The discussion about Obama's birth certificate continues to beat high waves.
In the first case verargumentiert is a graphically inconsistent texture, presented now document was tampered with.
The second procedure is the same along graphical parameters, this time whether discrepancies in the pixelation.
As I understand little of image processing (although the argument in the first seems logical) to check the correctness of the assertions can I please therein versed reader to adjust their views here.
Now comes the kicker, should agree what Wayne Madsen regard to languages setting out for Hawaiian birth certificates in 1961.
Namely, that at that time the breed description yet related "Negro" and "African" it was still nowhere in use.
That would mean now that the document forger had stumbled on particularly bizarre way a language nursing pitfall.
We turn the thing around times: Used with us any authority to racial description, the word "negro", it would probably not stay there long.
"African" in a Hawaiian birth certificate would probably not 1961 caused the same indignation, but would have been just as unfamiliar and simply against the rules.
Now the first black American president with a white mother probably still a Negro problem.
If it's true - Madsen is neither a beginner nor a bungler - then I laugh my piebald.
Here are two videos for the optical analysis of the published document:
- Advertisement -