Skip to comments.How I Learned to Love Savannah Guthrie
Posted on 04/11/2012 6:38:33 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
Recently American Thinker published my article, "Oblivious to the Obvious," which gives clear, understandable proof, as shown below in Figure F from that article, why Barack Obama's long-form "birth certificate" is a forgery.
The image analyzed in that article came from a photograph of the actual purported original birth certificate with embossed seal, offered to the press as proof of the president's birth in Hawaii. It is not an image constructed digitally. NBC's Savannah Guthrie snapped a picture of it and posted it to the web. But for her enterprise, I could not have analyzed the "real thing" as shown to the media.
As I wrote that article, I realized that I should, if asked, be able to document exactly how I got from the original picture of the paper certificate that Savannah Guthrie took on April 27, 2011 to figure F, so you can replicate the same result yourself. So what follows is a description of how I did this.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Has anybody seen the baptismal certificate as issued by the mosque?
yet ANOTHER example of why this is a forgery, and this can not possibly have anything to do with ‘layers’ or ‘OCR’
In any given typewriter a word consisiting of any 8 characters would be the same with
Hospital would be the same width as Aardvark, all the letters would line up over each other - it is called fixed font size.
In this case the word Highway and Hospital do NOT have letters that line up- one is ‘fatter’ than the other, so 100% proof that at least 2 different typewriters were used (or cut and paste from two)
“How about that, Obama...what do you say, Stupid?” (from Honey Badger)
It’s perfectly reasonable to assume the hospital would have pre-typed the hospital’s name and address on the forms, and then re-loaded them to type actual birth information.
Its perfectly reasonable to assume the hospital would have pre-typed the hospitals name and address on the forms, and then re-loaded them to type actual birth information.
It would be reasonable to assume that IF THE TWO SENTENCES OVERLAPPED EACH OTHER - HOWEVER THEY DO NOT (The top of the bottom sentence is chopped off as if done electronically).
Ummm, a minor point: I think a fixed uniform horizontal space for each character is called "pitch" whereas "font" means the full assembly of all the characters of one typeface; and "size" means the vertical height of the space allotted to each of the characters of that font -- which is the same for all. That is, the size of a particular font is always fixed; the spacing of the font characters may be fixed-pitch or proportional.
shut up mr. know it all
a lot of people are computer literate enough to know what fixed-font size means just from microsoft word
Select ‘fixedsys’ as a font and type any 10 randome characters on line after line - the 10 letters will line up doen the page
Obamas birth certificate has 2 different sizes of type (not possible on a single typewriter)
yeah... that’s perfectly reasonable
also reasonable that they ‘centered’ the type within each block (on an old manual typewriter)
also reasonable that the text remains straight as the document curves (when photocopied)
anything else you care to explain away?- there are dozens of things to choose from on this turd-burger of a forgery
The biggest question with the alleged long-form photo by Savannah Guthrie is why the raised seal is so indistinct?? The middle of the seal looks nearly blank. Even though the factlack dot org raised seal is not an official DOH seal, at least it can be read. Did someone pull a fast one on dumb Savannah?? And why is she the only reporter who happened to get a picture of this one hard copy of the alleged long form??
That wouldn’t explain why the spacing of the typewritten letters don’t line up.
I don't understand your statement above for the following reason:
If the hospital name and address name were pre-typed as you say above, isn't it reasonable to believe that the hospital name and address name were pre-typed on the same typewriter just seconds apart?
If they pre-typed the names on the same typewriter just seconds apart, then it is reasonable to expect that the letters of the address name would align correctly when placed just above the hospital name.
But as noted by the author of the article, the two names do not align like they are supposed to.
Nordyke twins: What about the Nordyke twins' certificate? As many of us know, they were born only one day after Obama at the same hospital where Obama supposedly was born.
Can anybody run this letter alignment test on the Nordyke twins' certificates to prove/disprove that the author's test conducted on Obama's long form birth certificate also works on the twins' certificate?
My point is this: The Nordyke twins' long form birth certificate is accepted as authentic, so the letters in the hospital name and in the hospital address should align correctly when the address name is placed one space over the hospital name, if the author's alignment theory and test is correct.
2 typewriters on the same line? on the same phrase on the line?
No problem if you had someone at one site filling out invariant parts of the same forms specific to that site, to fill in work time and not sitting around tqwiddling one's thumbs. Proves nothing about fraudulence.
My little note was not a criticism of "computer literacy," but rather a more precise description of the terms as found in a dictionary or in the printing business, where they are critical.
I did also find that the distance between safety marks on the photograph showed a difference between the top and the bottom. While this is not of the greater disparity between the typed letters, it still proves that the cellphone image is not of photometric quality.
I'll go with Sheriff Joe's experts.
With regard -- don't be upset --
Great idea! What about comparing the actual imprints of the characters? etc!
I am sorry- I hope you got my ‘two post’ joke
I meant to say you were being a mister know-it-all, but on my next post I said “only kidding”
you were, of course, 100% correct