Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the first is a low quality scan of the second image, with the certificate number blacked out. There is nothing different between the two
Yes, the third one is a admitted fake, by the hoaxster himself.
here is a better one, do you see a seal or folds and what about those blacked out numbers that on the second BC is in a different format from the rest?
Are you really trying to say that 1 and 2 are the same BC? You are obviously delusional. The Low quality scan excuse sure covers up a miriad of mistakes doesn't it.
Can you list these mistakes? seeing that they are the same document.
Now, if you steal the claims by Pollarick (Pollard whatever he goes by since he is a fraud) then you are repeating lies.
Quote:
You know that the BC itself states that if the document is altered in any way it is worthless. The numbers were blacked out (rendering it worthless) and then magically reappear and in a different format to boot. The first has no sign of a seal or folds so I guess that "low res scan" covers that huh?
An internet scan of any document isn't meant to be treated the same as the official document its scanned from. That scan would never be submitted to any court or expert for analyzation; the original document would be. the scan was put online so that it would quell the rumors of idiot birthers who said he wasn't born in the US.
Of course that only fueled birthers claims
fActcheck went down to examine and asked why the numbers were blacked out on the one posted online. the campaign office thought that the numbers were related to official protected/private information (like an SSN) but learned that its only a document tracking issue, and cannot be used for fraud (like SSN can be).
So when Factcheck took the time to go down and examine, they saw that all information on the BC matched the one posted online (save for the blacked out numbers).
Have a single birther gone down to Obama's campaign office to look at the official document?
Can you list these mistakes? seeing that they are the same document.
Answered in another post
Quote:
fActcheck went down to examine and asked why the numbers were blacked out on the one posted online. the campaign office thought that the numbers were related to official protected/private information (like an SSN) but learned that its only a document tracking issue, and cannot be used for fraud (like SSN can be).
So when Factcheck took the time to go down and examine, they saw that all information on the BC matched the one posted online (save for the blacked out numbers).
Have a single birther gone down to Obama's campaign office to look at the official document? Please name one of them
Anyone can see that the information is the same but read my other post pointing out the problems with the two. Also, did factcheck send a document specialist to determine if it was a forged BC or not.
Anyone can see it online, no need to go look. It is obviously a fake, look at those numbers that had been blacked out that are now visible, they are not the same as the rest of the BC, it's very clear.
here is a better one, do you see a seal or folds and what about those blacked out numbers that on the second BC is in a different format.
I've scanned my COLB, and can easily make folds and the seal disappear. and that can be all done at the scanner settings.
The scanner could have simply not been able to pick up the seal (since its embossed) because of its settings
the folds may have been done by the campaign office after they got it (as seen from the Fact Check photo).
I've never folded my COLB. I went down to the Hawaii DOH and they handed me a copy on a non-folded paper. When I moved to the mainland, I kept it unfolded.
oh, but you can clearly see the stamped date from the back as it leeched through the paper.
Jun -6 2007
also the scan seems to have set their saturation at high, and instead of using the scanners detect as an image, the scanner treated it as text and image.
JPEG compression and resizing it down from the original scan doesn't help either in keeping information (especially raised information) noticeable.
Lots of reasons why the folds an the seal can't be seen, but heck ,you ignore that date stamp that leeched through from the back that matches the format of the stamp above (from the back of Obama's COLB)
I've scanned my COLB, and can easily make folds and the seal disappear. and that can be all done at the scanner settings.
The scanner could have simply not been able to pick up the seal (since its embossed) because of its settings
the folds may have been done by the campaign office after they got it (as seen from the Fact Check photo).
I've never folded my COLB. I went down to the Hawaii DOH and they handed me a copy on a non-folded paper. When I moved to the mainland, I kept it unfolded.
oh, but you can clearly see the stamped date from the back as it leeched through the paper.
Jun -6 2007
also the scan seems to have set their saturation at high, and instead of using the scanners detect as an image, the scanner treated it as text and image.
JPEG compression and resizing it down from the original scan doesn't help either in keeping information (especially raised information) noticeable.
Lots of reasons why the folds an the seal can't be seen, but heck ,you ignore that date stamp that leeched through from the back that matches the format of the stamp above (from the back of Obama's COLB)
Blah, Blah, Blah...excuse after excuse after excuse, Why would whoever scanned it want to make the seal disappear? What about the numbers on the second BC, I am sure you will have some concocted excuse for that as well so this is my last post in this thread for the evening.
[quote=wrecking ball;14303309]i don't think you have an understanding of digital imagery.
the "blacked out" numbers: would have been done on a digital copy and not effected the original what so ever. would that digital image been acceptable in court ? no. but then again it was not presented in court. the original has not been altered and is acceptable.[/quote
birthers like TRUEGRITT probably believes that Obama just sent the REpublican National comittee the scan of his BC instead of having them examine the real document in hand.
Of course, in real life that wouldn't happen.
Obama's campaign only posted an image to their website to show that he was born in Hawaii; not to be used as the "end all" evidnece that the birthers try to make it to be.
If they wanted to see the actual document, they had since Aug of 2008 to do so by simply going down to Obama's campaign office.
Quote:
"The first has no sign of a seal or folds so I guess that "low res scan" covers that huh": actually..... yes. that would exactly explain why folds and a seal would not show up.
My scanner at home is high tech enough to detect the embossed seals because you can set it to detect the document as an image thereby even picking up the emboss.
But if the scanner is set to pick up the document as text with image and treated to put more weight on the text than the image, the scanner can easily ignore the embossed seal.
i don't think you have an understanding of digital imagery.
the "blacked out" numbers: would have been done on a digital copy and not effected the original what so ever. would that digital image been acceptable in court ? no. but then again it was not presented in court. the original has not been altered and is acceptable.[/quote
birthers like TRUEGRITT probably believes that Obama just sent the REpublican National comittee the scan of his BC instead of having them examine the real document in hand.
Of course, in real life that wouldn't happen.
Obama's campaign only posted an image to their website to show that he was born in Hawaii; not to be used as the "end all" evidnece that the birthers try to make it to be.
If they wanted to see the actual document, they had since Aug of 2008 to do so by simply going down to Obama's campaign office.
My scanner at home is high tech enough to detect the embossed seals because you can set it to detect the document as an image thereby even picking up the emboss.
But if the scanner is set to pick up the document as text with image and treated to put more weight on the text than the image, the scanner can easily ignore the embossed seal.
OK, for arguments sake (and I do not believe it) let's say you are right...what about the obvious forged numbers on the second BC.
I would think as important as a seal is that they would have wanted it to be seen.
Again you stated that he said in his book that he was born at Kapiolani. All I asked you to do was prove it if you can.
did you miss what I stated?
1) I dont have the book because I read it back in 1999.
2) The book is for sale at your local bookstore. You can go and confirm it yourself.
3) if you dont want to buy it, you can go to your library to see if they have a copy to borrow and confirm it yourself.
Again, I dont have to prove it to you. YOU"RE the one making the claim that he was born at Queens, based on the assumption of a news article author (which he later corrected and the correction made note that it was the writers fault), and a librayr of congress article of which you didn't even provide a link to (why is that?)
Beyond his book stating that he was born in Kapiolani; he has made that concession in SPEECHES he has given, we have the testimony of Mrs. Nordyke who remembers Barack being born at Kapiolani where her twins were born and its supported that he was born at Kapiolani because of his Certificate number (which was [edit] 3 numbers off from the numbers on her twins certificates). Kapiolani also commemorated with a plaque recognizing the president's birth at the hospital.
Unfortunately for you, we have first hand testimonies; you have nothing but hearsay.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.