“Let’s Do the Time Warp Again” (Polarik – Obama Birth Certificate)

by

“… if the photographer could bend Space-Time, or jump through a worm hole. OK, check this out. Please…read it slowly and carefully.” Polarik

Please go to link to see images:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2076097/posts

To: Polarik; et al

Here are the photos in question:

Acording to the Exif data embedded in these nine digital photos, all of them were allegedly taken on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 PM (PHOTO #1) to 10:47:02 PM (PHOTO #9).

Now. here comes the weird stuff.

Is the Exif data accurate? Were these photos actually taken on the 12th of March at 10:40PM in the order as numbered?

Yeah, if the photographer could bend Space-Time, or jump through a worm hole. OK, check this out. Please…read it slowly and carefully.

Although the images are sequentially named and numbered from birth_certificate_1.jpg to birth_certificate_9.jpg, there is absolutely no way that BC #8 was taken after BC #7 and before BC #9.

The Exif data “allegedly” indicates that BC #7, a shot of the signature stamp, date stamp, and 4/5th of the Seal on the reverse side, was taken only 15 seconds after BC #6, a shot, taken from the front side, of the lower half of the COLB, with the second fold prominently displayed, the slight bleed-though of the date stamp, and the entire Seal, with the lower fold cutting right through the top 1/5th of the Seal (which was curiously cut off in the photos of the reverse side)

BC #8, which shows a close up of the Seal, and also cutting off the same 1/5th of the Seal (as was done in BC #7), was supposedly taken one minute, 20 seconds after BC #7, but two minutes, 5 seconds before BC #9.

Here is BC #6:

Here is BC #7:

Here is BC #8:

Here is BC #9:

Now, the fun begins.

I created a two photo overlay. First I made BC #9 partially transparent and reduced it to be exactly 80 percent of its original size — a significant discovery. Then, I copied it and pasted it over BC #7. the last step was moving the date stamp of BC #9 over the date stamp of BC #7. They aligned perfectly. Another significant discovery.

Here’s the photo overlay before I covered one date stamp with the other:

As you can see above, the size and orientation of the date stamps are the same. Now, here’s the overlay with one date stamp aligned on top of the other:

Even though the camera was hand-held and probably not mounted on a tripod, the date stamps match exactly, but the signature stamps are not. The odds of being able to move the camera from its position in BC #7 to another position to take BC #8, and then moved once again to take BC #9, such that the date stamps on #7 & #9 align perfectly when the size of BC #9 is reduced 80 percent, are rather slim.

THe easiest explanation for the date stamp match is that BC #9 was photographed after BC #7 by first increasing the zoom lens to 120 percent of BC #7.

The other possibility is that the photographer just got off a lucky shot that was made without any artifial light on the COLB.

But, why take what amounted to a second shot, and in poor lighted conditions? If that is true, then the 10:40 pm time stamp is false. Also, why did it take over 4 minutes to shoot BC #9 after BC #7 if they were, indeed, shot separately?

27 posted on Saturday, September 06, 2008 5:05:22 PM by Polarik

To: pissant

I just wrote a scathing comment to the article.

32 posted on Monday, September 08, 2008 3:15:15 PM by Polarik

To: Polarik

Hi Polarik. Do you have any idea who the “third” expert is that Berg references in his lawsuit? I’m assuming (and I may be wrong, of course) that you are one, and TechDude is two, but I can’t figure out who the third person is. I’m trying to submit a comment to What’s Your Evidence on this set of allegations, but can’t find the references to identify the third person. (Who knows if it’ll get published, but gotta try!) Any ideas?

35 posted on Monday, September 08, 2008 4:55:17 PM by Sibre Fan

To: Sibre Fan

Hi Polarik. Do you have any idea who the “third” expert is that Berg references in his lawsuit? I’m assuming (and I may be wrong, of course) that you are one, and TechDude is two, but I can’t figure out who the third person is. I’m trying to submit a comment to What’s Your Evidence on this set of allegations, but can’t find the references to identify the third person. (Who knows if it’ll get published, but gotta try!) Any ideas?

Not TechDude anymore. I don’t know who the third one might be.

37 posted on Monday, September 08, 2008 8:16:34 PM by Polarik

To: Polarik

Why do you say “not TechDude anymore”? Berg’s complaint specifically cites to THREE experts, and includes the allegations that the posted Birth Certificate was issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Isn’t that Techdude’s analysis? Do you disagree with that analysis?

43 posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:14:24 AM by Sibre Fan

To: Trallfaz

It looks like the bumps in the seal are getting light at a different angle which makes them look brighter.

I’ve tried to replicate it all sorts of ways using a 2008 COLB, and it cannot be done without either editing the image, or flattening down the inside of the Seal (not likely).

Here is their Seal image with only the outer ring illuminated:

Here is my best attempt to recreate that effect:

As you can see above, all of the embossed area on the Seal above the fold is illuminated.

HOWEVER

Go back and look at the background above the fold and compare it to the background below the fold. The bottom half of the COLB in this photo looks as if the fold through the middle caused at least a 20 degree angle between the area above and below the fold.

Look at the same photo under edge detection:

See the angle?

Photo #6 is a continuation of Photo #5, and should have been illuminated in the same way as Photo #5, but it’s not.

Here’s Photo #5 taken before it:

Now, how is it that just that outer rim of the Seal above the fold is lit in Photo #6 when it was taken simply by moving the camera further down???

44 posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:47:49 AM by Polarik

To: Sibre Fan

Why do you say “not TechDude anymore”? Berg’s complaint specifically cites to THREE experts, and includes the allegations that the posted Birth Certificate was issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Isn’t that Techdude’s analysis? Do you disagree with that analysis?

I know that it’s hard to keep up with everything that has happened with this COLB business for the past three months, but a few weeks ago, I broke the news about how TechDude fabricated his evidence and pretty much lied about everything else. I knew it from the beginning, and all the time, I kept it to myself, as a favor to TexasDarling, who had done an “Exclusive” on his work just as Pam Geller had done, as well as Israel Insider, too. He suckered a lot of people an tarnished not only himself, but everyone else who trusted him.

It was not until Israel Insider gave him the boot that I came forward with the news.

What blew his cover was when he said that he “received some 2007 COLBs” and that they had the same border as the 2008 COLB. He figured that nobody would be the wiser.

Only problem was that I had a genuine 2007 COLB and its border did resemble the one on the Obama COLB (which did not affect any of my research conclusions as I had already conceded that the border from someone else’s 2007 COLB was copied onto the forgery.)

See for yourself:

45 posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:03:38 AM by Polarik

To: Polarik

Oops…wrong image.

Try this one:

and this one:

46 posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:34:05 AM by Polarik


%d bloggers like this: