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.
Calpernia, there NEVER were any "k" documents.
I captured that PNG image that shows an "E" at 2:02AM PDT on Sunday morning, August 2, 2009. I converted it to the JPEG and posted the offending JPEG at 2:10 AM, also on August 2, 2009, a mere 35 minutes after the thread was posted. It took me a few minutes to upload the document to my image hosting site, ImageCave, because I first uploaded it without converting it and found it was 879,641 Bytes in size. I deleted that one because it was close to filling my total capacity left on ImageCave and because it would have taken too long to download for Freepers who don't have broadband. I then RE-uploaded the PNG image but allowed ImageCave to convert it to JPEG for the web... which resulted in a file of only 87,414 Bytes in size, 1/10th the size. I forgot to rename the file to remove the file type extension so if you look at it, the file name is Obamas_Birth_Certificate_png.jpg, still showing the original file extension.
The renamed URL still points to the same file that produced the image that I captured at 2:02AM. I have carefully compared the two images. They are the same.
To recap: There was no "original" paper or file with a "K.F. Lavender" signature. This whole issue arose because I, me, Swordmaker, tried to help fellow Freepers see the whole document without having to wait a long time to download it. Since they DID NOT EXIST, they went nowhere.
Because they know the other shoe is about to fall. As soon as the documents are accepted in the court in LA...all hell will break loose...People who have been quiet will start piling on. It will finally be safe to talk.
If you think folks are mad now and speaking out at tea parties just wait.
Motoman. There IS NO 47644 version. The ONLY one is the 47044 version.
When you convert a file to JPEG, data losses occur and detail is lost.
In this case, the JPEG that I created, the one everyone is looking at, averaged the color and shade intensity of several pixels around the characters and assigned different, simpler numbers to those colors and shades to cut down on the size of the saved file. This created an illusion of a "K" out of an "E" and the illusion of a "6" out of an "O". I have both the original PNG file and the resulting 70% reduction JPEG. The original shows an "E" and the blurrier JPEG shows the illusion of a "K". That is all that happened.
WHERE WAS STANLEY ANN FROM THE TIME SHE GRADUATED IN 1960 AND WHEN SHE SHOWED UP WITH A TWO OR THREE YEAR OLD IN HAWAII.
It is well documented that Stanley Anne Dunham enrolled in classes at the University of Washington within 15 days of having had BH0 (if 4 Aug is his actual birth date). Where she was before is certainly unclear, but it does seem reasonable to believe that she was in Seattle for the time period before her return to Hawaii.
I’m skeptical I admit, having had my hopes dashed one too often with all of the court cases.
I pray something breaks soon, when and if it does, I fully expect American’s not to take this sitting down.
I made it too late??? Pissant, how married are you to this so-called conspiracy that you deny the testimony of the creator of the image?
As far as I can tell, NOBODY downloaded the image before I did. What they downloaded was the image I created.
I captured the BC image at 2:02 AM, on Sunday Morning, August 2, 2009. just 35 minutes after the thread was posted. I posted the resultant JPEG file, the first image of the BC on Freerepublic in Post #52. That's the image everyone who claims to see a "K" are using... MINE. I have the ORIGINAL PNG capture that resulted in the documents with the "K"! I was the person who converted and posted the one that leads this whole thread. I can capture that image again, process it to a 70% JPEG and get exactly the same result... a blurry "E" that can easily be mistaken, as you and others have, for a "K."
last name misspelled...I missed that one
See, Calpernia? It’s Swordmaker’s fault. He’s never gonna live this down.
No, Motoman, "Lavender" is a make of laundry detergent. The name itself means "launderer" in the languages it is derived from. The EF or KF are irrelevant to the argument about the "laundry detergent" which is a red herring anyway. There are people today living in Kenya with the surname Lavender. Just as there are in Great Britain and the USA.
Answer: The original document says K.F. Lavender, NOT E.F. lavender. To view the original document in enlarged format, click here.
No, it doesn't. For the Umpteenth time, the K is an artifact of the JPEG process to compress the file. Orly's court filing speak of E.F. Lavender, her website requests help from people in locating said E.F. Lavender, and the file of the BC proxy submitted to the court, before the thread ever started on FR, says E.F. Lavender. There NEVER was a "K" except in the illusion created by JPEGing the PNG file I captured from Orly's site... and that PNG file clearly shows an "E."
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.
It matters not, Motoman. You are working with the JPEGed file... and you can't put back details that were removed when it was made into a JPEG. Garbage in results in Garbage Out. GIGO.
No, Calpernia, it did not. It came from ME.
I made the PNG capture at 2:02AM PDT, on Sunday, August 2, 2009, and posted the JPEG version to Reply #52 at 2:10:36AM, also on Sunday, August 2, 2009. That is the earliest anyone could have copied the so-called "K" birth certificate image. No one has shown such an image that is not a copy of the one I created to provide a quick look at the BC in question that did not take a long time for dial-up Freepers to download.
So now it will be the: Bush/Rove/Swordmaker Weather Machine?
she was enrolled for EXTENSION COURSES. She could have been anywhere. And only ONE person maintains they saw her in Hawaii. Neil Abercrombie.
I made the PNG capture at 2:02AM PDT, on Sunday, August 2, 2009, and posted the JPEG version to Reply #52 at 2:10:36AM, also on Sunday, August 2, 2009. That is the earliest anyone could have copied the so-called "K" birth certificate image. No one has shown such an image that is not a copy of the one I created to provide a quick look at the BC in question that did not take a long time for dial-up Freepers to download.
The one that heads up this thread, although it's stored on a different file server, has the exact same file size, 87,414 Bytes, as mine. It overlays exactly on my image. Ergo, it is a copy of the one I posted at 2:10:36AM. I could go looking for others, but they either come from my hosting site or the one Calpernia used. All of the so-called "slight changes" Calpernia is concerned about are the result of artifacting created when I reduced the file size from 860K to 87K using the JPEG data compression process.
The notion that this stuff matters was planted back in June of 2008. Never mind that there is no probative value in a photo of a legal document, then or now.
Look at the upside. You're inadvertantly proving the error that so many got sucked into on the Hawaiian thing. Was it real? Still don't know, after over a year of obsessing over it. Is this? Don't know again, and won't either. Anything definitve will come from the physical, paper document, and that alone.
Ahh, but the JPEG, that's where they have them, whoever they are.
yes but look closer..the last name is misspelled..
who she spell her last name wrong?
I have changed the long s’s (which look like f’s) into short s’s, so that the text is easier to read.
This is the URL to Chapter 10.
http://avalon.law.yale .edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch10.asp
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the First : Chapter the Tenth : Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives
page 354
...
THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.
...
pages 361-362
...
THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.
Your logic is faulty. The following is not anyone's opinion. It is reproducible technology... every time. I can RE-CREATE the "K" document from the PNG file I captured from the Orly's SCRBD Flash file, which clearly shows an "E" every time it's JPEGed. The changes in the "O" to an "6" and the "E" to a "K" are reproducible artifacts of the JPEG process algorithms.
Here are the JPG file in question and the original PNG file, both magnified 700% to show you the artifacting. These BOTH have the same source... the BC with "E.F. Lavender" on it. In fact, the JPG image file (on the left) was made by converting the PNG file (on the right) to a JPEG file:
Note the JPEG file of the SAME IMAGE shows what appears to be a "K" while the original PNG file, again the same image, shows an unmistakeable "E" with both base and cap lines. The base and cap lines on the JPEG file image have been averaged almost to invisibility by the compression algorithms used, but the base line IS still visible. While the serifs on the PNG "E", "F", and "L" are still distinguishable, on the JPEG file they have been averaged to mere box shapes. Note the PNG file's "L" is much sharper, as are the scribe lines dividing the documents data entry areas, than on the JPEG file image. Look at the "F" in both images... and see that you can still recognize it as an "F" in the PNG file.
whose name?
where?
On what?
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.