1600% zoom.
Posted on 04/28/2011 10:03:29 AM PDT by DCBurgess58
Can someone explain the “curl of the page” on the left of the page...where it appears the “rubber stamp” seems to be an overlay of another piece of paper? What’s this caused from? Just an overlay/sheet of paper with a rubber stamp on it where they can place this on any document?
The first BC was a poorly done fraud, so it isn’t surprising to see that the second one is equally a fraud, possibly put together by some unethical pals in Hawaii, where it existed until it didn’t, and then existed again, resurrected from document hell. Obviously the conspirators were unable to enlist a professional forger into their scam, but it doesn’t matter. It’s the stupid, the lazy, the disinterested, the intellectually snooty, and unethical loons who Odumbo seeks to satisfy.
“is there no other explanation as to why the pixels look suspicious?”
One possibility is that the document is completely legitimate, but pixels were messed with slightly just to stir up a controversy. After letting the controversy stew for a certain period of time, Obama’s handlers later trot out the original copy just to make the doubters all look like fools.
address:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/
You are absolutely right about this. There is glaringly obvious evidence of tampering throughout the image. And you don’t need any expensive software or arcane techniques. All you have to do is look.
I believe this is all about preemptively discrediting Corsi’s book.
“The fact is that what the WH put up could not possibly be what was requested, as shown here:” - WTC
Ok - please explain...
Someone did a lousy job scanning that thing. It looks like when I’ve scanned a picture in a book. See how the right side curves, as if from a page in a book. I’m not saying that’s what it is, but, that’s how it looks.
That said; am with Geller; and all others; who will not retreat with heads down - as Obama,Inc. so wants.
Are you referring to to Barack Obama?
Err, that would be the left side, I mean.
Then what is up with the ‘white’ marks left behind when the text is lifted.When the compression software has decided what to put into the text layer, it removes the text from the image and puts it into a second layer. It removes the text layer pixels by painting them white in the original image, and what it gets that way is then the background layer image: The green background, with the text still outlined (barely readable) in white. Now, the background is compressed heavily using some image compression algorithm. Decent, espensive software would use JPEG2000 for this. The software that produced our BC PDF simply used DCT, which is similar to the old JPEG standard. Now, DCT and JPEG are very bad at compressing text. When you decompress the background image, the letters appear smeared. Since the letters are white, the smear is white, too. When the PDF viewer decompresses the text layer and adds it to the background image, the white smear looks like a white halo around each letter.
That's all fine and dandy but you are making a supposition. Look at your image... The number one on the background layer is the same size as the text layer that you have shifted, yet the letter M in the time block is clearly a smaller font than the layer you shifted. You have to leave open the possibility that your supposition is wrong and that this document has been manipulated.
I got married in a city where I don’t live in 1993 using my drivers license from another state.
I doubt that they would have typed ‘African American’ or ‘Aframerican’ for the simple reason that the senior Barack was not American. ‘Negro’ seems the most plausible. I doubt that they would type “European” for a white father born in France. I mean race was a big issue in the early ‘60’s and people probably weren’t confusing race for nationality back then.
African? Black?
Back them in my day and age they were called Negro.
Pamela Geller on FOX Business: Obama's Birth Certificate
From link:
UPDATE Doug Welch tells me, “it is not a forgery. It is scanned using OCR that adds layers to a scanned document. Anyone that works with OCR scanners knows this.”
UPDATE: Atlas reader Jeff responds to Welch:
If it was scanned using OCR then the layers would have searchable text. They do not. The different objects are images and not text. Doug should maybe get a little better acquainted with OCR technology.
Then.
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.