Main Menu

TXE

Here’s the State Registrar’s stamp from Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate.

Click to view at full size (1098 x 153)

“TXE” is what it looks like; however, it may be instructive to look under the covers. It is widely reported that the long form PDF file we’re viewing is made up of layers, including a background layer and separate layers for various objects on the form identified during PDF optimization. The Onaka signature stamp is essentially a separate object (or layer). It’s instructive to look at that layer in more detail.

I used the Export feature of Adobe Acrobat to get the following actual sized image which is only 76 pixels per inch!

Exported Onaka signature layer

When one zooms in on this, we get a better idea of what information underlies the the pure black part of image:

Registrar stamp at 4X zoom

The right vertical stroke of the “H” is complete in the bitmap. Added to this image should be other non-purely-black smudges from the other layers.

So yes, it looks like an “X” but it isn’t. Why is it like this? Low resolution of the stamp is certainly important, and maybe the stamp is damaged due to wear, or a bit of lint accumulated in the middle. The real reason probably won’t come to light without a higher resolution scan or examples of other stamps from about now. I asked Barry for a better copy.

Update:

See my new article with startling revelations on TXE.

Print Friendly

, , ,

49 Responses to TXE

  1. avatar
    richCares June 2, 2011 at 11:27 am #

    when you load this pdf then export it as a jpg file, you can see the “X’ is clearly an “H” in the jpg file, though a bit misformed it is an H.

  2. avatar
    richCares June 2, 2011 at 11:50 am #

    I program in C++, I have written billing programs, technical problem solving programs, plus high volume parts programs using dbf files. The easiest way for me to have a printable catalog from an extensive dbf file was to generate pdf files for print outs. Query by a model number would generate a pdf compatible print out. So I have had extensive experience with Acrobat and interfacing to Acrobat from C++. I also taught a course for contractors to build pdf versions of catalogs with scanning software as well as converting word to pdf. Though Acrobat has a scanning feature, it is not as good as scanning hi res to a graphics program then using OCR to convert it. Abbyy FineReader is a Russian OCR program that is probably the best OCR reader and converter and was initially a KGB developed method of reading scanned documents.
    What my experience tells me is that D. Vogt is full of crap. I could have made a better PDF copy of Obama’s form but they didn’t call me. Also that the X is really an H!

  3. avatar
    Suranis June 2, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    Its pretty obvious its not an X if you magnify the PDF to 1200%.

  4. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 2, 2011 at 2:58 pm #

    richCares:
    when you load this pdf then export it as a jpg file, you can see the “X’ is clearly an “H” in the jpg file, though a bit misformed it is an H.

    But isn’t jpg a lossy format? That is, whatever you’ve got in the JPG is the result of discarding and compressing some of the data that was in the PDF?

    I’m not saying that the letter is an X — I’m just quibbling with the idea of a JPG export as a means of analysis.

  5. avatar
    richCares June 2, 2011 at 3:08 pm #

    “JPG export as a means of analysis.”
    on a original scan, the jpg can be scanned at a much higher quality than an Acrobat pdf scan. Try it
    1. scan with Acrobat 10 X (normal scanning at 150 or 300 DPI)
    2. scan with PaintShop at 600 DPI
    3. scan with PaintShop at 1200 DPI

  6. avatar
    charo June 2, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    When I look at the letter (in the first image on the post, not the zoomed in one) and focus in the right way, I see an H with a little white spot. Then it will look like an X again until I refocus. It looks like the H looking like an X is an unintentional optical illusion. My eye sees the letter as an X until I focus a little on that white spot. Then I see an H.

    My son was given this illusion on a slip of paper (link title gives the answer away). I could see what it said after focusing. Once I lost focus, the words were not readable. My daughter cannot see “BAD EYES.”

    http://www.hemmy.net/2006/06/03/bad-eyes-optical-illusion/

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 2, 2011 at 3:31 pm #

    Expelliarmus: But isn’t jpg a lossy format?

    Usually, although there is a lossless format as part of the JPEG standard. I don’t know what programs support it. However, one can set the quality of a JPEG very high. Lately I have been using a lot PNG images because they are lossless and widely supported by browsers. TIFFs aren’t as well -supported.

  8. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 2, 2011 at 4:02 pm #

    richCares:
    “JPG export as a means of analysis.”
    on a original scan, the jpg can be scanned at a much higher quality than an Acrobat pdf scan.

    Yes, but you didn’t have the original scan to work with. You said you were loading the PDF and then exporting it to jpg — your export can’t have a higher resolution than you started with.

    Going back to your first comment — “when you load this pdf then export it as a jpg file, you can see the “X’ is clearly an “H”” — what resolution jpg were you suggesting for the export?

  9. avatar
    richCares June 2, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    I scanned in a 380 page catalog and made a database from it,
    using ABBYY FelexiCapture software
    I winked and it was done.
    http://www.abbyy.com/data_capture_software/
    .
    as for PDF’s
    I scan in at 600 DPI to a jpg file using PaintShop
    then I use Acrobat 10 X Pro to create PDF from the jpg which I then OCR
    comes out great!

  10. avatar
    richCares June 2, 2011 at 4:32 pm #

    “what resolution jpg were you suggesting for the export?”
    using “ap PDF Image” sotware, I set output to 500 DPI
    this does not correct the low res scan but it does make it clearer to read
    .
    ideally scanning the original at 600 DPI then converting to PDF with OCR would not make an H look like an X, it would make a better copy for distribution, but no copy is birther proof, the word “analysis” is out of place as that can only be done with the original, this whole issue of analysis of a scanned copy is silly.
    .
    My point is merely that a better scan would not show Corsi’s hidden forger crap, making birthers less excited.

  11. avatar
    richCares June 2, 2011 at 4:47 pm #

    for those of you that need to cature a lot documents see Abbyy FlexiCapture:
    http://www.abbyy.com/data_capture_software/
    note: Abby started out as OCR scanning software, it’s a Russian firm that originally started OCR copying for KGB. Using FexiCapture, I converted 380 pages of catalog data into a searchable database very quickly (2 winks and done), it is the best OCR out there.

  12. avatar
    Greg June 2, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    JPG? Gif? TIFF? Please!

    If Obama had wanted to put this issue to bed, he would have released it in .RAW format.

  13. avatar
    BouquetofRoses June 3, 2011 at 1:55 am #

    When President Obama released his b.c. on April, I thought it was fine. Then, my co-worker told me of the misspelled word “TXE” in the document found on WND website. She believed it was yet another evidence of a sloppy forgery. I scoffed at her and re-visited the b.c. website. I clearly see “THE” instead of “TXE.” I said to my co-worker, “Maybe there was a little dust on the glass part of the copy machine. Maybe the registrar applied more pressure on one side of his palm when stamping the b.c. Maybe the stamp was worn out due to wear and tear. Maybe the ink was not applied well on the stamp.” Of course, she didn’t believe it. Thanks for this article, Dr. C. and those who positively commented on it. It confirmed what I saw the first time. It’s my turn to show her this website. Birthers are desperately seeking for something on the b.c. that is not there. When they look at the document, they took with a grain of salt to add to their absurd claims.

  14. avatar
    richCares June 3, 2011 at 2:05 am #

    “misspelled word “TXE” in the document found on WND website”
    more importantly, the State of Hawaii has cerified Obama’s long form which essentially closes this issue
    Hawaii says “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
    .
    yes wnd lies!

  15. avatar
    BouquetofRoses June 3, 2011 at 2:23 am #

    richCares, I had no doubt he was born in Hawaii. Both documents look like my Hawaii Birth Certificate except different information, of course. Yeah, WND does lie… A LOT! :)

    richCares:
    “misspelled word “TXE” in the document found on WND website”
    more importantly, the State of Hawaii has cerified Obama’s long form which essentially closes this issue
    Hawaii says “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
    .
    yes wnd lies!

  16. avatar
    foreigner June 3, 2011 at 5:20 am #

    sorry, I can’t see the H.
    Shouldn’t we look at the picture before it was processed ?
    I.e. the copy shown to the press not the .pdf at the WH-webpage
    I tried to superimpose an H to the X (which is not really an X,
    as you correctly say) but it doesn’t match.
    The letters in the middle row are too big and ink is missing
    at some places.
    Ink is also missing at the lower part of two “S” above this.
    Also at the “F” and “T” (OF THE) but then there are places
    where no ink should be and these places are irregular
    so I can’t easily explain this.

  17. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 3, 2011 at 6:36 am #

    Try to get this through your head.

    It doesn’t MATTER.

    Obama’s Hawaii birth has been verified by the Hawaii Dept. of Health, which is the OFFICIAL designated agency responsible for keeping charge of such things. I have lost count of how many different times and different ways they have done the verifying, but they’ve gone so far as to waive their usual procedures and issue a super, extra-special, better than anyone else’s, birth certificate in order to please the idiots that were too stupid to understand that the computer generated COLB was legal and binding.

    Obama doesn’t have to put out anything, and nothing that any expert could say about the placement of the stamps or the smudging of letters on a rubber stamp or layers on a PDF or anything else has any bearing whatsoever on the FACT, which is established by THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY in charge of documenting such stuff, has verified time and again that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    They will continue to do so. If you don’t like the formation of the letter H on a rubber stamp or the way the numbers line up in the rubber date stamp,… well then you can have the COLB instead. No one seemed to have a problem with the stamp and signature on that. The birthers just whined because it didn’t have a hospital name and doctor’s signature. Well, now there’s a hospital name and doctor’s signature, and the birthers are all of the sudden worried about rubber stamps.

    Please read this: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    It is the Hawaii Department of Health web site.

    It is final.

    You can pay all your little stupid internet games… but you can’t get around the fact that Obama’s birth has been repeatedly confirmed by the one agency that has the AUTHORITY to make that determination.

  18. avatar
    foreigner June 3, 2011 at 6:53 am #

    but what is this thread about, why are we here ?

  19. avatar
    Scientist June 3, 2011 at 7:23 am #

    foreigner: why are we here ?

    Did you take Philosophy 101?

  20. avatar
    Majority Will June 3, 2011 at 7:25 am #

    foreigner:
    but what is this thread about, why are we here ?

    I believe you’re here to get emotional validation, to have complete strangers confirm your baseless, illogical fears, to soothe your painful cognitive dissonance, to chase scary shadows in the face of Occam’s Razor, rationality and all common sense, to prove that the boogeyman in your nightmares is real and that in your mind he illegally occupies our highest elected office.

    Am i getting warm?

    I’m here to see if you’re in any way capable of rationally responding to Expelliarmus’ post above yours. Based on your previous posts and your buoyant baths in birtherism, I strongly doubt it’s even remotely possible. Prove me wrong. I triple dog dare you.

    Here it is again for your convenience.

    Expelliarmus June 3, 2011 at 6:36 am (Quote) #
    Try to get this through your head.

    It doesn’t MATTER.

    Obama’s Hawaii birth has been verified by the Hawaii Dept. of Health, which is the OFFICIAL designated agency responsible for keeping charge of such things. I have lost count of how many different times and different ways they have done the verifying, but they’ve gone so far as to waive their usual procedures and issue a super, extra-special, better than anyone else’s, birth certificate in order to please the idiots that were too stupid to understand that the computer generated COLB was legal and binding.

    Obama doesn’t have to put out anything, and nothing that any expert could say about the placement of the stamps or the smudging of letters on a rubber stamp or layers on a PDF or anything else has any bearing whatsoever on the FACT, which is established by THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY in charge of documenting such stuff, has verified time and again that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    They will continue to do so. If you don’t like the formation of the letter H on a rubber stamp or the way the numbers line up in the rubber date stamp,… well then you can have the COLB instead. No one seemed to have a problem with the stamp and signature on that. The birthers just whined because it didn’t have a hospital name and doctor’s signature. Well, now there’s a hospital name and doctor’s signature, and the birthers are all of the sudden worried about rubber stamps.

    Please read this: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    It is the Hawaii Department of Health web site.

    It is final.

    You can pay all your little stupid internet games… but you can’t get around the fact that Obama’s birth has been repeatedly confirmed by the one agency that has the AUTHORITY to make that determination.
    __

    P.S. Thank you, Expelliarmus.

  21. avatar
    J.Potter June 4, 2011 at 3:53 am #

    Smudge goes all the way through “OF THE” … yet, once told by their showman where to focus, birthers are blind to all but an ‘X’

  22. avatar
    Sef June 4, 2011 at 7:35 am #

    BouquetofRoses:
    When President Obama released his b.c. on April, I thought it was fine. Then, my co-worker told me of the misspelled word “TXE” in the document found on WND website. She believed it was yet another evidence of a sloppy forgery. I scoffed at her and re-visited the b.c. website. I clearly see “THE” instead of “TXE.” I said to my co-worker, “Maybe there was a little dust on the glass part of the copy machine. Maybe the registrar applied more pressure on one side of his palm when stamping the b.c. Maybe the stamp was worn out due to wear and tear. Maybe the ink was not applied well on the stamp.” Of course, she didn’t believe it. Thanks for this article, Dr. C. and those who positively commented on it. It confirmed what I saw the first time. It’s my turn to show her this website. Birthers are desperately seeking for something on the b.c. that is not there. When they look at the document, they took with a grain of salt to add to their absurd claims.

    Your imagined level of perfection of the BC is unimportant. The State of Hawaii has repeatedly said that the BC is valid and that President Obama was, in fact, born in Honolulu on Aug 4, 1961. Case closed.

  23. avatar
    BouquetofRoses June 4, 2011 at 4:49 pm #

    Sef: Your imagined level of perfection of the BC is unimportant.The State of Hawaii has repeatedly said that the BC is valid and that President Obama was, in fact, born in Honolulu on Aug 4, 1961.Case closed.

    I think you misunderstood my comment. I never doubted Obama’s certificate. I was having some fun with my coworker who is a died hard birther.

  24. avatar
    Sef June 4, 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    BouquetofRoses: I think you misunderstood my comment. I never doubted Obama’s certificate. I was having some fun with my coworker who is a died hard birther.

    My apologies. It’s difficult to tell who’s who without a scorecard.

  25. avatar
    foreigner June 7, 2011 at 9:00 am #

    Expelliarmus wrote in a newer thread:
    > It doesn’t matter.
    > It is obvious that we are looking at an artifact of the use of a handstamp.
    > The stamp was either poorly inked, damage, applied with uneven pressure,
    > or there was a speck of dust on either the stamp or the paper that prevented
    > the letter “H” from being imprinted clearly. While it does not look like a complete H,
    > it is clearly not an X either. Look closely at the letter — an X is formed by the
    > intersection of two diagonal lines — you can compare the supposed X with other
    > letters in the stamp formed with diagonal lines, such as the top half of the Y, the As,
    > the tails on the Rs. Basically the lines aren’t slanty enough to be an X.

    yes. But the normal OCR would presumably make it an X

    > You still have to go back to the Hawaii press release, which affirms the making
    > of a certified copy.
    > Obviously, the people at the department of health have proper stamps available,
    > so if they wanted to phony up a birth certificate, the one thing they wouldn’t have a
    > problem with is getting the stamp right.

    someone please try to reproduce the X-thing

    > So what is your theory? If you could somehow prove that the letter is in fact
    > a smudged X rather than a smudged H…. what possible significance would it have?

    they used stamps where each letter is exchangeable ?

  26. avatar
    Majority Will June 7, 2011 at 9:14 am #

    foreigner: yes. But the normal OCR would presumably make it an X

    Now you’re a qualified expert in OCR and you’re privy to the variances and anomalies of all scanning processes? You’re still obsessing over meaningless shadows. It’s a little sad.

    “they used stamps where each letter is exchangeable ?”

    WHAT?? Maybe cosmic rays distorted the text but it wasn’t an accident but really a controlled NSA experiment to test the tenacity and loyalty of true patriots like you?

    But wait. You’re not American, are you? The plot thickens. Are you Mossad?

  27. avatar
    foreigner June 7, 2011 at 9:59 am #

    someone to order exactly that stamp from a stampmaker
    and do some thousand random stampings …

    or wait, better a stamp with only Hs so the chance is bigger to see this

    or better a stamping robot doing millions of stampings and an OCR-
    program to find anomalies.

    There could be papers already about this.
    Stamping-error-theory or such. Does it exost ?

  28. avatar
    Bovril June 7, 2011 at 10:39 am #

    Off you go then, come back with the results.

  29. avatar
    Scientist June 7, 2011 at 10:39 am #

    foreigner: someone to order exactly that stamp from a stampmaker
    and do some thousand random stampings …

    Go ahead.

    foreigner: or better a stamping robot doing millions of stampings and an OCR-
    program to find anomalies.

    Or, voters could judge the President on his record in office and the challenger(s) based on his/her record and decide which one they prefer. Just a thought…

  30. avatar
    obsolete June 7, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    Someone might set up a research site on the web and advertise far and away for testimony from any person who used a rubber stamp and had the stamp appear less then perfect or ideal.
    Do you think they would find anyone who experienced either a worn stamp, uneven inking, or heavens to betsy, an unbalanced stamp effort (such as trying to use said stamp on papers on an uneven surface)?

    Because I am sure these are uncommon occurrences, as everyone knows ink stamps are infallible.

    Or, we could simply poll “anomaly” birthers to ask them what exactly they believed happened. Did the DOH not use the same stamp they have used thousands of times before while making this forgery? Did they order a special “forgery” stamp to be made, only to misspell “THE” on it? Why didn’t they use their regular stamp?
    Did they construct the forgery using graphics software, and have a designer recreate the stamp using fonts, only to misspell “THE”? Why not print out the computer forgery and apply the real stamp? If done entirely in computer, why not scan the stamp off some other document, and paste it into the forgery?

    Birthers should have to explain, in detail, their theory as to what happened if they insist on bringing up the stamp. Because none of these theories make any sense to me, and my head hurts trying to come up with any more possibilities.

  31. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 7, 2011 at 4:07 pm #

    foreigner: yes. But the normal OCR would presumably make it an X

    Actually, I think that a well-designed OCR system would probably work by exclusion and exclude the possibility of an X because of extra pixels in the wrong place.

    foreigner: they used stamps where each letter is exchangeable ?

    That’s irrational. That is simply not how stamps are made. I offered several rational explanations, you come up with something irrational. If you have no hard proof then a rational explanation wins out over irrational.

    And that wasn’t my question in any case. When I asked “what’s your theory” I mean… who and why and what possible significance would an X have? You say “they” used… who is “they”? And why wouldn’t “they” use an ordinary stamp?

  32. avatar
    Daniel June 7, 2011 at 4:19 pm #

    foreigner:
    Expelliarmus wrote in a newer thread:
    > It doesn’t matter.
    > It is obvious that we are looking at an artifact of the use of a handstamp.
    > The stamp was either poorly inked, damage, applied with uneven pressure,
    > or there was a speck of dust on either the stamp or the paper that prevented
    > the letter “H” from being imprinted clearly. While it does not look like a complete H,
    > it is clearly not an X either. Look closely at the letter — an X is formed by the
    > intersection of two diagonal lines — you can compare the supposed X with other
    > letters in the stamp formed with diagonal lines, such as the top half of the Y, the As,
    > the tails on the Rs. Basically the lines aren’t slanty enough to be an X.

    yes. But the normal OCR would presumably make it an X

    > You still have to go back to the Hawaii press release, which affirms the making
    > of a certified copy.
    > Obviously, the people at the department of health have proper stamps available,
    > so if they wanted to phony up a birth certificate, the one thing they wouldn’t have a
    > problem with is getting the stamp right.

    someone please try to reproduce the X-thing

    > So what is your theory? If you could somehow prove that the letter is in fact
    > a smudged X rather than a smudged H…. what possible significance would it have?

    they used stamps where each letter is exchangeable ?

    The horse is dead, please stop beating it.

    The quality of the image is not relevant. Any supposed “changes” made to the image is not relevant. The image could be drawn in crayon on wax paper, and it still woulod not be relevant.

    You really need to get that through your skull.

  33. avatar
    LM June 7, 2011 at 6:42 pm #

    foreigner:
    someone to order exactly that stamp from a stampmaker
    and do some thousand random stampings …

    or wait, better a stamp with only Hs so the chance is bigger to see this

    or better a stamping robot doing millions of stampings and an OCR-
    program to find anomalies.

    There could be papers already about this.
    Stamping-error-theory or such. Does it exost ?

    I’m trying to figure out if you’re serious or not, but it’s just not working. What would be the purpose of doing this? Do you really think it’s very unlikely that a stamp with an H could end up making something that kind of looks like an X? Or … yeah, actually I just don’t get it.

    Anyway, I haven’t been keeping up with the birther stuff for a while, so I’m a little behind. Can you (or anyone, really) catch me up on what’s up with the X or H thing? I mean, assuming it’s really an X, what would that mean? Is it supposed to be something that someone did on purpose? Or some kind of really weird oversight or something?

  34. avatar
    Daniel June 7, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

    LM: Can you (or anyone, really) catch me up on what’s up with the X or H thing?

    Foreigner is picking fly crap out of pepper and pretending that it’s significant.

  35. avatar
    foreigner June 8, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    could it be that there was a paper clip or such lying below the document,
    when Onaka stamped it ?

    What do you think ?
    horizontal from the 2nd A in abstract to the E in TXE

    http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg

  36. avatar
    Majority Will June 8, 2011 at 5:02 pm #

    foreigner:
    could it be that there was a paper clip or suchlying below the document,
    when Onaka stamped it ?

    What do you think ?
    horizontal from the 2nd A in abstract to the E in TXE

    No. It was a very, very small Basset Hound. Or possibly a pineapple. But definitely not a paper clip.

  37. avatar
    Greg June 8, 2011 at 5:08 pm #

    foreigner: could it be that there was a paper clip or such lying below the document,
    when Onaka stamped it ?

    How about…the State of Hawaii links to the document from their official website with a statement that “President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.” (emphasis added)

    Do you think they would have linked to such a document if Obama had forged Onaka’s stamp?

  38. avatar
    Daniel June 8, 2011 at 5:23 pm #

    foreigner: could it be that…

    Again…

    The quality of the image is not relevant. Any supposed “changes” made to the image is not relevant. The image could be drawn in crayon on wax paper, and it still would not be relevant.

    You really need to get that through your skull.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 8, 2011 at 7:42 pm #

    foreigner: could it be that there was a paper clip or such lying below the document,
    when Onaka stamped it ?

    What do you think ?
    horizontal from the 2nd A in abstract to the E in TXE

    I don’t think so. See my new article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/06/long-form-artifacts-vanish-at-higher-resolution/

  40. avatar
    foreigner June 9, 2011 at 3:56 am #

    So, what was lying behind the document when Onaka stamped it ?
    It seems to extend to the line above, see the S from THIS and
    the S from IS , whose lower parts are also missing ink
    To the left it goes to the 2nd A from ABSTRACT, to the right
    to the E from TXE=THE.
    But the whole 2nd line has more ink (=is elevated on the table ?)
    than the other 2 lines

  41. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 9, 2011 at 4:51 am #

    IT DOESN’T MATTER. No matter how messed up or smudged the stamp is, if it is legible at all, it is valid.

    I just wrote a check today to pay a medical bill. While I was writing it my hand slipped and I messed up while signing my name. I actually left out a letter. If internet document experts decided to examine that check and compare it with other signatures of mine, they would have a field day. But I mailed the check off anyway. I am 100% sure that the bank will honor it. They aren’t going to be calling me up to ask why my signature looks a little funny, and if for some reason they did, they would ask me to verify that I indeed signed the check. They wouldn’t ask me to explain how it came about that I left out a letter when signing my name.

    Onaka certified the document. We know that because there was a witness, who happens to be Onaka’s superior, and the witness issued a public statement attesting to what happened. There is no need for him or anyone else to explain how it came to pass that in imperfect device produced an imperfect imprint.

  42. avatar
    Majority Will June 9, 2011 at 7:48 am #

    foreigner:
    So, what was lying behind the document when Onaka stamped it ?
    It seems to extend to the line above, see the S from THIS and
    the S from IS , whose lower parts are also missing ink
    To the left it goes to the 2nd A from ABSTRACT, to the right
    to the E from TXE=THE.
    But the whole 2nd line has more ink (=is elevated on the table ?)
    than the other 2 lines

    Irrelevant.

  43. avatar
    Scientist June 9, 2011 at 7:49 am #

    foreigner: So, what was lying behind the document when Onaka stamped it ?

    A table.

  44. avatar
    Majority Will June 9, 2011 at 11:21 am #

    Scientist: A table.

    Can we can verification with an affidavit from the manufacturer of the table to certify it was indeed a table?

  45. avatar
    Scientist June 9, 2011 at 11:23 am #

    Majority Will: Can we can verification with an affidavit from the manufacturer of the table to certify it was indeed a table?

    You’re right, it could have been a desk. I was never clear on the precise distinction.

  46. avatar
    Daniel June 9, 2011 at 11:46 am #

    Scientist: You’re right, it could have been a desk.I was never clear on the precise distinction.

    Ah but then we will have to determine if it was natural wood, or native wood. That difference alone could invalidate Obama’s Presidency.

  47. avatar
    Majority Will June 9, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    Daniel: Ah but then we will have to determine if it was natural wood, or native wood. That difference alone could invalidate Obama’s Presidency.

    BAZINGA!

  48. avatar
    Wile E. June 9, 2011 at 12:49 pm #

    Majority Will: BAZINGA!

    Probably not bazinga wood, which is really hard to come by.

    If you look closely at the image at 1200X, you can clearly see the ink pattern is more likely to have been caused by the native Hawaiian hardwood “Curly Koa”…..probably with a natural oil and wax finish.

    See images 5 through 8…

    http://www.robertlippoth.com/RL_gallery.html

  49. avatar
    Majority Will June 9, 2011 at 5:08 pm #

    Wile E.: Probably not bazinga wood, which is really hard to come by.

    If you look closely at the image at 1200X, you can clearly see the ink pattern is more likely to have been caused by the native Hawaiian hardwood “Curly Koa”…..probably with a natural oil and wax finish.

    See images 5 through 8…

    http://www.robertlippoth.com/RL_gallery.html

    Sporting some nice wood.

99999 00000
?????????