[update] This is getting good... Just when they thought the "release" would put the issue to rest. Let us see if the mainstream media continues the coverup... Below reports from Market Ticker, Drudge Report and The Smoking Gun web site...
Via Market Ticker: Oh C'mon #2 - AP Is Involved?
The AP has also released a "different version" of the document the White House released. [White House Version Embedded Below, Note Between The Date Stamp And "Date Accepted..."]
Guys, this is too freaking blatant.
Incidentally, the AP's version was flattened before being PDF'd. Too bad they forgot to do that on the *****house, er, Whitehouse copy.
Heh AP - betcha you won't look at this!
Here's the AP's document snippet on the accepted date:
And now let's have the Whitehouse version:
Look closely at the date stamp. They're not aligned at the top. The error is small, but it's there. Also note the saturation problems in the Whitehouse version in the word "Date" and the fill on the "A".
The mystery deepens, but the evidence is even more damning than it was before: This "document" was tampered with.
Source and discussion begins here: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=185101#discuss
Via Market Ticker: You've GOT To Be Kidding Me (Birth Certificate)
Oh do c'mon.... oh Donald, this case is not closed.
You can't possibly by serious.
This document has been altered and whoever did it wasn't even very clever in doing so.
I downloaded the PDF from the White House Web site - the "official copy" right from the "Horse's Mouth." Then I loaded it into Illustrator. Look at these images I then screen-captured - first, the ENTIRE image itself:
Note the light blue border? That's the PDF segment that was dropped in the background, which was the green "safety paper." So far, so good - they just took the safety paper background and then dropped in a picture. All is well, right?
Mother's "occupation" - the "Non" on "None" has been altered. What was there before it was tampered with?
The "Accepted date" (bottom right) has been altered. What was there before it was tampered with?
As has the other "Accepted" date. What was there before it was tampered with?
There's another problem with those dates too - they're clearly altered, as is the "None"; here's a well-enhanced (at 1200%) version of one of the dates; you can clearly see the difference in saturation. That was cut into the original picture folks.
By the way, they were dumb enough to leave the cuts in the clipboard too. The bottom part (certification) I can see since it's clearly overlaid on a background. But the content itself?
This document has been altered; it is not simply a photograph of the registrar's book that was dropped into a background, and it also is not simply an agglomeration of two images (the background they constructed, the "certification" and then the actual certificate.)
Now this does not prove that the alterations were actual changes in content. They might not be.
But..... what other reason is there to alter an alleged high-resolution photograph?
Got Illustrator? Don't believe me - check it yourself.
(To get the full list of things on the clipboard, load it and then select "Window->Actions->Links." There they are.)
Advice to Obama: Next time you try to alter something you're presenting to the press hire someone who knows how to do it without getting caught.
Source and discussion begins here: http://market-ticker.org/post=185094#discuss
Via the Smoking Gun:
• If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document's safety paper be so seamless?
• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?
• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?
• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.
• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?
• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?
• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: It is spelled “Ukulele.”
Video the Drudge Report:
Barack Hussien Obama "Birth Certificate" April 25, 2011