There is a video on youtube of a photoshop professional actually proving it is photoshopped as well...
[video=youtube;ZCjAmEgjkUc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCjAmEgjkUc[/video]
Let's get something straight. This video is one of several publicized and refuted "got'cha!" attempts that fails to take into account the fundamental way in which image editing software works. In particular, PDF scanning software always tries to separate things such as text, graphics, colors, grayscale and backgrounds into different layers
What is incomprehensibly far fetched about a photo of a birth certificate that comes straight off the white houses own website with more than a dozen layers of add-ons? The text, dates and seal are all different added layers. You can see it for yourself. When things don't add up it is logical to ask questions, it actually becomes ignorant the moment we decide that things don't have to add up. We the sheople will just accept what we are told.
Except things do in fact add up under scrutiny, which constitutes the nearly unanimous consensus from tech and industry experts and independent fact-checking organizations. I've responded directly to the thoroughly refuted allegation that the White House's online PDF copy was questionable on the basis of the existence of multiple layers in the file in a previous comment, specifically in referencing Nathan Goulding's assessment of the copy in question.
Except things do in fact add up under scrutiny, which constitutes the nearly unanimous consensus from tech and industry experts and independent fact-checking organizations. I've responded directly to the thoroughly refuted allegation that the White House's online PDF copy was questionable on the basis of the existence of multiple layers in the file in a previous comment, specifically in referencing Nathan Goulding's assessment of the copy in question.
and yet when the man in the video tries to do the same thing with another birth certificate it doesn't work... He actually addresses exactly what you just said and he proves your theory wrong.
Many experts disagree with you.
and of course you will stand by, what was it you said? "unbelievably farfetched?" something like that..
“We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,” said Cold Case Posse Lead Investigator Lt. Mike Zullo
not so farfetched..
Arpaio's Cold Case Posse was later proven to be flatly lying about several crucial details that it built its case on in its July 17 news conference. For instance, the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual that Arpaio and his team claimed to possess contradicted what they claimed it said, and images shown by them, purportedly from that manual, were instead from computer specifications dated 1968 and 1969. Arpaio's team was anything but independent -- they were direct extensions of Arpaio's preconceived notions, and they were willing to lie outright in the name of discrediting the president.
How in the world does that qualify as a legitimate opposing opinion? How? How, though? Really. How? I'm frustrated and perplexed by your willingness to accept such blatantly dubious material.
You expect me to believe that Reed Hayes is lying? why would he jeopardize his career? He does this for a living...
Since it was plainly shown that Hayes' team was in fact lying based on photographed evidence that directly contradicted Arpaio's press release statements after the conclusion to his "investigation," I frankly do expect you to believe that he was lying.
Exposed: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Birther Scam -- Here's the Proof that Arpaio's Posse Fabricated Evidence and Lied to the Nation | Investigating the Obama Birth MysteriesInvestigating the Obama Birth Mysteries
Feel free to read through it.