLB is about the size of a quarter and is almost flat.

And why is this exact same portion of the seal cut off in every photo taken of it from behind?

Maybe the same reason why there was never a second fold in the Obama "COLB" image. Again, that second fold shown in the photos is so definitive, that there is no excuse for why that never showed up in the scan either.

Go back and look carefully at that picture posted. Do you notice those white specks (pixels) around the letters in the names? They should NOT be there...unless they used the image they made as the source for the photo.

23 posted on 09/06/2008 1:05:09 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

I think you want to go here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2076197/posts

There’s more questions that have to be answered.


24 posted on 09/06/2008 1:11:26 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Vote against the dem party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

I think you want to go here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2076197/posts

There’s more questions that have to be answered.


25 posted on 09/06/2008 1:14:36 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Vote against the dem party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pissant
sued the Bush administration in 2004 for alleged complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks

Sounds like a nut case.

26 posted on 09/06/2008 1:16:25 PM PDT by kabar (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik; et al
Here are the photos in question:

Acording to the Exif data embedded in these nine digital photos, all of them were allegedly taken on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 PM (PHOTO #1) to 10:47:02 PM (PHOTO #9).

Now. here comes the weird stuff.

Is the Exif data accurate? Were these photos actually taken on the 12th of March at 10:40PM in the order as numbered?

Yeah, if the photographer could bend Space-Time, or jump through a worm hole. OK, check this out. Please...read it slowly and carefully.

Although the images are sequentially named and numbered from birth_certificate_1.jpg to birth_certificate_9.jpg, there is absolutely no way that BC #8 was taken after BC #7 and before BC #9.

The Exif data "allegedly" indicates that BC #7, a shot of the signature stamp, date stamp, and 4/5th of the Seal on the reverse side, was taken only 15 seconds after BC #6, a shot, taken from the front side, of the lower half of the COLB, with the second fold prominently displayed, the slight bleed-though of the date stamp, and the entire Seal, with the lower fold cutting right through the top 1/5th of the Seal (which was curiously cut off in the photos of the reverse side)

BC #8, which shows a close up of the Seal, and also cutting off the same 1/5th of the Seal (as was done in BC #7), was supposedly taken one minute, 20 seconds after BC #7, but two minutes, 5 seconds before BC #9.

Here is BC #6:

Here is BC #7:

Here is BC #8:

Here is BC #9:

Now, the fun begins.

I created a two photo overlay. First I made BC #9 partially transparent and reduced it to be exactly 80 percent of its original size -- a significant discovery. Then, I copied it and pasted it over BC #7. the last step was moving the date stamp of BC #9 over the date stamp of BC #7. They aligned perfectly. Another significant discovery.

Here's the photo overlay before I covered one date stamp with the other:

As you can see above, the size and orientation of the date stamps are the same. Now, here's the overlay with one date stamp aligned on top of the other:

Even though the camera was hand-held and probably not mounted on a tripod, the date stamps match exactly, but the signature stamps are not. The odds of being able to move the camera from its position in BC #7 to another position to take BC #8, and then moved once again to take BC #9, such that the date stamps on #7 & #9 align perfectly when the size of BC #9 is reduced 80 percent, are rather slim.

THe easiest explanation for the date stamp match is that BC #9 was photographed after BC #7 by first increasing the zoom lens to 120 percent of BC #7.

The other possibility is that the photographer just got off a lucky shot that was made without any artifial light on the COLB.

But, why take what amounted to a second shot, and in poor lighted conditions? If that is true, then the 10:40 pm time stamp is false. Also, why did it take over 4 minutes to shoot BC #9 after BC #7 if they were, indeed, shot separately?

27 posted on 09/06/2008 4:05:22 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Polarik; et al
Here are the photos in question:

Acording to the Exif data embedded in these nine digital photos, all of them were allegedly taken on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 PM (PHOTO #1) to 10:47:02 PM (PHOTO #9).

Now. here comes the weird stuff.

Is the Exif data accurate? Were these photos actually taken on the 12th of March at 10:40PM in the order as numbered?

Yeah, if the photographer could bend Space-Time, or jump through a worm hole. OK, check this out. Please...read it slowly and carefully.

Although the images are sequentially named and numbered from birth_certificate_1.jpg to birth_certificate_9.jpg, there is absolutely no way that BC #8 was taken after BC #7 and before BC #9.

The Exif data "allegedly" indicates that BC #7, a shot of the signature stamp, date stamp, and 4/5th of the Seal on the reverse side, was taken only 15 seconds after BC #6, a shot, taken from the front side, of the lower half of the COLB, with the second fold prominently displayed, the slight bleed-though of the date stamp, and the entire Seal, with the lower fold cutting right through the top 1/5th of the Seal (which was curiously cut off in the photos of the reverse side)

BC #8, which shows a close up of the Seal, and also cutting off the same 1/5th of the Seal (as was done in BC #7), was supposedly taken one minute, 20 seconds after BC #7, but two minutes, 5 seconds before BC #9.

Here is BC #6:

Here is BC #7:

Here is BC #8:

Here is BC #9:

Now, the fun begins.

I created a two photo overlay. First I made BC #9 partially transparent and reduced it to be exactly 80 percent of its original size -- a significant discovery. Then, I copied it and pasted it over BC #7. the last step was moving the date stamp of BC #9 over the date stamp of BC #7. They aligned perfectly. Another significant discovery.

Here's the photo overlay before I covered one date stamp with the other:

As you can see above, the size and orientation of the date stamps are the same. Now, here's the overlay with one date stamp aligned on top of the other:

Even though the camera was hand-held and probably not mounted on a tripod, the date stamps match exactly, but the signature stamps are not. The odds of being able to move the camera from its position in BC #7 to another position to take BC #8, and then moved once again to take BC #9, such that the date stamps on #7 & #9 align perfectly when the size of BC #9 is reduced 80 percent, are rather slim.

THe easiest explanation for the date stamp match is that BC #9 was photographed after BC #7 by first increasing the zoom lens to 120 percent of BC #7.

The other possibility is that the photographer just got off a lucky shot that was made without any artifial light on the COLB.

But, why take what amounted to a second shot, and in poor lighted conditions? If that is true, then the 10:40 pm time stamp is false. Also, why did it take over 4 minutes to shoot BC #9 after BC #7 if they were, indeed, shot separately?

28 posted on 09/06/2008 4:10:28 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pissant
In the past decade, Berg challenged the results of the 2000 presidential election, sued the Bush administration in 2004 for alleged complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks [ ie. a troofer ] and filed a suit recently claiming that Sen. Barack Obama is not really a U.S. citizen.

After the U.S. Supreme Court's election decision, the Lafayette Hill lawyer demanded that three Supreme Court justices be disbarred for alleged conflict of interest. Several counts in the Sept. 11 lawsuit were eventually dismissed, Berg said, and the plaintiff, William Rodriguez, eventually withdrew the suit.

He has had a remarkable record of success in these endeavors.

See my about page for more information on the eligibility issue.

29 posted on 09/06/2008 4:24:31 PM PDT by 21stCenturyFreeThinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

marking...


30 posted on 09/06/2008 8:57:34 PM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pissant

obumpa


31 posted on 09/06/2008 9:28:17 PM PDT by Dajjal (Visit Ann Coulter's getdrunkandvote4mccain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I just wrote a scathing comment to the article.


32 posted on 09/08/2008 2:15:15 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I just wrote a scathing comment to the article.


33 posted on 09/08/2008 2:17:25 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

Excellent.


34 posted on 09/08/2008 2:23:03 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
Hi Polarik. Do you have any idea who the "third" expert is that Berg references in his lawsuit? I'm assuming (and I may be wrong, of course) that you are one, and TechDude is two, but I can't figure out who the third person is. I'm trying to submit a comment to What's Your Evidence on this set of allegations, but can't find the references to identify the third person. (Who knows if it'll get published, but gotta try!) Any ideas?
35 posted on 09/08/2008 3:55:17 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I just wrote a scathing comment to the article.


36 posted on 09/08/2008 4:45:03 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
Hi Polarik. Do you have any idea who the "third" expert is that Berg references in his lawsuit? I'm assuming (and I may be wrong, of course) that you are one, and TechDude is two, but I can't figure out who the third person is. I'm trying to submit a comment to What's Your Evidence on this set of allegations, but can't find the references to identify the third person. (Who knows if it'll get published, but gotta try!) Any ideas?

Not TechDude anymore. I don't know who the third one might be.

37 posted on 09/08/2008 7:16:34 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
'm trying to submit a comment to What's Your Evidence on this set of allegations...

BTW, I'm the first to submit a comment. Now, let's hope it gers published.

38 posted on 09/08/2008 8:14:06 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

polarik wrote:

“There is no way in Hell that this extremely embossed Seal on this “paper COLB” would NOT show up on a scan it of. Heck, you cannot even hide it in the photos.”

I can see some of the seal in the picture posted at Daily Kos.

“Somebody tell me how it is that the top of this seal is reflecting light when no other part of the paper around it is lit?”

The paper around it has to be lit or else it would be black. I took a sheet of some paper towels that I have that has a pattern embossed into it and folded it like the birth certificate and arranged it under a light so that the middle part was darker than the bottom part like in the photograph and I could see that the bumps in the embossing were much lighter just like the top part of the seal in the photograph.

It looks like the bumps in the seal are getting light at a different angle which makes them look brighter.


39 posted on 09/08/2008 9:54:45 PM PDT by Trallfaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Trallfaz

How can I post pictures here?

Tnx.


40 posted on 09/08/2008 10:25:41 PM PDT by Trallfaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BeRight

not


41 posted on 09/08/2008 10:35:31 PM PDT by BooBoo1000 (Some times I wake up grumpy, other times I let her sleep/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

polarik wrote:

“I created a two photo overlay. First I made BC #9 partially transparent and reduced it to be exactly 80 percent of its original size — a significant discovery. Then, I copied it and pasted it over BC #7. the last step was moving the date stamp of BC #9 over the date stamp of BC #7. They aligned perfectly. Another significant discovery.”

They don’t look to me like they perfectly aligned. In the second overlaid picture I see two dots by the J and two dots in the crook of the 7 and two dots down by the bottom of the 7. But in the first overlaid picture where you can see the dates separately there is only one dot by the J and one dot by the crook of the 7 and one dot down by the bottom of the 7. If they perfectly aligned there would just be the single dots and not the pairs of dots.


42 posted on 09/09/2008 6:48:51 AM PDT by Trallfaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

Why do you say “not TechDude anymore”? Berg’s complaint specifically cites to THREE experts, and includes the allegations that the posted Birth Certificate was issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Isn’t that Techdude’s analysis? Do you disagree with that analysis?


43 posted on 09/09/2008 7:14:24 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Trallfaz
It looks like the bumps in the seal are getting light at a different angle which makes them look brighter.

I've tried to replicate it all sorts of ways using a 2008 COLB, and it cannot be done without either editing the image, or flattening down the inside of the Seal (not likely).

Here is their Seal image with only the outer ring illuminated:

Here is my best attempt to recreate that effect:

As you can see above, all of the embossed area on the Seal above the fold is illuminated.

HOWEVER

Go back and look at the background above the fold and compare it to the background below the fold. The bottom half of the COLB in this photo looks as if the fold through the middle caused at least a 20 degree angle between the area above and below the fold.

Look at the same photo under edge detection:

See the angle?

Photo #6 is a continuation of Photo #5, and should have been illuminated in the same way as Photo #5, but it's not.

Here's Photo #5 taken before it:

Now, how is it that just that outer rim of the Seal above the fold is lit in Photo #6 when it was taken simply by moving the camera further down???

44 posted on 09/09/2008 7:47:49 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
Why do you say “not TechDude anymore”? Berg’s complaint specifically cites to THREE experts, and includes the allegations that the posted Birth Certificate was issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Isn’t that Techdude’s analysis? Do you disagree with that analysis?

I know that it's hard to keep up with everything that has happened with this COLB business for the past three months, but a few weeks ago, I broke the news about how TechDude fabricated his evidence and pretty much lied about everything else. I knew it from the beginning, and all the time, I kept it to myself, as a favor to TexasDarling, who had done an "Exclusive" on his work just as Pam Geller had done, as well as Israel Insider, too. He suckered a lot of people an tarnished not only himself, but everyone else who trusted him.

It was not until Israel Insider gave him the boot that I came forward with the news.

What blew his cover was when he said that he "received some 2007 COLBs" and that they had the same border as the 2008 COLB. He figured that nobody would be the wiser.

Only problem was that I had a genuine 2007 COLB and its border did resemble the one on the Obama COLB (which did not affect any of my research conclusions as I had already conceded that the border from someone else's 2007 COLB was copied onto the forgery.)

See for yourself:


45 posted on 09/09/2008 8:03:38 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
Oops...wrong image.

Try this one:

and this one:


46 posted on 09/09/2008 8:34:05 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

polarik wrote:

“Here is their Seal image with only the outer ring illuminated:

Here is my best attempt to recreate that effect:

As you can see above, all of the embossed area on the Seal above the fold is illuminated.”

I’m confused. You originally asked “how it is that the top of this seal is reflecting light when no other part of the paper around it is lit?” I answered and said that it was lit but that the bumps in the seal are getting light at a different angle which makes them look brighter. And now you post a picture that answers your own question.

” Photo #6 is a continuation of Photo #5, and should have been illuminated in the same way as Photo #5, but it’s not.

Here’s Photo #5 taken before it:

Now, how is it that just that outer rim of the Seal above the fold is lit in Photo #6 when it was taken simply by moving the camera further down???”

I don’t think it was just the camera moving further down. I still don’t know how to post pictures here but here’s the URL for photo 5.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

And here’s the URL for photo 6.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

In photo 6 someone has their thumb pressing down on the corner of the birth certificate. I don’t think they had their thumb on it when photo 5 was taken. The middle and bottom parts of the birth certificate are darker in photo 6 than in photo 5 and the borders in photo 6 look straighter at the fold than in photo 5. It definitely looks like the angles of the middle and bottom parts of the birth certificate had changed between photo 5 and photo 6. The middle part of photo 6 looks like it was angled more away from the light so that only the bumps of the outer edge of the seal caught the light.

I really don’t know what you’re trying to say here. It all looks to me like someone just took some photos of the birth certificate.


47 posted on 09/09/2008 11:36:03 AM PDT by Trallfaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Trallfaz
I’m confused. You originally asked “how it is that the top of this seal is reflecting light when no other part of the paper around it is lit?” I answered and said that it was lit but that the bumps in the seal are getting light at a different angle which makes them look brighter. And now you post a picture that answers your own question.

I'm sorry. I think I gave you too much information to process. If you go back and read what I said, you'll see that what puzzled me is the following: The outer ring, and ONLY the outer ring, of the Seal is illuminated, but not the inner ring, not the top of the crest, nor anything else above the fold.

There is no reason why this should happen. The outer ring of the Seal is no more raised than any other part of the Seal above the fold.

I tried my best to replicate the effect. I tried to illuminate ONLY the outer ring of the Seal, but I couldn't, and I concluded that it cannot be done without modifying the image, flattening the other parts of the seal, or aiming a thin slit of light on it (but, from where would it come?).

Look again. Here's the Seal in #6

Here's the Seal in #5, and as you can see, all is lit equally.

They moved the light. They moved the camera. They did not the subject.

Does that clarify it now?

48 posted on 09/09/2008 6:38:51 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Trallfaz
They don’t look to me like they perfectly aligned. In the second overlaid picture I see two dots by the J and two dots in the crook of the 7 and two dots down by the bottom of the 7. But in the first overlaid picture where you can see the dates separately there is only one dot by the J and one dot by the crook of the 7 and one dot down by the bottom of the 7. If they perfectly aligned there would just be the single dots and not the pairs of dots.

Sorry, but you'll have to use visuals here if you want me to see what you see, and also, define what you mean by "dots."

49 posted on 09/09/2008 6:42:48 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

polarik wrote:

” I’m sorry. I think I gave you too much information to process. If you go back and read what I said, you’ll see that what puzzled me is the following: The outer ring, and ONLY the outer ring, of the Seal is illuminated, but not the inner ring, not the top of the crest, nor anything else above the fold.

There is no reason why this should happen. The outer ring of the Seal is no more raised than any other part of the Seal above the fold.

I tried my best to replicate the effect. I tried to illuminate ONLY the outer ring of the Seal, but I couldn’t, and I concluded that it cannot be done without modifying the image, flattening the other parts of the seal, or aiming a thin slit of light on it (but, from where would it come?).”

Basic physics says that it can be done without modifying the image or flattening the other parts of the seal. Since light travels in a straight line, if that portion of the seal is at slightly greater angle as the incoming light then only the outer ring will be illuminated because the outer ring will block the light from hitting anything inside the ring.

If you look at photo 6 you can see that the outer ring is actually made up of two rings and that pieces of the inner ring are being illuminated by light hitting them that’s coming between the spaces of the outer ring.

Because the birth certificate wasn’t being held down by someone’s thumb in photo 5 the light came in at a higher angle and allowed all the parts of top part of the seal to be illuminated. I don’t see anything unusual at all.


50 posted on 09/09/2008 8:42:11 PM PDT by Trallfaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson