Right-Wing Media Hype Conspiracies About Obama's Long-Form Birth Certificate
Right-wing media have responded to the release of President Obama's original Hawaii birth certificate by embracing conspiracy theories that the document is fake or has been altered.
Right-Wing Media Hype Conspiracy Theories About Obama's Original Birth Certificate
Bolling: "[G]reen Border" On Birth Certificate "Had To Be Photoshopped In." On the April 27 edition of Fox Business' Follow the Money, host Eric Bolling displayed an enlarged version of Obama's birth certificate and stated that a "green border" on the document "had to be Photoshopped in." His guest, Pam Geller, responded by stating, in part, "Well, this whole border is suspect." From Follow the Money:
BOLLING: I need to know this. You see this fold. This has clearly been photocopied from a book. You see that? It kind of folds back to, like, almost like a binding of a book. And then for some reason, there's a green border around it that had to be Photoshopped in. Trying to figure out why they would do that.
GELLER: Well, this whole border is suspect. I mean, if you're taking a scan of something, it would, to your point, it would be white. Why is this the color of the same --
BOLLING: Note this - note this, you guys, April 25, 2011 -- two days ago -- is when this was requested from the state registrar, Alvin Onaka. So we'll keep our eye on it. We'll keep digging. Hey, listen. It may or may not be, but certainly opens up the can of worms that there are at least questions for it.
OK, Pam. Hang on. Let me bring in the rest of our all-star panel. On the left, we have Fox News contributor Tamara Holder; on the right, Dr. Ablow rejoins us, along with Fox News contributor Monica Crowley.
I'm looking at you over there, Tamara. I'm looking at you smirking a little bit. What's wrong? I mean, at least it's certainly -- you have to ask the question, has this been Photoshopped? [Fox Business, Follow the Money, 4/27/11]
Bolling, Geller Conspiracy-Monger About Doctor Who Gave Birth To Obama. From Follow the Money:
BOLLING: Very quickly, Pamela, this doctor right here, the guy who signed it four days after the birth. He passed away, but his wife today, TMZ had his wife saying I had no idea.
She didn't know about it. His son said I had no idea. It came as a complete shock to him as well. If you gave birth to the president of the United States, don't you think your family would know about it?
GELLER: Maybe he doesn't know about it, either. I mean, I think it's very telling that for three years he didn't release it. There's a big question there. We have to say why -- why didn't he release it after three years? [Fox Business, Follow the Money, 4/27/11]
Geller: "This Is Actually Not A Birth Certificate." Also on Follow the Money, Geller claimed that the document the White House released on April 27 is "a certification of a live birth. This is actually not a birth certificate." From Follow the Money:
BOLLING: Pamela, were any of these notation on here - I don't know if our camera can get it in too close --- you can see some of these numbers that are clearly written in handwriting on the side. We don't know what they are. Trying to figure out a zero, a two there, an X up over here, a one up here. Were they on the short form?
GELLER: Look, this is a certification of live birth. When I left the hospital, I left with a birth certificate. I'm sorry, I didn't bring with it me, but it looked very much like Donald Trump's. It's a little piece of paper, you've got the nurse -- you know what I'm talking about? Certificate - you know, birth certificate. This is a certification of a live birth. This is actually not a birth certificate. [Fox Business, Follow the Money, 4/27/11]
Geller Promotes "Layering" Conspiracy Theory, Asks, "[W]hy Release Such An Obvious Forgery?" In an April 27 blog post, Geller promoted a conspiracy theory claiming that Obama's birth certificate "has been cobbled together" in Photoshop. Geller wrote, "And so the question is, why release such an obvious forgery?" From Geller's post, titled, "Layering: Obama's New COLB raises more questions than it answers":
Today, Obama released another copy of his COLB (certification of live birth) -- more here. It looks like another exhaustive digital forensic examination is in order.
And so the question is, why release such an obvious forgery?
Over at Free Republic:
I thought there was something wrong with my computer when I tried to import the .gov's PDF file into Photoshop. But now that I see what you got when you put it in Word, it's the same thing that Photoshop does to it when I import it! It's DEFINITELY a Layered image that has been cobbled together!
Now, why would only the signatures (and just a partial of Stanley Ann Dunham's) come up? It certainly looks as if someone took Obama's Birth Certificate and then cut&pasted it together! [Atlas Shrugs, 4/27/11]
Drudge Promotes Article On Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones' Site Claiming Birth Certificate Is A "Forgery." On April 28, under the headline, "Is it real?" the Drudge Report linked to a story on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' website that claimed the birth certificate released by the White House is a "forgery." From the Drudge Report:
[Drudge Report, 4/28/11; InfoWars.com, 4/28/11]
Hoft Pushes Conspiracy Theory From "Photoshop Expert" That Birth Certificate Is "Such An Obvious Fake." In an April 27 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft touted a conspiracy theory from "Photoshop expert and author of more than 17 books on computer graphics Mara Z." declaring Obama's birth certificate "such an obvious fake." [Gateway Pundit, 4/27/11]
Conservative NRO "Dismissed" "Layering" Conspiracy Theory
NRO: "We Looked Into" PDF Layers Theory And "Dismissed It." In an April 27 post on the conservative National Review Online, Nathan Goulding wrote about the "layer" theory -- which was advanced by Geller and Hoft -- and wrote:
We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.
The PDF is composed of multiple images. That's correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they're being called, aren't layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They're not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.
What's plausible is that somewhere along the way -- from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) -- these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What's not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama's birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It's likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let's leave it at that. [NRO, 4/27/11]
In Addition, Doctor Listed On Obama's Birth Certificate Died Years Before Obama Became Famous
Right-Wing Claims That Family Of Obama's Birth Doc Should Have Known He Delivered Obama Undermined By Fact That Doctor Died In 2003. Contrary to Bolling's suggestion that it was odd that the family of Obama's birth doctor didn't know that he had delivered the president, the doctor in question died in 2003, when Obama was a little-known state senator from Illinois. [Media Matters, 4/28/11]
This guy is The "Poster-Child" for Trolling.
Eric, it's just Pigmentation, you know we're all the same under the skin?
Fox News-2? The Jokes start in the morning with Imus & end with Eric Bolling's Fake Ass Grin.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
I've been using graphics software since the first CorelDraw came out in 1991. I use Photoshop because I am an amateur photographer. The first thing you learn with Photoshop is the concept of layers
Explain to me how this document can be disassembled by component layers if it was optically scanned.
I'll give you hint, the scanner used would have had to been programmed to seperate certain elements of the document into individual component layers. These layers would have had to have been designated & named by the person programming the optical scanner & scanning software. Computers only do what they are told to do by the user so it would have had to have been done INTENTIONALLY!
Question: Why would someone scanning a document program the scanner to break up & name elements of the document into those named components, when the stated obeject of the scan was only to create an image?
If this sounds like it doesn't make sense it's because there is no logical reason for someone to do this to a document that was only to be scanned for PDF prodcution!
I've been in the computer business since 1989. If you are telling me I should ignore something so illogical the you are the idiotic loony!
So run back to your Obama shrine and resume genuflecting.
You can't respond to any of my technical points so you know less than jack. You ignore absolute facts of computer & software use so you obviously don't have anything to say.
What a surprise. Don't question just obey your glorious leader Barry Barack Sotero Hussein Jihad Obama.
Maybe you can get a government grant and learn about question & answer. It's how intelligent people make decisions and you obviously don't qualify as intelligent, just a mindless follower!
Now a know which idiots waste their time watching "Jersey Shore" & "Glee".
No you don't; you just think you do. For example, you write "the scanner used would have had to been programmed to seperate certain elements of the document into individual component layers." Duh. That is exactly what Mary's link claimed happened, as has multiple sources, including the NRO, hardly left wing. Apparently, the person who scanned in the document forgot to turn off the OCR.
As NRO points out, it is rather silly to think that the White House went through all this trouble to create a forge document, and then made the most rookie mistake and sent it in layers.
You see, a simple clear explanation is always superior to a conspiracy theory.
Second, i did what apparently the idiot at Free Republic did (put Obama BC in Photoshop and "see" the layers). Guess what, THERE ARE NO LAYERS!
Yes, as several real sources have pointed out. Apparently your only argument is to hurl insults and claim expertise in a subject. That does not make an argument.
And yes, forgetting to turn off OCR would have exactly the effect you speak of. The scanning would produce a different layer for the text so it can be scanned.
But I'm not going to humor your pretending to be a forensics expert any longer. Quote some real sources that show the long form is a forgery.
By the way, the long form is actually less valid than the so-called short form, and the short form was already determined to be complete valid by the Hawaiian state officials. Which, now that I think of it, brings up another issue. If Obama forged this document, are you seriously suggesting that the Hawaiian officials are paying along? Talk abut a conspiracy theory!
But really, Max: time to put up or shut up. Cite an independent authority to support your claims, and please stop with the insults and stupid partisan swipes, which, are obviously cover for your weak argument.
link
Just keep up the nuttines, Max. Our guy will be a shoe-in in 2012.
1. Where is your evidence that it's a fake other than your professional opinion? In fact, I want to see YOUR credentials. Show them to me or shut up. I'm willing to bet that you won't. I will be eagerly awaiting your excuse.
2. You honestly believe that an organization that has planned, for years, to slip a Manchurian candidate into the white house would make some rookie mistake that a 12 year old with Photoshop and a notion could disassemble? Show me your proof or shut up. I'm willing to bet that you won't. I will be eagerly awaiting more unfounded conspiracy.
3. You are a racist. Firstly, even if he wasn't born in HI (which he has proven that he was. Twice), the naturalization act of 1970 as well as Title 8 section 1401 of the US Title Code makes him a citizen by virtue of his mother. Your disbelief of his citizenship and faith is solely based on the color of his skin.
Can I ask you something Max?
Where is the proof that Obama is a corrupt politician?
Wasn't aware that we were having a highly technical truth seeking conversation here.
I strongly encourage you to act out in real life like you do online...the sooner you wind up with a broken jaw the sooner you'll be learning manners and the value of not bearing false witness.
From what I have seen, many conservatives are apt to get physically violent at hearing anything that counters their world-view - be it the Truth or otherwise.
You are wrong, as Mary's link points out. Simply by putting "facts" in all caps doesn't mean you actually have facts at your disposal. What you have for an argument are a bunch of assertions based on your own experience, assertions shown to be wrong, and which, anyway, have not been backed up by an independent sources.
You are wrong, as Mary's link points out. Simply by putting "facts" in all caps doesn't mean you actually have facts at your disposal. What you have for an argument are a bunch of assertions based on your own experience, assertions shown to be wrong, and which, anyway, have not been backed up by an independent sources.
Stop making a fool out of yourself. LOL!!
If and when the rat successfuly completes the maze he or she gets a hate or fear pellet.
The rats have massively reproduced and are now addicted to the pellets.
You idiots are taking the same approach Dan Rather did when his Bush documents were proven to be forgeries.
"they are fake but accurate"
Look at Dan now. Fired, disgraced and pathetic.
History repeats itself.
The Rather documents was established as forged. You seem to think that this one instance proves that any documents unfavorable to your cause will also be shown as forged. That's not logical. Until this document is proved forged (which will never happened), the Rather precedent is irrelevant.
So please save us your hyper partisan rhetoric. It is not very convincing.
Way to play the same game as the right wing loonies. Those two facts are essentially the same. If you can't verify a document, and the bulk of evidence shows they are forgeries (for example no one has ever been able to produce a typewriter that could have typed those documents), then the documents are forged.
But that just opened the whole issue up to ridicule. Essentially you are saying that it doesn't matter if our facts are right, because our conclusion is.
You are simply wrong. First those two things are NOT essentially the same. That logical fallacy is called an argument from ignorance, that is claiming that something not proven false is necessarily true and the IBM Selectric COULD have typed those documents at the time they were reputed to be from. The expert who at first CLAIMED he could find no contemporary typewriter that could have produced the Killian memos a week later admitted he had not taken the selectric into account and they DID have the capability to produce them and WERE in use by the gov at that time
Oh really?
link
Two experts actually did come to that conclusion. Just because others didn't, doesn't negate that fact.
Truly pathetic. When Max Conrad lets his reason be blinded by partisan hate, we jump all over him and just can't understand how someone can believe such stupid things. But when someone from our side does the same, well, we brush over it, because, they belong to our tribe.
What a waste. I don't know why I get so mad at Max when the other side engages in the same blindness.
As you say, ignoring FACTS if it suits you.
As far as I know, no typewriter has ever been able to be produced that could have typed those documents.
At the time it was pointed out that some typewriters could produce the features in the documents. But no one typewriter could produce all those effects (superscript, etc.). So it seems a logical conclusion that the documents were forged. I go with the bulk of evidence and put my ideology aside. Yes, Bush probably did not serve out his duty; no, the documents don't add to the proof.
And that gives us nothing.
You made a claim, show your proof and facts. Merely stating that you have "FACTS" doesn't make it so. Seeing as how anyone with technical expertise should be able to see right through this obvious forgery, it should be all over the internet. Go ahead and give us some form of link.
You won't, because you would rather make baseless accusations.
Grow up and give us a break. When all these numerous right wing media personalities get fired for making these ridiculous claims about President Obama's birth certificate, we can have a conversation about fairness and accuracy in the media.
Let's face it, you are just a bitter birther who had it in your head that no proof would change what you wanted to believe.
I'm so tired of your ilk wasting everyone's time with these absurd accusations and elaborate conspiracy theories. Imagine how much better things might be if we could stop spinning in circles over these non-issues and get the American people informed about what's really going on and important to our nation's success.
You know very little of PhotoShop or ANY other App.
PDF's also come in Layers you fool..
PDF file is what would be released online .. FOOL!
Think Before you write.. I don't think you know what
a "Liberal-Socialist", or a racist is. How do you know your not one?
All of this bickering over Photo Shop is childish. Grow Up!
/em Puts on tin foil hat
Because they want the conspiracy to keep going. Duh.
He can tell you about fake birth certificates, underground cities being constructed by the Illuminati, planes leaving weather altering chem-trails in the sky, the North American Union that will hand off US sovereignty, Bohemian grove devil worshiping orgy parties, CIA implants in your children, mind altering drugs in vaccines, controlled demolitions in the world trade centers, one world currencies, and all kinds of stuff the mainstream media is too afraid to cover!
After the reveal, this guy went whining to the rightwing media, claiming that all the other things in his book will bring Obama down.
Of course, one wonders why he didnt title the book with one of THOSE things -- or even mention what they are. One also wonders why we should now trust a man whos entire book is based around a premise that is 100% false?
And even after all that -- this guy wrote a birhter book. He is now terrified of losing all those sales. So he's pretending its a magic anti-obama book. Remember Beck's august rally? Same deal. Overhyped to an insane degree then falling waaaay below its stated goals.
Just like the rightwing politicians in general. Which is funny.
/Snark off/
I think Obama's mother and her family DID know that she gave birth . . . she died before he became president as did his grandmother who raised him, but his sister knows.
The doctor didn't give birth to Obama.
Their hatred of the black man in the White House runs deep - really deep.
Kind of like asking the question "do you still beat your wife?"
Disagree on government spending? RACIST!
Disagree on the dangers of a $14 trillion dollar debt? RACIST!
Disagree with anything Obama says? RACIST!
When science proved the earth revolved around the sun the church screamed BLASPHEMER!
That's all you pathetic & whining socialists have left.
I can't speak for everyone but; for myself:
I don't agree on all the government spending.
I agree that the $14 trillion in debt needs to be addressed.
(BTW when you use the $ sign you don't need to spell out dollars)
I don't agree with everything that Obama says or does.
Now, as I've said before, most of the "birthers" are either racists, closet racists, or so partisan in their beliefs that they will use any excuse to get a Democrat out of the white house.
The conservatives are wrong on the issues, too. Austerity, and the shrinking down of the state in the modern world, is a statement of an ideology crazier than the communists. I'd love to see an instance of an economy caught in a productivity decline make itself better by cutting budgets. If the overall economy is roaring, like it was in the postwar long boom, sure, slice away. We need more stimulus, large public works, and all the Keynesian mechanisms to get us to another growth spurt. Either the private sector or the public sector can do it, but it's usually been a public expense. To build the Hoover Dam cost a hell of a lot of money. It gave short-term stimulus and millions of jobs during WWII and the postwar boom. Public spending.
Corporate profits are at an all-time high. They're not making jobs. How much do we have to cut their taxes to make them produce? Zero. They'll invest in the future after the government will.
Sound conservatism.
It's when people directly ATTACK Obama, whether it is birtherism or simply calling him endearing names like "socialist", "marxist" and of course "racist", that the term racist shows up.
No one accuses people who disagree with his policies or what he says as "racists". They accuse people who attack Obama, his speeches/actions (as in not directly disagreeing with what he says, but rather implying that his speeches/actions show him in a negative light. See the easter Fox-Paus on this site for an example of what I mean), his education/birthplace etc as racist when said people fail to produce legitimate reasons for attacking him.
Not saying the claim is legit at all, but then if it isn't then what actual good reasons do these people who initiate such attacks on Obama have for doing such a thing?
Care to share on this subject Max?
It's when people directly ATTACK Obama, whether it is birtherism or simply calling him endearing names like "socialist", "marxist" and of course "racist", that the term racist shows up.
No one accuses people who disagree with his policies or what he says as "racists". They accuse people who attack Obama, his speeches/actions (as in not directly disagreeing with what he says, but rather implying that his speeches/actions show him in a negative light. See the easter Fox-Paus on this site for an example of what I mean), his education/birthplace etc as racist when said people fail to produce legitimate reasons for attacking him.
Not saying the claim is legit at all, but then if it isn't then what actual good reasons do these people who initiate such attacks on Obama have for doing such a thing?
Care to share on this subject Max?
So you beat your wife too. LOL!
No one whines more than you. LOL! Your a JOKE!!!!
http://www.thenation.com/blog/160197/confronting-coded-racism-donald-trump
This is nothing but the continuation of the Republicans "southern strategy." Remember Jesse Helms ad depicting a black hand taking a job/diploma out of the hand of a white person? They are using dog-whistle images and expressions but it's the same game.
This is very, very unintentionally ironic. The entire birther smear campaign was born out of an opportunity to exploit the racism of the angry white working class middle class republican base.
Guess what genius? You are not only too ignorant and blinded by partisan distractions and birther nonsense to realize how you've been manipulated into furthering silly unfounded attacks, but you're too distracted and blind now to realize the people running the distraction for you are the same people responsible for your anger in the first place.
The circle is complete: You are a complete tool of the banksters and internationalist billionaire elites.
They exploit your hard work and destroy your economic security for their gain, and you tenaciously fight to keep them in power to continue exploiting you.
1) It gets ratings. They are still a business and wouldn't promote this garbage if there weren't so many idiots in America willing to watch.
2) It pleases their bosses. You don't need a specific memo from a supervisor to know what they like and don't like. Mocking Obama pleases Murdock and his cronies.
With the possible exception of the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening, could there have been anything more predictable than this?
Since CNN is rarely mentioned anymore here at MMFA they must be telling the truth when they claim that the entire birther controversy was started by Democrats:
CNN Newsroom April 27, 2011
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1104/27/cnr.03.html
MALVEAUX: You know, covering the campaign, I remember when this first became an issue, and it was a sidebar issue and it was basically buried. And they had produced enough documentation to keep it on the fringe.
Now it's mainstream. And I think the White House really started to get worried that this was growing, this was becoming a bigger problem.
COSTELLO: And oddly enough, it was really born with the Clinton campaign. So, it came from Democrats. Not from Hillary Clinton herself, but one of her supporters.
MALVEAUX: Right. Certainly planted by the Democrats.
COSTELLO: Absolutely. And then it just continued to grow from there until, you know, here, today, the president -- I mean, did you ever think that the president of the United States would have to release his official birth certificate?
If this weren't absolutely true, MMFA would have mentioned it somewhere in between the All Fox News All the Time pages. Right?
John
Randy
Right wingers are not rational adults, so you can see where this common sense approach doesn't work for them.
The ONLY Republican I've seen thus far not falling for it is flip-flopper Mittens... it's about the only sane position he has.
An who says it was deliberately spread by Clinton? Fox. Drudge. The mad geniuses are who circulate those paranoia burgers, the right wing e-mail forwards. No details need to be given, it's a Democrat. Soros is a communist! Van Jones, too! The Democrats let loose the first intestinal gas that made the birthers believe a black president can only be an crazy, angry negro out for revenge. NOT OUR FAULT! HE AND CLINTON ARE THE RACISTS! You don't have to refer to facts, just shout slogans passionately.
yee haw!
Aw nuts, three years of tinkering and conspiring and the green border gave it away in just hours. DANG it. I said "sprocket," not "socket."
Aw nuts, three years of tinkering and conspiring and the green border gave it away in just hours. DANG it. I said "sprocket," not "socket."
Even if this wasn't such an obvious, predictable and dishonest attempt to keep this bogus story alive, can you really trust a copy and blowup made by Fox news? I know some NY times reporters that might agree with me. Don't be afraid to ask, they aren't really as creepy looking as the photos Fox news ran.
Yes, the author of that gem could plainly tell on his monitor what type of pen was used .......
So, Obama presents the long-awaited sought-after UN-official birth certificate. Needless to say, the birthers reacted predictably: with even more far-fetched claims and demands that are entirely meaningless and exposing themselves for the racists they are.
Hah, guess who owns the birthers now. Yep, the Repugs - they 'got played' and they will never ever get the stench out of their clothes. They are forever attached to this insanity.
Also, when you scan an OCR document into a bitmap program like photoshop, it is a bitmap image. When you save it from that program as a pdf, it creates a pdf that is native to the bitmap software. PDF's can also be created with vector based software like Illustrator, and these PDF's do not open right into photoshop. Instead, you are presented with a separate dialog box asking you how you'd like to import this vector based PDF into photoshop (bitmap softare).
The long form certificate PDF opened in Photoshop as if it were a vector based PDF. That is another reason the OCR argument is a non starter.
Aside from that, some of the letters appear as you'd expect them to. The background of the green paper flows perfectly beneath the pen or ink. But the altered/layered text is surrounded by white interrupting the background and making it obvious that the text was not originally on that document nor was it scanned in that way (OCR or not).
But like I said, the Long Form is out there somewhere...just not here. I have to think that the timing of this is kinda weird. I feel like perhaps it is a joke they are playing just to see how many people will question whether Obama's aunt was right or not when she claimed that she saw Obama born in Kenya.
Anyone who thinks for a second that this document is real has been tricked along with all the birthers and conservatives. You've gotta be smarter than that and realize that Obama is just toying with them. It's a pretty good gag. It draws media attention to that, and gives him a springboard with which to jump into his campaign. That way he can ignore any heat he'd normally get on policies or broken promises.
Sure Benji. Way to sound as stupid as the the other side with your conspiracy theory. When you can quote a real expert who backs up your claim, I'll listen to you. Otherwise, you might want to think a bit about the bulk of proof before you go wildly spouting nonsense. (Hint: do you realize how easy it would be for a real expert to prove what you said, and then how bad it would look for the administration.).
Until then, why not have a conversation with Max Conrad above. That should be fun--two conspiracy theorist from different with different political side yelling at each other, both not knowing what they are talking about.
From my link above:
link
Yea, the long form is certainly out there. So what is your next theory, Benji, that Obama had his lawyers fly to Hawaii to get the document, and then scanned in another document entirely, just to play with the right wingers.
Remember what they call internet experts? Second-hand drips under pressure.
I'm not saying the long form doesn't exist. I'm just saying *very* clearly that this isn't it...or if it is, then they were playing a joke to see who would dare say anything.
This document is NOT the result of an acquired scan into a bitmap software program via OCR or any other scanning software. Sure...the background part is, but you wouldn't know that till you opened it yourself. Before you get too set in your glass house opinion, you should sit down with a professional like me of 10+ years in digital imaging, archiving, and manipulation.
Of course it's easier to sit here safely on the Media Matters website (which is NEVER wrong or inaccurate...right...) and high five your other misinformed friends. Mob rule may work in this forum, but if you're interested in the truth, you'll have someone who is expert in this field show you the anomalies...then tell me what you think.
And it surprises me that you guys are so eager to listen to WND when they couldn't be more opposed to Media Matters. Until this story, you'd have called them crack pots with no facts. But now you're happy to stand behind them?
As for Janet Okubo. That statement only confirms that there was were witnesses present during the signing/copying of the long form certificate. It does not prove that that form they are speaking of was the actual document scanned (with OCR or not) and then sent in PDF form to the white house to make available.
I wonder if the birthers think it took three years to mastermind a forgery in order to get it by their best and brightest, like Geller and Boller and benj.
So you agree, except that you might not agree. Wow, way to take a stand. You want it both ways: if someone criticizes you for agreeing with the NRO statement, you have "unless" and "perhaps" to fall back on, and if you're criticized for saying the pdf is a deliberate forgery, you can pretend you "agree" with the NRO. Coward.
Next, you launch into a forgery explanation, negating what you just said. Maybe you meant to say "therefore, it wasn't a mistake."
Since you've established your merits by announcing 10 years of PDF file-working, we are therefore going to trust your explanation, especially if we want to believe what you say. Heck with that.
How in the world do you scan an OCR document? You can scan a piece of paper, not a digital file. And what does an OCR document use, benj? Vector-based graphics, right, benj? A PDF handles BOTH vector and raster graphics and Photoshop will convert to raster (bitmap is a raster-based file format) when opening. Illustrator works with vector information, and that imagery is a bunch of equations that get translated to raster for display. Whatever, it doesn't matter. You just don't see the birthplace as Kenya, so it's a forgery.
Check out whitehouse.gov for how it was copied: onto safety paper. I don't care about your OCR and white border BS. And you don't care about the NRO statement. You won't even believe stuff coming from conservatives, you're so far gone.
Hey, benj, tell me about Building 7.
I would ask how people could be so blinkered by their personal views that they can't see the facts that are in front of them but; it is obvious that it is just part of their makeup. Sad.
I have several adoring supermodel girlfriends, I'm the star running back for a championship winning NFL team, and I'm lead guitarist for a multi platinum record selling rock band.
and...
Huh? I'm still a regular Joe...Took me only a second to realize that wanting to believe something doesn't make it true. Shame the birthers haven't figured this out.
As for the OCR babble you're spewing, you should do some more research before trying to sound smart about it. You've either never scanned a document and worked with it...or...you've never opened and examined this specific document. Which is it? Just curious.
I will believe what I see with my eyes...and I'll believe what 10+ years as a professional working in this industry and working with files just like this tells me. I'm guessing you can't say the same. Instead, you'll just believe whatever Media Matters tells you...because it's easier than doing your due diligence. But I can't blame you. Life is short, and why waste it on things like this? Ignorance is bliss after all. ;)
He needs to get off Oily's taint, but that would mean stepping into the real world, and out of his mama's basement.
As to the rest of your mumbo-jumbo, well, it's just that...
I'm also a graphic artist, but I'm also an expert in digital imaging and have been for over 10+ years. Can you say the same? Can you honestly tell me you've opened the document? Don't just come on here and say you're a graphic artist and speak in generalities. If you truly did open the document and examine it, I'd be interested in your explanation of even 3 of the anomalies.
It reminds of the Jim Crow days. Back in those days, Blacks in the South had to step off the sidewalk when a white person came by. They had to step in the puddle, or dog sh!t, on the street, while the white person walked by.
Obama was forced to stoop to a level of sh!t. This birther nonsense is pure racism.