Below I reproduce an article by Orly Taitz that describes a phone conversation between the two of us this afternoon. I wanted to clarify and correct some points. On the phone she said some things that I didn’t agree with, but for the purpose of not extending the conversation too long, didn’t object to and which she might have taken by mistake as agreement. There were some other times where I didn’t have an opportunity to say all I could have said. Orly talks fast and it is sometimes difficult to get a word in. So here’s Orly’s version in normal type with my annotations in bold.
I just got of the phone with Kevin Davidson, who runs a blog “Dr. Conspiracy” Mr. Davidson was a leader of the Obama technical defense on the internet for 4 years. I have written on technical issues related to Obama conspiracies for 4 years.
We had a civil conversation, we agreed to disagree on a number of technical (and other) issues.
Mr. Davidson allowed me to write on my blog about our conversation. He stated that he part-owned a software company which dealt with scanning birth certificates, converting information and creating computerised birth certificates.
We agreed on two main points:
1. Computer image posted by Obama on whiteHouse.gov is not a document, it is just a coputer image, it is not a certified copy, it cannot be used by anybody for any purpose. I said that the uncertified image is not legal proof of citizenship.
2. Certified copy differs from the computer printout (differs from a copy or a scanned image) in that a certified copy contains ultraviolet safety feature (I am informed that this is true of Hawaii certificates but do not know it of my own personal knowledge), which is built in the security paper. when you get your passport you have to provide a proper document: an original (I didn’t say “original”) or a certified copy with proper security features. If there is a reason to doubt authenticity of the document, then an original needs to be examined. I said, in the context of a court using a certified copy of a birth certificate as evidence, that persuasive reasons were needed, not just doubts, to require other evidence.
3. He stated that he never was opposed to demands for original identification documents by Barack Obama and he believes that original documents should be produced. I said that that I was not opposed to Obama releasing documents or responding to lawful court orders to produce them, but that I didn’t talk to important people or give them advice. I said that I personally had no doubts about the authenticity of the document and I never agreed with demands that it should be produced.
We had disagreements on an issue of a halo effect. According to most experts halo (white shadow effect ) came from computer manipulation, specifically a computer application calle unsharp mask. Orly brought up the unsharp mask, which is a way of making a document image more readable, that creates halos. It’s not a way of changing information. I did not suggest that the Obama long form PDF had halos from the use of the unsharp mask operator (in Photoshop), but rather because of a compression algorithm.
Mr. Davidson stated that he read an article by someone in Brazil (Ricardo L. de Queiroz – “Pre-processing for MRC layers of scanned Images”), who stated that in some instances when MRC compression is done, there can be a halo effect and that this compression can be done by some scanners. I explained MRC compression technology to Orly and she asked me if there was any specific software that did MRC compression. I never finished my response that began by saying certain high end copier/scanner hardware from Xerox did MRC compression. What I didn’t have an opportunity to say is that a number of commercial PFD software creation systems also do MRC Compression, including Adobe Acrobat. These are detailed on my article “White House birth certificate: not identical to original.” My response to him was that he needs to show that it happenned in this case. The best response to this argument, is that not one of the other known birth certificates from Hawaii have this halo effect.
If it is something that would be created by a scanner there, then we would have seen it in every birth certificate, however we see it only in Obama’s.
His response to this was that the halo effect was created not in Hawaii, but in the White House, by the scanner in the White House, that is why all other Hawaiian BCs do not have it.
My response to this is that if our tax payer money were to go to some lousy scanner in the White House, that creates white shadow around every word and line, then we would have seen it in every document coming from the White House, every scanned document from the White House would have had white shadows, however it is not happening, therefor even if one were to believe that this white halo effect is something that can happen theoretically because of a scanner, it did not happen here, it was nt the reason for white halo effect in Obama’s birth certificate. I asked Orly how many scanned documents from the White House had been examined for the halo effect, and she did not reply.
I asked him about the fact that the letters in the birth certificate are of different sizes and different fonts, different shapes and with different spaces between them, with kerning effect, meaning one letter encroaching into the space of another letter. If one were to create a document with a type writer, all the letters would be the same with the same spaces. His response was that the letters are of different fonts and spaces and different shapes because of the scanner. I pointed out that Jerome Corsi’s PhD dissertation was typed, and it had irregular spacing and that the Allen FOIA documents had overlapping letters. I also pointed out that the type in the Obama PDF was so distorted when it was highly magnified that it didn’t look like any typewriter or any other kind of font. It was too low resolution to tell anything.
I asked about multiple layers and the fact that the registrar’s stamp and the date stamp were on different layers and could be moved around the document. I told Orly that I scanned my own birth certificate and that Adobe Acrobat created layers and things that could be moved around.
He claimed that this was also because of the scanner. I said it was because of MRC compression (which can be done by some scanners and also by various software package).
At which point I stated that I do not even need to go into all the details. If he admits that a scanner can cause the letter to take different shapes and sizes, the spaces to appear, white halo to appear, multiple layers to appear and most importantly the stamp of the registrar to be moved around the document and be imported into the document from some other document, then obviously this computer image cannot be used for verification of anything, particularly not the eligibility of the US President, at which point he agreed that indeed a computer image is not a document and cannot be used for verification. It can’t be used for legal proof of citizenship because it is not a certified copy. We need to see the actual document, at the very minimum we need to see the certified copy with the security ultraviolet feature (just like money have security feature against the counterfeiting) and if there is a question of authenticity of the original, then the original has to be examined. That is what I am asking all along. Asking to see the original birth certificate is analogous to asking to see the plates money is printed with.
I asked him about the new document, which was produced by Obama’s attorneys Tepper and Begley, which was sent to Judge Wingate. In the new version forgers cleaned up several signs of forgery, the original layers were flattened and the white halo was cleaned up. If Onaka were to certify a copy of the original, then both copies would be identical. He had no comment, he stated that he did not analyse it. I was surprised by the fact that someone, who is an expert in birth certificates, who led the blog “doctor Conspiracy” and who spent 4 years defending Obama’s papers did not care to analyse the new document, new version released by Obama’s attorneys. I said that several documents had been combined in that PDF and that the PDF software would naturally have reprocessed everything. She’s right, however, that I didn’t spend much time on the document except to note that it wasn’t layered. The reason I didn’t spend much time on this document is that I didn’t consider it to be a “new version” of anything, but rather a copy of a copy. I didn’t spend any time analyzing any of the copies of the long form PDF in her court filings either. Anybody want to bet whether they are flattened too?
At any rate as of today the leader of Obama’s technical defense team (there is no team) on the Internet, the chief Cheer Leader Kevin Davidson aka “doctor Conspiracy” stated that what Obama posted on line is not a document and not a verification of anything. I said that it is not legal proof of citizenship (and has never been offered as legal proof of citizenship).
At the very minimum we need to see a certified copy on security paper , however if there is a doubt about Onaka, his complicity and authenticity of the original, then the certified copy is not sufficient, we need to see the original typewritten document created in 1961, which should be on file. In the conversation at this point I made it clear that Onaka is a professional who is widely respected by his peers, being elected President of the vital records association NAPHSIS and the recipient of the prestigious Harvey Dunn award. Orly was not impressed.
We discussed a number of other issues.I will limit my report by this main point. I will only mention that he agreed that the way I was attacked and called names, the way some individuals were painting nude pornographic paintigs of me in order to assaaainate me as a human being was inappropriate (I said that) and this should not have been done . He blaimed people running fogbow. I said that commenters on my web site and those at The Fogbow called her names. I didn’t refer to people “running” the site, nor did I say that the nude paintings were in any way related to The Fogbow. I don’t know anything about the reason Lacey painted them.
I believe he wants to distance himself from unscrupulous characters and he wants the truth to come out. There is no anti-birther that I would describe as unscrupulous. I have differences with some folks about some things, particularly insulting language and the focus on personal information related to birthers. I try not to do that myself. But I’m not distancing myself from anyone. Sure, I want the truth to come out. I’ve been trying to get it out for 4 years. Read the blog.
In addition, a significant part of the conversation was about Orly’s trademark topic, Obama’s social-security number. I want to bring out two important statements she made:
Orly asserted Obama was using a SSN never assigned to him. I asked her who it really belonged to. I said that with her detectives and access to LexisNexis and the public databases surely she should be able to look up whose it was. She said that she knew but was withholding the information until the proper time.
She also made the point several times that E-Verify and SSNVS, government systems for employers to verify SSNs, failed to verify Obama’s. (She claimed that the response codes from these systems say the SSN didn’t match Obama’s name. My research says that they showed that the SSN wasn’t valid for anyone.) I suggested that after Obama’s SSN was published by her and repeated on a thousand Internet web sites that Obama got a new SSN. Orly asserted that she had SSNVS results showing Obama’s number as a no-match BEFORE his number was published on the Internet, and further that she has tax returns from Obama using the “042” social-security number dated AFTER SSNVS showed a no-match. I seem to remember her saying that this proof was also being withheld for unspecified reasons, but I may be mistaken on that point. I am certain, however, that she said she had the early SSNVS result.
Both of these items would be of huge importance in proving the birther theories of a stolen SSN.
So we’ve covered less than half of the conversation.
A discussion of Orly’s article is developing on her blog, including additions by Douglas Vogt. Orly has allowed some of my statements to appear, but it looks like she’s trying to control the discussion by selectively approving my comments, particularly when I responded to the comment about The Fogbow, shown below, where she approves a later comment of mine, but not an earlier: