SHERIFF JOE TO RELEASE 'INVESTIGATION' OF OBAMA... - Page 2

35NCO · 03-02-2012, 08:50

Richard,

I don't disagree with you. For me personally the issue is not if he is a citizen or not. I really did not give a damn about this stupid conspiracy until I watched those videos. The real issue is why DID the white house forge the BC? Whats the point? Why? That is a very serious question.

What they are really talking about with the image of the BC is not just the obvious layers, but the metadata as well. This is something I do professionally studying and analyzing things like this, including stenography. This is 100% proof, beyond any reasonable doubt that this document is in fact fake. It is even more interesting, that whoever made it, did not even understand the concept of metadata, and how it would show it is a forgery.

Metadata is a fairly new thing in courts too. There is not many people that really understand it, and its even harder to get a judge to understand it. The most recent time I can think of that this was discussed was the case of Abu-grav. Army CID nailed those soldiers to the wall with the metadata of the images.

The fact is, any computer image, or file for that matter, has data hidden in the file. It is simply how computers and digital devices think , process, and communicate on the I/O levels.

Some things that are in Images are:

Type of Camera or device used, to include manufacturer, and sometimes serial number.
Time and date
Time and date of file modification
Computer used to manipulate or edit the file
Time and date of manipulation or edit
Programs used to the edit file
The order the file was manipulated in
When the photo was uploaded
...ext

There is no way around arguing that this information is false, the information is VERY difficult to hide. Forensically, based on metadata, this image of the BC that was posted on a government website is fake. Again, WHY? Yes there are many incredibly huge issues right now, but this just adds to it. Why would the government do this?

So yeah, I have joined the tin foil hat club. Weird that is the case for something so substantially proven, but if it is popular opinion on the subject, I guess I need to find some Reynolds Wrap.

Fellow computer forensic experts, please back me up on this! Thanks!

Dusty · 03-02-2012, 08:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

This "fluff-n-stuff" focus is - IMO - making American conservatives appear as if they are nothing more than an all-star cast in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest II - and as my wife is wont to say, "Perception is reality." Sad and maddening...because it merely fuels the fires of the "left's narrative" and only furthers the possibility of yet another four years of the incumbent and his administration.

Personally, I cannot formulate an expression using tangible words from any language that would even begin to express just how much this inanity pisses me off and makes me want to yell, "The issues, stupid! Stick with the issues!"

And so it goes...

Richard

Yeah. Like whether he really cheats at golf.

Mr Furious · 03-02-2012, 09:21

Richard, great post and very informative.

I really haven’t paid much attention to this issue until looking at the pdf myself. I have to echo 35NCO on this one. Why the fake? Why even do that and try to pass it off as a scanned original? Questioning the validity of the document has nothing to do with tinfoil, and everything to do with motives and integrity of those involved.

Our company uses several third party resources for recruitment, and two of the services send resumes that are OCR’d and optimized as a standard. We also convert anything that is sent to us in the same manner before archiving to facilitate future queries. We have enough of our own examples to compare to what was posted. I don’t prescribe to the position that the anomalies of the cert were a product of OCR and optimization. You also don’t need the tools available in CS5 to see the obvious.

Dusty, good to see you back!

BOfH · 03-02-2012, 09:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dusty

Yeah. Like whether he really cheats at golf.

Been wondering about that me'self

On that note, welcome back QP Dusty!

**Pete** · 03-02-2012, 11:23

The posted BC has been proven a fake. The question is why was it done?

I think my wife is right - the real BC lists him as "White".

MR2 · 03-02-2012, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

Really? Maybe this can help. et all

Thanks for the research material.

Maybe it will answer the question of why only "certain" candidates have their citizenship questioned - like Eisenhower, McCain, Romney, etc.

Dusty · 03-02-2012, 11:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

The posted BC has been proven a fake. The question is why was it done?

I think my wife is right - the real BC lists him as "White".

"White"?

How uncool; in that case, how can you blame the guy for faking it?

abc_123 · 03-02-2012, 11:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

The posted BC has been proven a fake. The question is why was it done?

I think my wife is right - the real BC lists him as "White".

That would certainly ruin the narrative...

Mr Furious · 03-02-2012, 12:18

I might have found the original

Dusty · 03-02-2012, 12:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Furious

I might have found the original

Made my day, Bro.

greenberetTFS · 03-02-2012, 14:03

All you guys know I'll not a supporter of the big"O",however this info from snopes cannot be dismissed either........ I've learned a lot from Richard on addressing a post for accuracy,so http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp .......

Big Teddy

Badger52 · 03-02-2012, 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

The posted BC has been proven a fake. The question is why was it done?

I think my wife is right - the real BC lists him as "White".

Wouldn't be an unusual policy at all, many places in the world. One of those deferences to the maternal side of things that, in a '?' situation, the child is the race of the birth mother. I'm with your wife on this.

I think making a choice between ferreting this out -or- looking at "more important issues" is an unrealistic option - do both (and plenty of people will). Are there circumstances where it's important to put full illumination on fakers & posers? I think there is an august group here that has already decided that one.

Mr Furious · 03-02-2012, 14:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenberetTFS

All you guys know I'll not a supporter of the big"O",however this info from snopes cannot be dismissed either........ I've learned a lot from Richard on addressing a post for accuracy,so http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp .......

Big Teddy

I found this interesting - Here's this bloke’s own words regarding the Fox News blog post that is also cited in Snopes. He probably felt some heat for those associating him with being anything forensic or expert. He was also on the defensive about his “Yes We Did!” book review on Amazon. Even though he’s French Canadian, he's now as neutral as Switzerland.

http://www.proficiografik.com/2011/0...y-foxnews.html

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1LIB33...wasThisHelpful

**Eagle5US** · 03-02-2012, 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenberetTFS

All you guys know I'll not a supporter of the big"O",however this info from snopes cannot be dismissed either........ I've learned a lot from Richard on addressing a post for accuracy,so http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp .......

Big Teddy

Problem is...those are the same "arguments" the administration makes in claims that the document is legitimate. When it has been shown / demonstrated / scrutinized / proven that a scan of an original document will not behave in the same manner.

"Snopes" is not above influence...

MtnGoat · 03-02-2012, 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Furious

I might have found the original

Now that is funny!!!!