Wait, you accept that Obama was born in America, but then buy this ridiculous bullshit about photoshop being used? If you were as well versed in graphics as you seem to be claiming you would know that the 'layers' and artifacts you are seeing come from Optical Character Recognition, which is a pretty common feature. This is what people who ACTUALLY know what they are talking about have said.
The people who think his birth certificate is a forgery are every bit as nuts as those who believe he is a full on Kenyan.
For a more extensive debunking Snopes is here as usual:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp
First off, you're easily one the least-rational and least-credible people around here, so of course I wasn't expecting anything honest from you, or your ilk.
Let's get that out of the way first.
Second: I read through the snopes article and linked videos myself when that first came out, actually hoping "At last! Someone's going to go through and give an honest evaluation of this thing and we can all just dismiss it." Instead- once more, I challenge anyone (capable of rational thought and discussion that is, so most of our more rabid leftwingers, this doesn't mean you) to read the snopes article, and watch their linked 'source'. You quickly realize it's basically just some unknown guy talking about the document, but saying a whole lot of *literally nothing* and not really disproving anything. I was really hoping for some actual evaluation, but you basically realize the guy is just pushing his book! He says very little that debunks anything. Snopes then links it like some definitive proof.
Then snopes just goes on to say, "And others said it was fake, but that was already disproven..." blah blah blah. But they offer no actual *disproven* information other than one guy pushing his book! Seriously, it's a ridiculous presentation, and actually reveals there's been virtually no expert examination of this, just "Some guy's opinion on YouTube". Oh, and that wrote a book he's pushing. I don't want to leave out that other vital credential.
The so-called Adobe Illustrator expert they link to, says virtually nothing about the more disturbing problems with the document, he just explains the layers as OCR. But of course the fact that its in layers is the least of the problems. It's funny too, because I've noticed anywhere around the web where actual illustrator and photoshop experts discuss this on message boards, up pops THIS SAME GUY just basically posting, "Oh no, it's not fake. It's just OCR. Story over." And yet NEVER being able to produce (or even explain) most of the actual anomalies and present a document with them!
OCR could explain some things, but it doesn't begin to explain all that's wrong with the PDF document posted by the Whitehouse. OCR doesn't begin to explain a layer of white-corrections where someone went through 'erasing' things, but didn't know enough to realize that painting with white is ADDING pixels to a document, not just erasing whatever it is you're whiting out. It would of course be undetectable in a flattened document- but with the layers left intact, it's there for all to see. OCR doesn't account for it- so then, WHY did someone paint with white on what should be a simple scan of an existing document? For what purpose?
OCR also doesn't really account for the pixel duplicated objects- and again, you'll notice NO ONE has actually been able to duplicate this, and show, "See? When you scan something and OCR it, it does exactly this same thing." And then actually release their results for anyone to examine. Again, I was hoping for something like this in the snopes article, or anywhere else, but still haven't seen it.
So again, WHY the need for all of this nonsense? Why would you even use OCR on this in the first place, if people want to believe that explains away all the oddities? All that you'd ever need to do was just scan the document with any garden variety scanner, and release a simple image of it. Any of us knows that's all we'd do if asked to scan a document we had, not run it through OCR. And why release something so incompetent?
Anyone with any sense should know that just the oddity of the file number and serial number would be something you shouldn't allow released with such obvious problems intact- if someone were going to alter any details it would be those. The 1 in the birth number in particular. If you were to alter any one detail, it would be that, because clearly it's the next number in sequence. So it's absolutely suspect that both the file number and birth record number have the key last digit either an exact pixel duplicate, or with anti-aliasing beside bitmap. It took an absolute bonehead to release the document like that.
Was it that hard for the administration to find someone who knows how to scan something (competently!) and post it on the web? That is not rocket science.
Facebook
Twitter