You've GOT To Be Kidding Me (Birth Certificate)
Oh do c'mon.... oh Donald, this case is not closed.
You can't possibly by serious.
This document has been altered and whoever did it wasn't even very clever in doing so.
I downloaded the PDF from the White House Web site - the "official copy" right from the "Horse's Mouth." Then I loaded it into Illustrator. Look at these images I then screen-captured - first, the ENTIRE image itself:
Note the light blue border? That's the PDF segment that was dropped in the background, which was the green "safety paper." So far, so good - they just took the safety paper background and then dropped in a picture. All is well, right?
Well, no.
Mother's "occupation" - the "Non" on "None" has been altered. What was there before it was tampered with?
The "Accepted date" (bottom right) has been altered. What was there before it was tampered with?
As has the other "Accepted" date. What was there before it was tampered with?
There's another problem with those dates too - they're clearly altered, as is the "None"; here's a well-enhanced (at 1200%) version of one of the dates; you can clearly see the difference in saturation. That was cut into the original picture folks.
By the way, they were dumb enough to leave the cuts in the clipboard too. The bottom part (certification) I can see since it's clearly overlaid on a background. But the content itself?
This document has been altered; it is not simply a photograph of the registrar's book that was dropped into a background, and it also is not simply an agglomeration of two images (the background they constructed, the "certification" and then the actual certificate.)
Now this does not prove that the alterations were actual changes in content. They might not be.
But..... what other reason is there to alter an alleged high-resolution photograph?
Got Illustrator? Don't believe me - check it yourself.
(To get the full list of things on the clipboard, load it and then select "Window->Actions->Links." There they are.)
Advice to Obama: Next time you try to alter something you're presenting to the press hire someone who knows how to do it without getting caught.
You can't possibly by serious.
This document has been altered and whoever did it wasn't even very clever in doing so.
I downloaded the PDF from the White House Web site - the "official copy" right from the "Horse's Mouth." Then I loaded it into Illustrator. Look at these images I then screen-captured - first, the ENTIRE image itself:
Note the light blue border? That's the PDF segment that was dropped in the background, which was the green "safety paper." So far, so good - they just took the safety paper background and then dropped in a picture. All is well, right?
Well, no.
Mother's "occupation" - the "Non" on "None" has been altered. What was there before it was tampered with?
The "Accepted date" (bottom right) has been altered. What was there before it was tampered with?
As has the other "Accepted" date. What was there before it was tampered with?
There's another problem with those dates too - they're clearly altered, as is the "None"; here's a well-enhanced (at 1200%) version of one of the dates; you can clearly see the difference in saturation. That was cut into the original picture folks.
By the way, they were dumb enough to leave the cuts in the clipboard too. The bottom part (certification) I can see since it's clearly overlaid on a background. But the content itself?
This document has been altered; it is not simply a photograph of the registrar's book that was dropped into a background, and it also is not simply an agglomeration of two images (the background they constructed, the "certification" and then the actual certificate.)
Now this does not prove that the alterations were actual changes in content. They might not be.
But..... what other reason is there to alter an alleged high-resolution photograph?
Got Illustrator? Don't believe me - check it yourself.
(To get the full list of things on the clipboard, load it and then select "Window->Actions->Links." There they are.)
Advice to Obama: Next time you try to alter something you're presenting to the press hire someone who knows how to do it without getting caught.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
Holy crap! You're right.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course the MSM, being technofeebs, will never find this on their own.