• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I love being ahead of the curve

BmanMcfly said:
Still waiting for someone willing to Address the issues with the document that can defend it on the issues raised against it.
Click to expand...

You demand everyone address your issues... then utterly refuse to do so yourself...

Having trouble making up some, I mean, finding the facts to fit your statement here??? :roflMcFly
 
BmanMcfly said:
I was the one that showed you the link, but preferred instead to slander people.
Click to expand...

A link to a pdf file. You haven't looked at the document. So stop playing pretend.



Now you delve into non sequitar arguments... None of those have been paid to take that position, except for those who make the blanket claim that layering is normal.
Click to expand...

who said they were paid?

Oh so now taking on a viewpoint based on facts makes you crazy.... And making fallacious arguments makes you sane? Funny...
Click to expand...

Being a whack job makes you crazy. Even whackjobs can take on viewopoitns, they're typically worthless at discerning facts, though.

No I admit that I'm not an expert, but this one does not require any serious expertise to see... This forgery is THAT bad....
Click to expand...

You are clueless as to whether or not it would take any expertise to see... you are THAT clueless....
 
CriticalThought said:
I think you should believe what you want to believe. The world will always need people like you who imagine grand national conspiracies to fake birth certificates.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, I'm only talking about the document itself specifically. That document is not one that was created by a simple scan with OCR software, but is a simplistic forgery.

Once we get that fact established we can start discussing the extent of the conspiracy.
 

You've had it explained to you many times and you still don't get it. This is not at all surprising given your history of ignoring things that don't fit in with your fantastical view of the world.

The.

Certificate.

Is.

Real.

Deal with it.
 
505 said:
You've had it explained to you many times and you still don't get it. This is not at all surprising given your history of ignoring things that don't fit in with your fantastical view of the world.

The.

Certificate.

Is.

Real.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Its so obviously fake... YouTube told me so!
 
BmanMcfly said:
I was the one that showed you the link, but preferred instead to slander people.
Click to expand...

Let's see, you claim, with no credible evidence, that Obama has presented two fake birth certificates and that he's gotten any number of officials to cover for him, and you accuse somebody else of slander? Irony, you haz it.
 


cricket.... cricket... cricket....
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Too much baiting and trolling here. Step it back folks.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Its so obviously fake... YouTube told me so!
Click to expand...

More like... It's so obviously fake, just look at it.

And then the debunkers respond, "no don't look at that, it's real."
 
Tucker Case said:
A link to a pdf file. You haven't looked at the document. So stop playing pretend.
Click to expand...

That PDF IS the document... No paper version of this document has been released, and the PDF file as the whitehouse released does not match the story we were told as to how it was created... I'm still waiting for someone that wants to actually look over the document to show otherwise.



who said they were paid?
Click to expand...

You implied that you can pay an expert for any opinion desired....

Being a whack job makes you crazy. Even whackjobs can take on viewopoitns, they're typically worthless at discerning facts, though.
Click to expand...

Ya, like how you take an ad hom argument and claim it's fact....


You are clueless as to whether or not it would take any expertise to see... you are THAT clueless....
Click to expand...

Except that this document SHOULD, even by the expectations of mr corsi that this document Should have required expert analysis, but this forgery is that blatant that anyone can see it if they look...

I'm still trying to find someone that is willing to actually look at the document... I won't hold my breath since nobody that takes a close look at the do ument has maintained how it's legit...

The debunkers claiming that layering is normal have already been debunked... And on this site we're not willing to even look at the document, even though they'll still maintain it's legitimacy.
 
BmanMcfly said:
That....
Click to expand...

your posts are all useless, unless you prove your earlier statements...


If you're going to make statements like that, and expect everyone else to prove every statement they make, you have to play by the same rules, McFly.... prove YOUR statements.
Whovian said:
links... to all several dozen, listing all 50 or so reasons...... or we all brand you to be lying.

Put up, or shut up. For once.
Click to expand...

otherwise, our opinion of you stands.
 
BmanMcfly said:
That PDF IS the document...
Click to expand...

No, the PDF is an image of the document. Pretending that you know anything about the document is a lie.



You implied that you can pay an expert for any opinion desired....
Click to expand...

No, I stated (read it's not implied, but stated) that I can find a self-proclaimed expert for any opinion desired.



Ya, like how you take an ad hom argument and claim it's fact....
Click to expand...

What have I said that is not factual and supported by your own admissions?

Name one thing.

Except that this document SHOULD, even by the expectations of mr corsi that this document Should have required expert analysis, but this forgery is that blatant that anyone can see it if they look...
Click to expand...

You are clueless as to whether it is a forgery or not. You simply wish it to be a forgery, therefore you believe it to be. Just start being honest about the basis for your beleifs.

I'm not asking you to stop believing in this idiocy, I'm just asking you to stop pretending to have a clue when we both know that you don't know what you are talking about.

I'm still trying to find someone that is willing to actually look at the document... I won't hold my breath since nobody that takes a close look at the do ument has maintained how it's legit...
Click to expand...

More lies. Your entire argument is lies. I won't hold my breath since you clearly have no interest in honesty, but it doesn;t mean I won't stop calling these lies what they are.

The debunkers claiming that layering is normal have already been debunked... And on this site we're not willing to even look at the document, even though they'll still maintain it's legitimacy.
Click to expand...

More lies.

Your beliefs on this subject are no more founded in reality than y nephew's belief in teh tooth fairy. He believes in the tooth fairy because he was told that the tooth fairy exists and he believed what he was told because he wants the tooth fairy to exist. You believe the birth certificate is forged because you were told it was a forged and you believe what you were told becuase you want the birth certificate to be forged.

Simple as that.

The only difference I can see is that some day, probably soon, my nephew will start to use a little common sense in his analysis of the tooth fairy and when he does, he's going to relaize that there is something odd about the whole idea of some little wing-flapping weirdo fluttering about snatching up kids' lost teeth and dropping off small quantities of money in return for them and then, with this newfound common sense, he's going to realize that the whole thing just does not make any sense and then he'll stop believing in the tooth fairy.
 
Tucker Case said:
No, the PDF is an image of the document. Pretending that you know anything about the document is a lie.
Click to expand...

Can you source this claim?? (Not that this amounts to anything more then semantics... and an image of the file would mean the discrepancies that I would point out if anyone was interested in facts, only FURTHER PROVE that this document was a forgery)

No, I stated (read it's not implied, but stated) that I can find a self-proclaimed expert for any opinion desired.
Click to expand...

Ok, so we break even on the big **** contest, can we now address the actual document??

What have I said that is not factual and supported by your own admissions?

Name one thing.
Click to expand...

An ad hom argument is where I say "let's look at facts" and you say "ok, fact is anyone that disagrees with me is a whackjob"... ESPECIALLY when you're using such tactics to avoid discussion of the actual document... you'll dance around for days avoiding that one.

You are clueless as to whether it is a forgery or not. You simply wish it to be a forgery, therefore you believe it to be. Just start being honest about the basis for your beleifs.
Click to expand...

The BASIS for my beliefs is that a scanner will treat a document CONSISTENTLY throughout the document... OCR software is pretty limited, and while only the developers know the true workings of OCR, but you can attempt to recreate results to see the types of things OCR does.

Obama's long-form has MULTIPLE pixel sizes / resolutions, is composed of multiple linked graphical objects, has digital chromatic aberrations, shows kerning (which is NOT possible with a typewriter), etc... once you understand these simple graphical concepts and you look at the document (again, I was not aware of more then the existence of some of these until they were pointed out to me and I checked for myself and saw that they were accurate statements / descriptions).

So, if you truly wish to debunk this the challenge is out there to go over the details... if you wish to carry on this little song and dance that's fine too, but you can't honestly claim that it's legitimate.

I'm not asking you to stop believing in this idiocy, I'm just asking you to stop pretending to have a clue when we both know that you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

No, I have a clue what I'm talking about, without being an expert... and I've taken what people have pointed out, and verified it for myself... and I wish for you to actually DEBUNK THE CLAIMS... I'm not even talking about any conspiracy going on... even though once you see that it's fake you MUST accept that there was SOME level of collusion in creating this document.... I'm not even saying that he wasn't born in Hawaii... I'm only saying that you are buying into a lie... all of you that will claim something legit without even TRYING to look for yourself.


 
BmanMcfly said:
That....
Click to expand...


cricket... cricket... cricket...
 
Whovian said:
cricket... cricket... cricket...
Click to expand...

Ya, and when you see that it's mostly in the form of blogs, forum posts, etc... you'll just say "oh that doesn't count"...

That's why I'm more interested in actually discussing the document...

Nobody wants to do so.... which is fine, but how can you honestly discuss an issue when you wont even take enough time to find out what the issues are... and in this case it's blatant issues...
 

translation: I cannot back up my absurd statements, so I'll just whine that you wont like my sources, and claim victory.

LALALALALA I cannot hear you LALALALALALALALA
 
BmanMcfly said:
The BASIS for my beliefs is that a scanner will treat a document CONSISTENTLY throughout the document...
Click to expand...

Your basis is already flawed.

Obama's long-form has MULTIPLE pixel sizes / resolutions,
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

is composed of multiple linked graphical objects,
Click to expand...

Prove it.

has digital chromatic aberrations, shows kerning (which is NOT possible with a typewriter),
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what happens when you scan something.


You didn't check very hard. You listened to some nut saying it was fishy, and then took his word for it rather than researching it FURTHER and coming to the conclusion that this stuff just happens.
 
Oh, looks like we finally have someone wanting to discuss the document... Let's give 505 a round of applause.

505 said:
Your basis is already flawed.
Click to expand...

What the basis of understanding that a scanner is effectively a WYSIWYG system???

Beyond that you'll need to be more specific.

No it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Umm... yes it does, allow me to demonstrate :
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

The long form...

Now, let's focus in the top right corner of the text area :



Now, let's look at the first 1 ... the ONLY modification I did was to highlight the size of a single pixel (which was 4X4 pixels in size once it was moved to an paint) :



Here's where the multiple resolutions comes in , look at the final 1 and you'll see that each pixel is twice the size...



What else is wrong with this 1 compared to the first in the sequence???

Well, this is where the layering is important (though not proof of itself)... when you split the documents layers the 1064 is on one layer while the final 1 remains in the background layer.

What else is notable??

The RGB values on the first four are a true black while the final 1 is a digital mix of about 8 shades of green-black.

If you were to tell me that this number was simply 'faded', then the pixel sizes would remain the same through, and the fading would be CONSISTENT as it appeared, AND NOT with this type of digital artifact.

Prove it.
Click to expand...



See where it says "Image"?? Now, when you click the icon to hide the "image"



And there are 5 other similar imbedded image objects in this document.

Now, can you replicate this result with a simple scan???
 
Had to split this into 2 posts for the number of images :


Which is exactly what happens when you scan something.
Click to expand...

Ummm... the chromatic aberrations, yes, but NOT in the way that I've pointed out...

As for kerning, a scanner does not manipulate the locations of letters... it's what you see is what you get, and if the scan of this "original" had shown kerning, which was not something that came about with the advent of computer fonts, then that text showing kerning CANNOT have been created in 1963.

Here's just one area to make the point :



Now, look at the red lines I added, in the document original text see how there's a space between each letter??

That's because typewriters / printing presses used one block per letter and then moved to the next clear space... Now, compare that to the ty and gy specifically (the Ma does have a cross over like that, but it's only of 1 pixel and is covered by the line I added), see how they infringe on each others space??

That's not 1963 technology.

Or would you care to elaborate as to how you meant something different??

You didn't check very hard. You listened to some nut saying it was fishy, and then took his word for it rather than researching it FURTHER and coming to the conclusion that this stuff just happens.
Click to expand...

Ya, you might think so... but no, I was happy that Obama had finally shut people up on this issue because there are so much more pertinent issues to address with Obama. But, by the time I got to show my roommate about the release of the document there were over 20 videos explaining parts of it that show it to be a fraud... so I opened the document myself and what do you know, they weren't lying.

Thanks again for being interested in the actual document... So, as I said, it's such a clear fake that it does NOT require a mastery in recognizing fake documents in order to see what's going on.
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
You should back up the asinine statements you made before anyone discusses anything with you.
Click to expand...

They are backed up by the images and the instructions on where to go to see for yourself... try replicating these effects.

I know you're too much of a coward to actually look at the document and might come across something that will make you ask "birther" questions, but I've shown my position on the document and if you care to refute those points I've brought up, then PLEASE do so... otherwise it's just waste of time to show others repeating the same points just so you can go and say "those experts don't count, this expert from fox whose debunked by what they are said different things prior to examining the document so I don't have to look at the document itself"
 

again... you get angry when you're called out for not providing proof of things you post, and again, you resort to name calling.

It's a pretty simple thing to do... post proof of what you said... assuming such proof exists.

You've yet to prove this by linking to all several dozen and linking to all 50 reasons. until you do, you have zero credibility. None. ZIP. Nada.
 


I was not aware that this was the INITIALLY released document, not the one with the security background...

So, the conclusion that must be drawn is that it only appeared to be a fake because of being a document that HAD been modified by machine for purposes of creating a smaller file for distribution.

I now fully retract my birther statements unless a forensic document analysis is performed on the original to show it as a fake... Which is ESPECIALLY funny considering that your fear of addressing issues (most all of you, except 505 who actually wanted to discuss the document itself) actually prevented you from proving me wrong.

So, until/unless something big comes out showing otherwise, Obama's birthplace issue has actually been settled...

Too bad none of you can take credit for proving me wrong, that would have almost been worthy of bragging rights considering how vocal I had been since the release of the long-form.

/ thread.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Too bad none of you can take credit for proving me wrong, that would have almost been worthy of bragging rights considering how vocal I had been since the release of the long-form.
Click to expand...

Did I not say this whole time that you had not actually viewed the document?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…