• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Another Birth Certificate Conspiracy?

Mirage

Secret Agent
Staff member
V.I.P.
I wasn't going to weigh in on the recent news of the release of Obama's full form birth certificate, but this is intriguing enough... If you have Adobe Illustrator, you can open the PDF yourself and move various layers around.

Critics: Obama?s Latest Long-Form Birth Certificate Is a Fake | FavStocks

YouTube - Obama's Birth Certificate Released - Proof it is Has Been Altered. Possible Fake? (Skip to 1:45 or so)

And another: http://www.mu-un.com/ObamaFakeFinal.mov

You can duplicate this by using the actual PDF released by the White House:

1. Go here and download the official birth certificate: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

2. Open the PDF in Adobe Illustrator.

3. In the layers panel, select various layers. You can move areas of text around including certain parts of some dates, parts of signatures, portions of certain words, etc.

Hmmm?
 
Last edited:

qweerblue

Registered Member
From an article in the National Review (yes, that's right, that National Review:

PDF Layers in Obama’s Birth Certificate - By Nathan Goulding - The Corner - National Review Online

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.


UPDATE: I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.

PS: Maybe it's a fake, maybe it's not, but, the point is, how will we ever really know? What acceptable evidence do people expect to find to prove or disprove Obama's natural-born status?
 

shelgarr

Registered Member
Clearly people are obsessed with this BC. Doesn't it shows how little trust there is in this man. It's a sad statement but one he has brought on himself, and one that his constituents inspire since they don't listen to the legitimate reasons the man should not be in office. And that is the crux of it right there!!! More than can be recorded, during the campaign and since then, evidence has existed and has been spotlighted about why Obama is not a good leader. Too many turned a deaf ear and now the whole situation has been reduced to what we are seeing now.
 

Mirage

Secret Agent
Staff member
V.I.P.
Also, Hybrix, why do you cite terrible sources like "FavStocks"?
To be fair, that site simply shows how people can duplicate this. Also, I think there is potentially a lot of truth in what qweerblue posted. Perhaps this is simply a scanner feature where it tried to separate the text from the document. I know this is a legitimate feature that a lot of scanners have.

That being said, according to some of the replies on the page he posted, certain layer are rotated and set at different opacity levels. I havent looked into it that much, but as far as I know scanners don't do things like that. There's not enough evidence either way for this to be conclusive, but it's interesting nonetheless.
 
Top