Posted on 08/03/2009 2:12:53 PM PDT by Calpernia
There are now modified photos of the COLB that broke here yesterday. The changes are so slight, that no one is noticing them.
The original one posted in breaking news:
One of the modified ones:
The changes are so subtle, you can barely tell which one you are looking at.
This modified one is showing jokes like: The Font of the Certificate=Schmutz (A Schmutz is a chump, as in you are a chump) #5733=The number of the Certificate, is code for : "Problem with Windows REGISTRY", a sly reference to your claim that Obama does not appear on the Hawaii Live Birth Registry. 47O44=Easiest of all. BOH's age=47 0=O (if you look close you can tell that that is a Schmutz Font "Oh" not "Zero") EF Lavender is ORGANIC DISH SOAP
The original one does not say EF Lavender, it says KF Lavender. The original one shows the number is: 47,644.
LOL
I think it is pretty clear that “original”, the one at the very top of this thread, is a quick and dirty capture and save or cut, paste and save done early Sunday morning. It has lots of jpg artifacts that distorts many of the letters and numbers. I don’t think there is any other plausible explanation since the real one which we have all seen is much higher quality and not open to any misinterpretation.
Your comments seem to be just the opposite of the explanation provided from http://usurpador.blogcindario.com/
See excerpt below:
“According to the free republic, some obama-loving hackers were able to hack Mrs. Orly Taitz website and modify the original document. They also hacked her main blog, located at the following address:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ – Do not go there as your computer could get infected.
In any event – people pointed out error’s in the birth document. Here were two of the main arguments:
1.) E.F. Lavender was the supposed signature of the district registrar on this birth document. It turns out that E.F. Lavender is a laundry detergent.
Answer: The original document says K.F. Lavender, NOT E.F. lavender. To view the original document in enlarged format, click here.
2.) The birth certificate # is 47,044 – representing Obama’s age(47), the number 0 = O, as in obama, and 44 would represent the fact that he is the ‘44th’ president.
Answer:This was planted and it is obvious by the 0 in the modified/hacked version. The real number, when examined closely and carefully on the original version – is actually 47,644.
Again, click here to see the enlarged version.
If you are unable to make out the details, I took the image with photoshop. I decreased the brightness, but enhanced the contrast features of the photograph. The purpose of this was to see the font better.
Check that version out here.”
Disagree completely. The version on the courthouse website is canonical and contains the 47O44 not 47644. It has not been infiltrated and changed by anyone working for Obama.
Your hunch could be right, but at this point I don’t have any time to investigate further, plus I don’t think it makes a whole lot of difference any more. I think it’s been pretty well proven that the Bomford BC is a fake (it’s not in the “wayback” machine, negative images show the text floating over folds, etc). I think a lot of people are now wasting a lot of time arguing about it. Some of them are obviously trolls...I’ve seen several with signup dates of yesterday/today whose main goal seems to be sowing confusion and spreading disinformation. For those reasons I’m moving on from the Bomford issue...don’t want to keep flogging a dead horse.
This sure is a roller coaster ride as others have said.
Thank you (and your daughter) for persevering.
If there are obvious forgeries going on here, and many people got screen captures of them, how do you know there wasn’t multiple versions? Why are you so insistant of what we all have?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307731/posts?page=86#86
We need to make sure the cached AND a copy of wikipedia is SAVED before the KOS DUmmies hack wikipedia.
Again the one labelled “original” is a poor quality image that someone saved Sunday morning in a rush job. If you want to believe otherwise, you would also have to believe that someone infiltrated the website where the courthouse stores their image (share.acrobat.com). That is much less plausible than a jpg artifact (which are plentiful on the image labelled “original”).
Again, the k version came from the SCRBD site.
And I’m really raising an eyebrow at you.
Yes. I think the Bomford/Bamfords are suspect, and Michael has definitly drunk of the kool-aid; “Dr. Bomford’s research and extension efforts focus on organic and sustainable production systems.”
You misquote what the governor said.
A bunch of obamanites are out there “making” fake birth certificates and showing everyone how “easy” it is to do so. Seems to me that they are just reinforcing the birther’s argument about Obama’s COLB that FauxCheck put out there in the first place, doesn’t it?
Because I spent all day Sunday on the main thread. You can see my posts starting around 1000 or so (I was catching up) through the end of Sunday. Plus I'm not insisting that anyone doesn't have another version, I am insisting the "original" displayed at the top of this thread is not another version. It is the same version but with numerous jpg artifacts as I showed above and will paste below. One of the artifacts covered part of the O and made it look like a 6, and the E and K is too messy to tell apart.
The top image is from "original" is very messy because of jpeg compression. The lower is from share.adobe.com.
So they say that the Bomford image was uploaded to the genealogy site AFTER the Kenyan image was posted?
Can someone who understands this stuff verify or debunk this?
What explanation?
That they hastily snagged a pitifully done edit and then posted it as proof?
Sheesh.
Now I have to email these people.
No the "K" version is posted at http://images.quickblogcast.com/4/2/6/6/5/166425-156 and like I said it is a poor quality image which entirely explains the O and the K.
Can the person who first posted this thread give an estimate of what time *they* found it?
Just because we saw it “early” doesn’t mean somebody else didn’t find it much *earlier*.
Actually, I’m not sure as to who the intended target was here.
You and a large number of us spent a lot of time on this. I’m insisting it is a k. Kay?
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.