Link is up go to his youtube page...

CJ, yep, that's exactly what I was thinking - they took an existing BC belonging to someone else and overlayed his "data" onto it.

[Taking back everything I said...] This is interesting.

Where is his Youtube page? Link please!

KD, the argument I had with my graphic people was that when you scan a document and the scanner software doesn't recognize the font it shows the different layers that we see when we take the pdf into illustrator. What you are saying is that this was a built on the fly document and saved to a pdf and uploaded to the whitehouse.gov website?

EDIT...
geez KD
That intern went from Hero to Goat in less than 24 hours. I wonder if they have told the Prez that we know what's up

Correct Wrap.

If you take a color photograph there is ALWAYS chromatic aberration present in the image. ALWAYS.

A scanner is just a camera.

This document was assembled. The black and white portions were inserted onto a color background. The distortion of that background is visible where the overlay was performed, and the overlay has no chromatic aberration.

The document on the White House server was NOT imaged from a book or page.

Period.

Whoever the flunkie is that got this assignment is no doubt ****ting his pants right now.

And by the way, it would not surprise me one bit if the way that the Department of Health produces a copy for you is EXACTLY THIS WAY - it prints the black and white "imaged" document onto security paper.

The difference here is that if you then SCAN that document you get a clean image copy, as you can see is the case when I PRINT the Obama certificate and then scan it.

But - if you try to fake that process and assemble the file and then stick the file on a web server, you're busted.

Landshark .. it was probably Michelle. (None for her tonight.)

The net result ... even though he technically did not lie (note in the transcript from today he never, ever refers to the certificate), he misled the American public. That's GOT to count for something. How do we get the MSM interested amidst the Royal Wedding and other **** going on?

The Administration sent Someone to diffuse the Birth Certificate Issue and the Dumbass cut the wrong ****ing wire...

Why would Anyone be stupid enough to paste the damn informational section onto a matching watermarked background in the first place?

This is no longer a dissmissable issue: WE HAVE A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM.

IF the Physical Birth Certificate is Available to be copied and is now Public Record: Let's just send a Delegation to look at the damn thing Personally...
There isn't ANY Rational Reason not to prohibit the Public Viewing of the Source Document at this point now is there?

Who's up for a little trip to Hawaii?

According to this: http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/20....

The blank document they started with was oneof the Nordyke twins' birth certificates. See how the stray handwritten numerals on the right side margin line up? Look at the handwritten "2" in box 7g:

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/wp....

Throxx, yes, absolutely dude. He's put it out in the open, so surely there should be no...none...ZERO problem with a delegation of experts being allowed to go and examine the thing up-close and personal.

Betcha that idea, should it ever gain momemtum, gets sandbagged in a big-ass hurry.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here... That "1" digit looks like a computer font, which makes sense if OCR software was mistakenly used to scan the document. It may have recognized the "1" and replaced it, while leaving unrecognized stuff alone.

I'm certainly not an expert nor have I looked at the images closely, but the fact that some sites (and posts here) are mentioning OCR as an explanation for the layers may also explain other oddities in the image.

May be OCR, but I don't know enough about how that works.

Opening the document in Photoshop -- and selected Images instead of Pages brings up this picture.

Ah, shades of the 2004 election and Dan Rather getting his ass handed to him over faked documents by an obscure Internet denizen by the screen name of "Buckhead".

This will take time to percolate, and the true believers won't ever look or care, but there will be plenty of thoughtful people on the left who, even if not publicly, will see this as Obama lying. Add this on top of gas and food prices and continued high jobless rate, and Obama still has a problem.

What will be most interesting is the O-Team response to all of this.

(crossposting since this thread gets far more traffic than the other one)

Here's my analysis of the PDF hosted on whitehouse.gov. Thanks to Karl and others for getting the ball rolling on this. This is truly an interesting mystery! I am hosting the images in this post on ImageShack, so apologies if they reach a bandwidth limit. If that does happen and someone can provide hosting for the images, please private message me.

The PDF contains several layers, as Karl has pointed out. Using Adobe Illustrator, I hid all layers except for one that contains what appears to be a monochrome document scan.



Using Adobe Photoshop, I attempted to convert the image to indexed color. The indexed color converter tells me how many unique colors exist in the document. It reports 5 unique colors. This monochrome layer is not monochrome, but close.

A much more interesting feature about the layer is that some characters are completely missing. I've highlighted some of them with red below (there are several more that I did not highlight).



This scan raises very interesting questions:

- What was the original medium used to generate this image? Was it a paper photocopy (unlikely for reasons Karl mentioned; there would be far more colors and artifacting present in the layer)? Was it some pre-existing digital image, simply pasted into the PDF?
- Why are so many characters completely missing from the layer? Note that the missing characters are completely missing, not partially. The '1' in 10641, The 'R' in BARACK, the 'S' in STANLEY, etc.

This image appears to me to be a pre-existing digital scan of the original paper document, rather than a new, high-quality scan of the original paper document. The missing characters could be missing simply because the original digital scan did not detect enough blackness to consider a particular pixel as being black. Seeing as how the original paper document was probably composed with a typewriter, it's possible that the typist simply didn't strike the keys hard enough to cause a black-enough glyph to appear on the paper.

Imagine you are the person in charge of presenting Obama's long-form certificate of live birth to the public. You are presented with what is a seemingly incomplete scan of the original document. Several key pieces of information are missing, including very important dates and signatures. You could choose to release just this image, knowing it's authentic, or you could decide to spruce it up a bit by re-scanning the paper document using newer scanning technology and further adding in missing content by hand in an image editor. Enter another layer in the PDF.



This layer is very interesting indeed! Most of the text present in the monochrome layer has been partially erased. What's interesting to me is that the letters weren't completely erased. There may be some technique I'm not aware of for partially erasing ink from paper that would leave these markings. The big question is, how or why would this be done? This image appears to be a real scan of something. Why would the scan have so much content apparently erased? Theorizing, perhaps what happened was the ink somehow evaporated from the paper, leaving the white strike mark from the typewriter and ink traces behind. Why certain information remains clearly legible, like the signatures, scattered characters and some check boxes, remains a mystery however.

Now, let's lay the monochrome layer on top of the apparently scanned layer.



The interesting thing to note here is that several pieces of information are missing from both the monochrome layer and the scanned layer. Note the missing 'Non' of None and the missing dates. Why this information is missing is a mystery.

The other layers contain the information necessary to fill in the remaining missing information.



This information was probably drawn by-hand in an image editor such as Photoshop, using the partially erased whitespace on the scanned layer as a guide. The tool used was probably the Photoshop pencil tool, which draws aliased pixels (non-blurry, hard-edged) by default. This would explain why this information looks different from the scanned layer.

Speculating: perhaps the reason Obama did not want these images released is because they were in such bad condition. If the paper document has degraded over time, leaving almost no legible information, it could raise questions about why the document looked this way. Perhaps the reason was as others have speculated: that Obama's mother was underaged at the time of Obama's inception -- perhaps statutory rape. I'll leave it to others to get closer to the truth on the matter of "why."

What troubles me is that Obama's crew would attempt to pass this off as the "real" certificate of live birth, when in fact it is apparently three things: an almost-monochrome scan, a scan with most information mostly missing and hand-edited content. I guess they thought they could get away with it. After analyzing this information, I believe the real certificate of live birth is the layer that contains the strange almost-erased ink.

BTW, Karl - You've got a fan. Check what Ann has up....

http://barnhardt.biz/

OCR does NOT create a mess like this with scrubbed layers and bits and pieces everywhere. It doesn't create images at all - it turns the image into text and that's all.

Quote:

And by the way, it would not surprise me one bit if the way that the Department of Health produces a copy for you is EXACTLY THIS WAY - it prints the black and white "imaged" document onto security paper.

Karl, that is exactly how the 'official' copy of my birth certificate was created.

The original document is on a plain white piece of paper. This is then photocopied onto fancy State of NC 'Official Document' paper with the frilly logos and state seal. It is then signed/stamped/embossed/etc etc.

I scanned it on the scanner at work (as I do with all my important personal docs, for digital archiving) at 600dpi, color. It is a great reproduction...it is also a ~6MB PDF straight out of the scanner. The file I got from the White House website was 377KB, which was my first indication that something was amiss.


For people who use and look at scanned documents all day, this reproduction was laughable.

FWIW: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265....

Quote:

For those of you who still aren’t convinced, here’s a one-page PDF that I just scanned and optimized, so you can see for yourself that an optimized PDF shows up in Illustrator as layers. (I didn’t spend hours getting the settings right.)

http://global.nationalreview.com/pdf/pas....

Why does an "optimized" pdf cause those images?

If you look at the original layer, it still had some identifying information in it. So it could still be argued that it is good, they just made it complete. However the obvious questions are: Why did it take so long to find? The thing is dated April 25, 2011. Where is the person who copied it and stamped it in Hawaii? And of course where is the original?

Better put that to tickercon 1 if the people really catch on. Which I doubt