Good debunking practice

Good debunking practice

EasTexSteve
EasTexSteve

April 26th, 2011, 3:02 am #1

Not trying to stir up a hornets nest here, but some of us on this board have a reputation as skeptics - myself included. Oh, I believe BF exists, because I believe what I see, and can't explain away by any other means. But, some of us - Jim, Rick, MK, Jay, and myself included, have done our share of exposing hoaxes.

But, I would apply this sketicism to the proposed Obama certificate of live birth. (COLB) This document was made available for download by Obama supporters, and some of us (myself included) downloaded a copy. It was reported to be an original scanned image.

To begin with, that document was not an "original scanned image" as proported by the Obama support team. If you use a binary dump program to examine it, you will see that the Adobe header information is contained in the file. It was created/manipulated with Photoshop.

Secondly, look at this document again:
[/IMG]
This is supposedly a document created in 1961, but it utilizes proportional laser fonts in the information fields. Lastly, look closely at the dark splotches low and just to the right of center. Those are not ink splotches. If you zoom in on them and reverse the image, this is what you get:
[/IMG]
This is a date that was printed on the reverse side of the document, and bled through to the front. How could this document be created in August 1961 with proportional laser fonts and a 2007 date stamped on the back? Now, I have heard is explained that the date stamped on the back was just a file stamp certifying the copy. They certified it back in 1961 by stamping it with a 2007 date? What's up with that? Besides, I've seen my share of legal documents, and nobody legally certifies a document by file stamping it on the back. You file stamp it on the front so the file stamp itself can be copied or faxed for legal purposes.

In my opinion, this document was created by photoshop, and printed on the back of an already exising document. And, it wasn't created in 1961. I'm just applying a bit of GCBRO scrutiny here, just like I would do with any other suspicious claim. But, I'll leave it up to you to examine the evidence and decide for yourself.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 26th, 2011, 12:39 pm #2

I do know at times we pixx a few folks off with what we consider the truth from research but it certainly appears something is wrong with the above document...

Getting a copy of your birth certificate is not difficult if you have one...
Quote
Like
Share

Ken3030
Ken3030

April 26th, 2011, 4:08 pm #3

Not trying to stir up a hornets nest here, but some of us on this board have a reputation as skeptics - myself included. Oh, I believe BF exists, because I believe what I see, and can't explain away by any other means. But, some of us - Jim, Rick, MK, Jay, and myself included, have done our share of exposing hoaxes.

But, I would apply this sketicism to the proposed Obama certificate of live birth. (COLB) This document was made available for download by Obama supporters, and some of us (myself included) downloaded a copy. It was reported to be an original scanned image.

To begin with, that document was not an "original scanned image" as proported by the Obama support team. If you use a binary dump program to examine it, you will see that the Adobe header information is contained in the file. It was created/manipulated with Photoshop.

Secondly, look at this document again:
[/IMG]
This is supposedly a document created in 1961, but it utilizes proportional laser fonts in the information fields. Lastly, look closely at the dark splotches low and just to the right of center. Those are not ink splotches. If you zoom in on them and reverse the image, this is what you get:
[/IMG]
This is a date that was printed on the reverse side of the document, and bled through to the front. How could this document be created in August 1961 with proportional laser fonts and a 2007 date stamped on the back? Now, I have heard is explained that the date stamped on the back was just a file stamp certifying the copy. They certified it back in 1961 by stamping it with a 2007 date? What's up with that? Besides, I've seen my share of legal documents, and nobody legally certifies a document by file stamping it on the back. You file stamp it on the front so the file stamp itself can be copied or faxed for legal purposes.

In my opinion, this document was created by photoshop, and printed on the back of an already exising document. And, it wasn't created in 1961. I'm just applying a bit of GCBRO scrutiny here, just like I would do with any other suspicious claim. But, I'll leave it up to you to examine the evidence and decide for yourself.
I always knew that document and the other one they showed was photoshopped. There's a lot of things wrong with it. Since when is "African" a race? AND wasn't Obamas name Barry something before he changed it? How could his birth certificate have his name otherwise? This is just one more con job that has been put on the American people......................
Quote
Share

Versatile
Versatile

April 26th, 2011, 7:39 pm #4

Not trying to stir up a hornets nest here, but some of us on this board have a reputation as skeptics - myself included. Oh, I believe BF exists, because I believe what I see, and can't explain away by any other means. But, some of us - Jim, Rick, MK, Jay, and myself included, have done our share of exposing hoaxes.

But, I would apply this sketicism to the proposed Obama certificate of live birth. (COLB) This document was made available for download by Obama supporters, and some of us (myself included) downloaded a copy. It was reported to be an original scanned image.

To begin with, that document was not an "original scanned image" as proported by the Obama support team. If you use a binary dump program to examine it, you will see that the Adobe header information is contained in the file. It was created/manipulated with Photoshop.

Secondly, look at this document again:
[/IMG]
This is supposedly a document created in 1961, but it utilizes proportional laser fonts in the information fields. Lastly, look closely at the dark splotches low and just to the right of center. Those are not ink splotches. If you zoom in on them and reverse the image, this is what you get:
[/IMG]
This is a date that was printed on the reverse side of the document, and bled through to the front. How could this document be created in August 1961 with proportional laser fonts and a 2007 date stamped on the back? Now, I have heard is explained that the date stamped on the back was just a file stamp certifying the copy. They certified it back in 1961 by stamping it with a 2007 date? What's up with that? Besides, I've seen my share of legal documents, and nobody legally certifies a document by file stamping it on the back. You file stamp it on the front so the file stamp itself can be copied or faxed for legal purposes.

In my opinion, this document was created by photoshop, and printed on the back of an already exising document. And, it wasn't created in 1961. I'm just applying a bit of GCBRO scrutiny here, just like I would do with any other suspicious claim. But, I'll leave it up to you to examine the evidence and decide for yourself.
In the lower left corner i see OHSM 1.1 (Rec 11/01). What does that mean. How come investigate journalists have not came up with anything? They would get a Pulitzer Prize for a TRUE expose on this.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 26th, 2011, 7:59 pm #5

Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.

Quote
Like
Share

RubyRed
RubyRed

April 26th, 2011, 8:00 pm #6

Not trying to stir up a hornets nest here, but some of us on this board have a reputation as skeptics - myself included. Oh, I believe BF exists, because I believe what I see, and can't explain away by any other means. But, some of us - Jim, Rick, MK, Jay, and myself included, have done our share of exposing hoaxes.

But, I would apply this sketicism to the proposed Obama certificate of live birth. (COLB) This document was made available for download by Obama supporters, and some of us (myself included) downloaded a copy. It was reported to be an original scanned image.

To begin with, that document was not an "original scanned image" as proported by the Obama support team. If you use a binary dump program to examine it, you will see that the Adobe header information is contained in the file. It was created/manipulated with Photoshop.

Secondly, look at this document again:
[/IMG]
This is supposedly a document created in 1961, but it utilizes proportional laser fonts in the information fields. Lastly, look closely at the dark splotches low and just to the right of center. Those are not ink splotches. If you zoom in on them and reverse the image, this is what you get:
[/IMG]
This is a date that was printed on the reverse side of the document, and bled through to the front. How could this document be created in August 1961 with proportional laser fonts and a 2007 date stamped on the back? Now, I have heard is explained that the date stamped on the back was just a file stamp certifying the copy. They certified it back in 1961 by stamping it with a 2007 date? What's up with that? Besides, I've seen my share of legal documents, and nobody legally certifies a document by file stamping it on the back. You file stamp it on the front so the file stamp itself can be copied or faxed for legal purposes.

In my opinion, this document was created by photoshop, and printed on the back of an already exising document. And, it wasn't created in 1961. I'm just applying a bit of GCBRO scrutiny here, just like I would do with any other suspicious claim. But, I'll leave it up to you to examine the evidence and decide for yourself.
The Donald may be on to something?
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 26th, 2011, 8:12 pm #7

just interesting to discuss on the forum...
Quote
Like
Share

Versatile
Versatile

April 26th, 2011, 8:55 pm #8

Not trying to stir up a hornets nest here, but some of us on this board have a reputation as skeptics - myself included. Oh, I believe BF exists, because I believe what I see, and can't explain away by any other means. But, some of us - Jim, Rick, MK, Jay, and myself included, have done our share of exposing hoaxes.

But, I would apply this sketicism to the proposed Obama certificate of live birth. (COLB) This document was made available for download by Obama supporters, and some of us (myself included) downloaded a copy. It was reported to be an original scanned image.

To begin with, that document was not an "original scanned image" as proported by the Obama support team. If you use a binary dump program to examine it, you will see that the Adobe header information is contained in the file. It was created/manipulated with Photoshop.

Secondly, look at this document again:
[/IMG]
This is supposedly a document created in 1961, but it utilizes proportional laser fonts in the information fields. Lastly, look closely at the dark splotches low and just to the right of center. Those are not ink splotches. If you zoom in on them and reverse the image, this is what you get:
[/IMG]
This is a date that was printed on the reverse side of the document, and bled through to the front. How could this document be created in August 1961 with proportional laser fonts and a 2007 date stamped on the back? Now, I have heard is explained that the date stamped on the back was just a file stamp certifying the copy. They certified it back in 1961 by stamping it with a 2007 date? What's up with that? Besides, I've seen my share of legal documents, and nobody legally certifies a document by file stamping it on the back. You file stamp it on the front so the file stamp itself can be copied or faxed for legal purposes.

In my opinion, this document was created by photoshop, and printed on the back of an already exising document. And, it wasn't created in 1961. I'm just applying a bit of GCBRO scrutiny here, just like I would do with any other suspicious claim. But, I'll leave it up to you to examine the evidence and decide for yourself.
Your own words: "It was reported to be an original scanned image." Then it had to be printed out;thus the Laser stuff as well as the laser reference in the lower left.

Keeping with good investigative skills. ABC, CBS, and CNN, and The RNC say it is a dead issue. Karl Rove says it is a failed STRATEGY. Please note the word STRATEGY. The Gov. of HAWAII says it is legit. So i have 5 sources that say he is legit. How many sources do you have to refute them?
Quote
Share

Versatile
Versatile

April 26th, 2011, 8:56 pm #9

Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.
MH Please explain how this fits in? Thanks
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 26th, 2011, 10:15 pm #10

Before 1972 anyone was allowed to get a certificate of birth after one year of age...how old is Obama?...he would qualify to receive this certificate from the program regardless of where he was born...all he would need is his mother to claim he was born in Hawaii...

"The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era."

Quote
Like
Share