• Announcements

    • Benny

      Forums Restructured   09/22/2016

      A lot of less active forums have been removed and consolidated with larger forums.  SEC Recruiting and Official Game Threads have been merged into SEC Football Talk.  All SEC Social Groups have been moved under their respective team forums. All other Social Groups have been merged into the Water Fountain. Other less active off-topic forums such as Think Tank, SciFi, Gaming, etc, have been merged into the Water Fountain.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TheRealBrave

Obama's recent birth certificate tampered with?

128 posts in this topic

Hawaii detective charges: 'Birth certificate' a fraud

The document was analyzed by Ivan Zatkovich of Tampa-based eComp Consultants, which consults on intellectual property for telecommunications, web publishing and ecommerce and has provided services for corporations such as McGraw-Hill, Houghton-Mifflin, Citicorp and Amazon.com. Zatkovich has 28 years experience in computer science and document management. For more than 10 years he has been an expert witness in federal court in both criminal and civil litigation.

He contended that the multiple layers of the PDF document are anomalous.

"When a paper document is scanned on a scanner and saved as a PDF file it normally contains only a single layer of graphical information. The PDF that appears on the White House website however, contains multiple layers of graphic information. Multiple layers usually appear in a document like this when it is being edited or modified in some fashion," his report said.

"It is possible to take a single layer PDF and inadvertently create multiple layers, without changing the image in any fashion. But that does not appear to be the case here. The multiple layers in the PDF document are a result of changes made to the image."

Zatkovich told WND that the White House image "has specific content extracted from that base layer and enhanced."

He said, "This was done through an explicit operation to edit and/or enhance the printing in the document. There is no ambiguity here. There was an explicit action by a person to modify the document. … Mostly like to enhance the legibility, but still an explicit action none the less."

He explained the analysis he did was similar to the analysis that routinely is done on evidentiary documents for cell phones and computers in cases involving child porn, fraud and murder cases.

It's probably a load of nonsense though, I took a look at that WND site and it seems to be a conspiracy theory haven. Nonetheless, I thought it was interesting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is anything to this.

Hell, in my opinion all the birther talk was doing much more harm to the conservative cause than anything. I think it is stupid that he didn't just show his birth certificate at the very beginning, but I don't see how Obama really gained anything by bringing it out at this point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think there is anything to this.

Hell, in my opinion all the birther talk was doing much more harm to the conservative cause than anything. I think it is stupid that he didn't just show his birth certificate at the very beginning, but I don't see how Obama really gained anything by bringing it out at this point.

Yeah I kind of agree. It's pointless to go on and on about his birthplace but it's like... damn son, how hard is it to just release an unmodified certificate? Especially since he did it as some kind: "Haha, suck it Trump".

I feel it's pretty safe to say that nothing will ever come out of it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one for the conspiracy theorists. Trump has typically voted Democrat in presidential elections. So clearly he took up the birther mantle as an act to bring it front and center in the mainstream media as part of a plan to make the right look crazier. I mean what are the odds that a guy who voted for Obama then joins the other side, makes such a scene that no one can ignore it, AND it just so happens to be right around the time Obama officially announces he's seeking reelection to begin accepting donations.

Oh and that first fundraising effort for Obama 2012? Selling these for $25 donation...

Made20in20USA-1.jpg

(Obviously don't believe that. It was self promotion not Obama promotion, hah. 90+% of conspiracy theories are completely asinine.)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, from the liberal point of view, please keep this going as long as possible. It destroys the credibility of the Right and weakens your pull with moderates.

Regardless of gamesmanship though, this will never ever end. Some people HAVE to find a reason to de-legitimize him, they just can't handle seeing him up there with other Presidents so they convince themselves that he cheated or snuck in some way

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, from the liberal point of view, please keep this going as long as possible. It destroys the credibility of the Right and weakens your pull with moderates.

Regardless of gamesmanship though, this will never ever end. Some people HAVE to find a reason to de-legitimize him, they just can't handle seeing him up there with other Presidents so they convince themselves that he cheated or snuck in some way

What do you mean?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean?

Come now TRB, it's quite simple.

NYIH is talking about those who oppose the Prez based soley on race.

We have 43 Caucasion Presidents and now have one of Mixed Race.

NYIH is saying that some people can't stand seeing Obama in that list based on ignorant, and outdated views.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, from the liberal point of view, please keep this going as long as possible. It destroys the credibility of the Right and weakens your pull with moderates.

Please keep telling yourself that.

I'm sure the moderates will go to the polling places next November saying "you know what? I'm tired of hearing about Obama's birth certificate. I'm going to vote for Obama."

Not that I give a s--t... he's a terrible President and a terrible leader, regardless of whether he's an American, Moroccan or an f'ing martian.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please keep telling yourself that.

I'm sure the moderates will go to the polling places next November saying "you know what? I'm tired of hearing about Obama's birth certificate. I'm going to vote for Obama."

Not that I give a s--t... he's a terrible President and a terrible leader, regardless of whether he's an American, Moroccan or an f'ing martian.

were you the one banging the drum for Cain as GOP candidate? bwahahaha

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has he come up with a plan for Afghanistan yet or does he plan on just wingin' it like the criminal 43rd President did in his foreign policy?

You mean like the current President is doing?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come now TRB, it's quite simple.

NYIH is talking about those who oppose the Prez based soley on race.

We have 43 Caucasion Presidents and now have one of Mixed Race.

NYIH is saying that some people can't stand seeing Obama in that list based on ignorant, and outdated views.

As someone that voted for Obama, I think it is fair to say the flip side could be true as well. You're kidding yourself if you don't think there are people out there that voted for Obama solely because of his race. Again, I don't want to be misconstrued as a racist because I voted for him as well, but you have to look at both sides.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
were you the one banging the drum for Cain as GOP candidate? bwahahaha
What does that have to do with the post you quoted?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares? He is our President. He is an idiot, but he's still our President.

And no I don't think he's an idiot because he's not white, NYIH. I think he's a idiot and bad president because of his policies, as do most Americans. Race has nothing to do with it for 99% of Americans, so stop making it a race issue. Because right now you're the only one hinting at that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh, just when you think politics couldn't get any more boring...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As someone that voted for Obama, I think it is fair to say the flip side could be true as well. You're kidding yourself if you don't think there are people out there that voted for Obama solely because of his race. Again, I don't want to be misconstrued as a racist because I voted for him as well, but you have to look at both sides.

Of course, it's no coincidence that 90% or more of Black Americans voted for him.

You mean like the current President is doing?

No, the current President planned a Bush-like surge in Afghanistan, and has plans for us to begin withdrawals from that hellhole at the end of July. Compare that with Shrub 43's plan of "let's bomb the hell out of those bastards in Afghanistan" followed by him ignoring Afghanistan and becoming more interested in invading Iraq (much like a small child becoming interested in a new toy) and even Obama comes out looking like he had a plan for Afghanistant.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the current President planned a Bush-like surge in Afghanistan, and has plans for us to begin withdrawals from that hellhole at the end of July. Compare that with Shrub 43's plan of "let's bomb the hell out of those bastards in Afghanistan" followed by him ignoring Afghanistan and becoming more interested in invading Iraq (much like a small child becoming interested in a new toy) and even Obama comes out looking like he had a plan for Afghanistant.

You really don't know anything about Bush's foreign policy in Afghanistan or Iraq, do you?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You really don't know anything about Bush's foreign policy in Afghanistan or Iraq, do you?

I know as much as you know, which is to say, what he (ever so magnanimously) released to the public.

We know that he invaded Afghanistan because "they harboured al queda". It makes a lot of sense to attack Afghanistan when it was 15 Saudis, 3 Pakis and a Yemenese citizen who attacked the WTC, right?

As I mentioned before, much like a small child who loses interest in a toy, Shrub 43 basically gave up on Afghanistan from 2003-2008. Hell, he even said he had no interest in Bin Laden's whereabouts for christ's sake!

He decided to focus on finishing up Daddy Shrub's business instead, which is to say, killing Soddamn Insane.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know as much as you know, which is to say, what he (ever so magnanimously) released to the public.

We know that he invaded Afghanistan because "they harboured al queda". It makes a lot of sense to attack Afghanistan when it was 15 Saudis, 3 Pakis and a Yemenese citizen who attacked the WTC, right? [/Quote]

The United States invaded Afghanistan because it was a harbor for the elements of Al Qaeda who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. They also sought to unseat the Taliban, who were allowing Al Qaeda to operate within Afghanistan. The nationalities of the attackers is completely unimportant because they were not loyal to a country, they were loyal to the terroristic goals of Al Qaeda. So yes, it does make sense, unlike your mindless rambling.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know as much as you know, which is to say, what he (ever so magnanimously) released to the public.

We know that he invaded Afghanistan because "they harboured al queda". It makes a lot of sense to attack Afghanistan when it was 15 Saudis, 3 Pakis and a Yemenese citizen who attacked the WTC, right?

As I mentioned before, much like a small child who loses interest in a toy, Shrub 43 basically gave up on Afghanistan from 2003-2008. Hell, he even said he had no interest in Bin Laden's whereabouts for christ's sake!

He decided to focus on finishing up Daddy Shrub's business instead, which is to say, killing Soddamn Insane.

Yeah.... you clearly don't know anything.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The United States invaded Afghanistan because it was a harbor for the elements of Al Qaeda who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. They also sought to unseat the Taliban, who were allowing Al Qaeda to operate within Afghanistan. The nationalities of the attackers is completely unimportant because they were not loyal to a country, they were loyal to the terroristic goals of Al Qaeda. So yes, it does make sense, unlike your mindless rambling.

Iran, Yemen, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to this day harbour al quada. Why did we, or indeed, do we not attack them as we attacked Afghanistan? It's simple, it's much easier to take the Benito Mussolini route of attacking people whose idea of weapons consists mainly of sticks and sand, with the occasional AK-47 or rocker launcher thrown in which we gave them in the 80's.

The nationality doesn't matter? Really now? So the fact that our biggest "ally" in the region, second only to the Zionist state of Israel, and biggest oil supplier that there is had the majority of citizens (terrorists) in the WTC attacks (15 out of 19) is insignificant?

10 years of Faux News propaganda has clearly taken it's toll.

Yeah.... you clearly don't know anything.

Why hello there Your Excellency! How lovely that you come down off your throne to respond to me, a commoner.

Tell me, how many people have you screwed over this week with exorbitant interest rates on the loans you've offered?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites