Click The Pic
Posted on 04/27/2011 12:44:41 PM PDT by matt1
If you look at the BC in the attached image, how is it possible that you can see the security paper design THROUGH the image of the BC? Is it not correct that the BC would appear as a solid white or black object OVER the security paper?
Second, the upper left corner of the image of the BC is shaded and slants downward, indicate that the document was photocopied from a bound volume. However, how is it possible that the green security paper lines remain straight on the image yet the text and black lines curve downward? Also notice that the security paper lines of the BC image perfectly match the security paper lines on the paper on which the BC was supposedly printed.
This indicates that the BC would have to be transparent. Therefore, does anybody know whether BCs circa 1961 were issued as transparent documents? Is it possible for a microfilmed BC to exist in transparent form?
Sweet.
Lots of good discussion going on here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711350/posts?q=1&;page=1
It looks like they scanned the doc which was originally on a plain white background and in a book. Then they used the Photoshop magic wand tool to remove the white background - which is why the text (etc.) has a white glow. Then they placed that layer over the green security background.
I'm no expert on the issues brought up by others regarding "layers' and other inconsistencies in the document. But if true, they are too "amateurish" for someone with the resources of the White House behind them.
So, my question is what if these artifacts are deliberate? The White House has to know the document is going to get intense scrutiny and these things will be revealed.
Perhaps this was done intentionally to keep the controversy alive, the media continuing to ridicule the "birthers" and elements of the Republican party divided.
Exactly what I was wondering.
Either what they copied FROM was printed on what certainly looks like green cross-hatched paper, and the color copier they presumably used faithfully photocopied that green green cross-hatched background and everything on it...
or
Alternatively, somewhere along the way, from the time the original paper long-form certificate was created and when this photocopy was created, some “process” lifted just the “stuff” in black—lines, typewriten text, pre-printed text, hand-written signatures and dates, and finally rubber-stamped stuff—and these presumably digitized images were then all affixed by some fancy process to some new fancy green cross-hatched paper.
Am I missing something?
I believe that the original was typed up on white paper, and then either saved as a paper record or microfiche or saved in some format, scanned digital, etc. Then when the long form is requested they copy their original record onto their official certified paper, which in this case is the green background.
This is how the birth and death records are done in California. They have a printer filled with the official background paper, which is specially printed up for the state. When a document is requested, they print the plain document up on the colored background, and certify it.
Is that normal procedure? Why not post a simple image of the actual certification?
That’s a good question. To misdirect? I just saw the tell-tale signs of Photoshop work having used it the past 14 years as a professional. This doc was originally on white paper I guarantee it.
The WH is either real dumb or real sneaky with this release:
Dumb - somebody took the original scan or photocopy of the document and played around with it and/or used some software to save it off as a .PDF file. I figure this is the case, based on what a bunch of dimwits this administration has shown themselves to be.
Sneaky - did the above dumb stuff on purpose to cause the final document to appear questionable so the birther movement fire burns even hotter, causing the birthers to clamor for the original scan, which BO could turn his nose up at and try to make them seem insufferable and crazy.
Either way, we now have all we are ever gonna get from this man. It smells to high Heaven, possibly on purpose.
The only INNOCENT explanation that I might have is that they scanned to PDF with some process that adds in the layers — ie, was programed to pull info into different layers from different parts of the certificate, to help in electronic filing. And in fact you can read any number of articles where the OCR info (”text”) is in a different “invisible” layer.
Of course, when all the public wanted was an electronic copy of the thing, why didn’t they just use a simple scan2file feature of your average color copier?
If this is “innocent” then it is an example of the Hawaii people using the wrong scanner, ‘cause they don’t ever do this request for anyone else.
what is he doing with that other hand during this magic trick
The copier (and almost every printer except for some specialized industrial ones) doesn't print black and white. It prints black or leave areas unchanged.
Or the BC had long-since been transferred to microfiche.
I saved a 1963 Hawaiian long form (SEPT 6, 1963) on my desktop and it has the same curvature of the type-set but not the paper, so I don’t think that is uncommon, although other things are, such as Susan Nordyke’s BC has Honolulu, Oahu and BO’s has Honolulu, Hawaii on Town and State line and registrar’s name is different on Nordyke’s.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-04-27/obamas-birth-certificate-born-in-honolulu/#
The Nordyke Twins...born the day after...have a lower number than Obama did...very interesting. I guess they went in reverse numerical order back then.
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/NordykeTwinsBirthcertificate.jpg
i guess they could have been going by alphabetical order and not actual birth date / time.
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.
