I mentioned before the amicus brief filed by the Alabama Democratic Party in the McInnish case. While I read the argument, I the version I linked to didn’t have some attached exhibits. Birthers have been looking at the longer version, and lit upon the copy of the President’s birth certificate included. Following the Birther Axiom of Equivalence (BAE):
Anything odd = Fraud
They have made a big deal out of it. I’ll give a snap just to show you the odd background pattern:
It looks at first glance to me a feature of the security paper, creating a pattern when copied; however, I don’t know why it hasn’t been seen before. I tried a few things and couldn’t get any pattern to show myself. Still, it seems most likely security paper working as designed. What else could it be?
The birther objection is that in this obviously multi-generally process black and white version, the subtle registrar’s seal that can be coaxed algorithmically out of the White House PDF, is not at all visible. Other birthers count “three versions” of the certificate now, and say “multiple = fraud.”
The certificate itself is the April 25, 2011 certificate, and one can tell that it’s from the same original as the White House PDF because of the identical relative placement of the date stamp and the registrar’s signature stamp on the bottom.
This the same silliness that we saw when the Mississippi Democratic Party submitted a copy of the White House PDF in a brief, and the birthers went ape-dip about the artifacts being different after it was reprocessed for the court filing.
Birthers going ape-dip over the image:
The document has been processed with ABBYY, probably to add the background watermark. ABBYY has the additional problem that it tries to recover the original structure of the document and thus identifies boxes, text, leading to about 1500 objects being created (IIRC). More when I present my full analysis.
The question is: what does the document at Pacer show? The diamond pattern or the pattern shown in the copy obtained from the Democratic Party?
Also, there are arguments that the background on this is larger than the one on the Whitehouse but the whitehouse PDF does crop the picture slightly and when this cropping is removed, the resulting picture looks exactly like the one in the latest document. So the question has become:
1. Did Ragsdale submit the copy of the birth certificate as sent to the Whitehouse by the DOH of Hawaii?
2. Did Ragsdale send a B&W copy which was not obtained from the whitehouse PDF?
3. Did Ragsdale send a B&W copy which was recovered from the whitehouse PDF?
As to the background. So far I have no idea what happened here but it would make sense to do experiments with ABBYY
More later.
You would almost think someone were punking the Birthers again. 😉
Doc, did you see the version of the ADP filing that Pixel Patriot obtained? The LFBC exhibit in that one appears more normal and looks like what you would expect a B&W scan of a color printout of the LFBC from the White House web site would look like.
We don’t know the source for either document, the one posted by Jack Ryan at SCRIBD or the one obtained by Pixel Patriot. If someone wants to throw away about $15 you can download the documents from the Alacourt system.
The idea that someone went out of their way to create a new document when all the ADP had to do was print out a copy of the LFBC from WhiteHouse.gov is absurd. That is exactly why the Birthers will buy into the theory.
The attached document is not just a printout of the PDF found on the Whitehouse website I believe… Actually I stand corrected they do appear to be quite similar.
So there go my scenarios.
I think the diamond effect in the image is most likely a result of a Moire pattern that is a result an interaction between the printed copy and the particular scanner that was used. If you Google “Moire” and “scanner” you will see this is common and that some scanners have a descreen to reduce or eliminate this problem.
If the copy is a slightly shrunken version of the original that would support the moire effect and well as the larger margins.
Has anybody tried faxing a document on security paper? You can get weird effects that way.
As I recall, when I read that brief it had Friends of the Fogbow on it, as many of the briefs here do. Maybe they know.
I can’t wait to read Vogt and Irey’s take on this. 😆
you’ll have to wait bill… it’s out of your control. but don’t worry because kevin seems to have explained it all away, in usual par excellence.. notwithstanding..
why don’t you just ask the top rooster, he’s right here… might even bring the expert woodman out of retirement again…
maybe ap will lend the “high resolution” copy with “bad inking”…
or savannah Guthrie could help. no relation to janet, the racecar driver. which is palindromic by the way, I hope this helps.
p.s.
if race car was one word, which ostensibly they are not…. who knew.
Wait, I thought I was Richard? Now I am Bill? I iz confused.
BTW, I know the whole story on the Fogbow watermark and everything but if I told you I would have to kill you.
One could call the Democrats of Alabama and ASK.
scott e May 3, 2013 at 4:45 pm (Quote) #
Deborah:
As I recall, when I read that brief it had Friends of the Fogbow on it, as many of the briefs here do. Maybe they know.
why don’t you just ask the top rooster, he’s right here… might even bring the expert woodman out of retirement again…
Where is the top rooster? Anyhow, I see no need to inquire as to whether or not the sun will come up and the truth will prevail in the birth certificate matter. It does every day.
Savannah saw the original copy (sic), while the AP appears to have been made from a photocopy of the document. I believe there was a handout which the AP used to create its jpg
What a total Obot red herring!
Mr. C’s latest LFCOLB offering appeared only in the “Friends of the Fogbow” edition. It has the weird wobbly background and the image is fractured into hundreds of layers, each with single characters, parts of words or entire words.
To the contrary, the B&W LFCOLB image that was actually filed by the Alabama Democrat Party (contained within its amicus curiae brief) has a uniform gray, mottled background totally different from the one that Mr. C is trying to confuse you with.
Moreover, the total LFCOLB image in this filed copy is contained as a single B & W bitmap image embedded within the PDF document.
The entire image is entirely binary (black on white). However my attempt to verify the black color as “true black” was unsuccessful.
This is just more solid proof that the dishonest Fogbow lawyers (and their eager accomplice Mr. C) are still up to their old tricks.
This is also manifest proof of their growing desperation.
After all they have nothing to offer which could validate Obama’s birth records.
It doesn’t matter if it’s real, forged or if birthers think it’s forged because it *still* says the same verified and certified info: Born in Hawaii in 1961.
There is the matter of submitting forged documents to the Court but yes, I doubt that this is much of an issue.
US Citizen: It doesn’t matter if it’s real, forged or if birthers think it’s forged because it *still* says the same verified and certified info: Born in Hawaii in 1961.
the data could have been written in crayon on toilet paper
I wonder what the standards are to overcome hearsay and authentication 🙂
NBC: I wonder what the standards are to overcome hearsay and authentication 🙂
NOTHING about crayon and toilet paper
Letters of Verification
Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS 338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/civil union/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.
Ah, I see what you are saying. Yes, the letter of verification may be sufficient in court but it may fail the self-authenticating documents or even hearsay.
Hearsay does not apply to:
Public Records of Vital Statistics. A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.
Self Authenticating
(1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document that bears:
(A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of any entity named above; and
(B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.
Yes the letter of verification appears to be self-authenticating
hey doc have you noticed any I e browser tech glitches w/litespeed ?
are you threatening me bryan ? lol….
I think they were directed not to record anything, but deputy asst, whitehouse press secretary chuck todd wasn’t in the room. and it was a long time ago.
Quit playing games, Mike.
No, I’m not trying to confuse anybody. But thanks for the information. I guess I’ll have to download my own copy.
I thought he was Kevin, and you were Bill. Maybe that makes me TV’s Frank.
What are the Fogbow lawyers and Doc C increasingly desperate about? About birfers losing every one of the 200+ cases they’ve filed? About birfers setting themselves up for another loss in Alabama? About Obama being reelected? Nobody on the Obama side of birfer issues is desperate about anything. Birfers are wrong on the law and wrong on the facts. Birfers will always lose in court. Always. No birfer will ever win a birfer case.
Except for the State of Hawai’i.
There’s something else different about them, Hermit Crab. You didn’t notice?
The copy procured from the Alabama Supreme Court Clerk’s Office (the copy of the BC that was mailed/hand delivered to the court) is missing something that the Jack Ryan copy has:
The Electronic Court Filing track across the top.
What that means is that the Scribd copy was derived from the ADP’s physical copy (1) and scanned for conversion into .pdf format that could be uploaded in the electronic filing process (ECF requires every document to be converted to .pdf), and (2) went through an additional step of downloading from the Alacourt site and converted into yet another .pdf in order to be saved on a hard drive for uploading to Scribd.
Each instance produces a moire effect which becomes more pronounced with every new generation of copy.
Doctor I dont know whats wrong with your site but Ive never had problems viewing in the past but right now its keeps saying 504 error. I was looking at the Alabama case and wanted to read what you had to say about it.
Here you go:
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/401204
“Simply ask the participating merchant for a SmartPark validation voucher.”
“This is also manifest proof of their growing desperation.”
Oh, the irony.
Somewhere a theater is missing a projectionist.
I’ve had trouble loading this site also. I’ve gotten several 503 errors the past couple of days.
Now, I will admit I do not know the exact nature of the document filed, but it appears to be causing concern on both sides of the battle.
I don’t think that it is acceptable to copy a certified document and submit to the court without a new certifiction.
Correct me if I am in error.
As to the verification, I believe the same standard applies , in that a copy of certified document is not considered to be a certified document,
And the verification only verifies what the applicant stated in the application, resulting in , perhaps, an incomplete information document that might need investigation as to whether or not important information that is in the document is not available to the court!
this is a interesting statement from the California Secretary of State!
http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/authentication.htm
The California Secretary of State provides authentication of public official signatures on documents to be used outside the United States of America. The country of destination determines whether the authentication is an Apostille or Certification.
Apostilles and Certifications only certify to the authenticity of the signature of the official who signed the document, the capacity in which that official acted, and when appropriate, the identity of the seal or stamp which the document bears. The Apostille or Certification does not validate the contents of the document.”
That seems to say that the certification of a document does not authenticate the contents of the document.
Is that not contrary to what has been said here?
Don’t bother telling me that it applies to issuing documents to foreign countries , i can read!
You think that the State , if they will not authenticate content for foreihn countries that they will authenticate content for US applicants.
I don’t know but I will keep looking.
http://www.state.gov/m/a/auth/c16920.htm
——————————————————————————–
“The Office of Authentications provides signed certificates of authenticity for a variety of documents to individuals, institutions, and government agencies. Examples of documents that may require authentication for use abroad include, but are not limited to, company bylaws, powers of attorney, trademarks, diplomas, treaties, warrants, extraditions, agreements, certificates of good standing, and courier letters.
Prior to submitting documents requiring authentication, certain requirements must be met and are as follows:
All seals and signatures must be original and all the dates must follow in chronological order
All documents that in a foreign language must be accompanied with a certified (notarized) English translation. If a copy of a document is used, please include a written statement stating the document is a true and accurate copy. ”
Now note here, that the US requires that the cerrification of the BC be with an originai signature and an original seal!
(Onaka’s signature was rubber-stamped was it not?”
“State and Local
Birth Certificates
Marriage Certificates
Death Certificates
Divorce Decrees
Probate Wills
Judgments
You must submit the original document that contains the raised and/or stamped seal of the court or Department of vital records:
Certified original
Certified by the Secretary of State from the state in which the documents were recorded.
The Secretary of State will certify to the official signing the document under the Seal of the State.”
Whoops here the original birth certificate has to be submitted to have the US authenticate the BC!, Unless it is certified by the Secretary of State signature under the State Seal
”
This is very complicated !
You obviously are unfamiliar with the rules of evidence? Not surprising.
OK.
First, can you understand the difference between describing a document as ‘a photocopy of the actual birth certificate’ and ‘the actual birth certificate’? If you tell the court that what you have filed is a ‘photocopy of the actual birth certificate’ then you have certainly not misled the court, have you?
Second, is a photocopy of a document ‘good enough’ for a court? Depends, doesn’t it? What is important about the document in question? Usually, what is important is the information on the document and nothing but the information on the document. If there is no reason to doubt the information on the photocopy, then the photocopy is good enough.
Sometimes however, you don’t even care about the information on the document, all you care about is if the ‘original’ document exists (original here meaning the physical document that was placed on the photocopier scanner). In that case, a photocopy demonstrates that there was an original from which the photocopy was created.
So you have been corrected: there is nothing ‘fraudulent’ about submitting a photocopy of a document, as long as it is understood that it is indeed a photocopy.
The actual original document that the photocopy is created from is, of course, better, but that doesn’t make the photocopy a fraud. Do police bring in all the shell casings found at a murder scene, or do the bring in photos of the shell casings? Do they bring in the dead body or do they bring in photos and autopsy reports? Are the autopsy reports filed in the case the actual original physical document produced by the medical examiner, or photocopies of that document? Does the medical examiner produce many multiple ‘original’ physical documents for his files, the Prosecutor, the Defense, the Court, the Vital Statistics office, etc, etc, etc?
Clearly, if you had photocopies of two certified documents with contradictory information on them and it was important to determine which one was the correct one, then sure, you need the actual certified document so the certification can be validated and the veracity of the certifying authorities weighed against each other.
But in the case of the Obama Birth Certificate, you don’t have that problem. Every version, every photocopy, every independent verification, even unofficial corroborating evidence says the same thing: Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961. There is no contradictory evidence in existence. None. No evidence that Stanley was anywhere except Honolulu during the birth. No (real) Kenyan Birth Certificate. Nothing.
The photocopy is sufficient to demonstrate that the original exists, and could be produced for the court it the court required it. And that is all it needs to do.
me too. something about litespeed… fyi
do you use internet explorer ?? it seems fine with firefox (mozilla) and google chrome, no glitches at all… i encountered the same problem at before it’s news.
let’s just be frank and earnest… you be frank and i’ll be ernest…
Obviously the problem here is that commie obot Jack Ryan. For years he’s been making up court pleadings and transcripts from whole cloth. It took this fake BC for people to notice. After producing so many, a mistake was bound to happen.
Too bad, really. I always thought he did a great job. 😉
Obama has already stipulated to the court that he has (in his possession) two certified copies of his LFCOLB that he requested and received from Loretta Fuddy on Apr.
25, 2011. He has represented these two copies as duplicate photocopies of his original hospital-generated Certificate of Life Birth. He has also claimed that these copies bear the Hawaii State seal impression and the state registrar’s signature and date stamps.
Under the “Best Evidence Rule” he (at a minimum) is obligated to provide these certified copies to the court rather than a bunch of different purported photocopies of same which are not certified and have no probative value.
Allowing Obama to continue to flood the courts with a never-ending stream of non-identical photocopies is unfair to the plaintiffs.
So let’s see the two certified copies.
The shoe seems to fit snuggly. The facts prove that JR’s version is unique and different from the image filed by the Alabama Democrat Party. I wonder if Scribd has a problem with the Fogbowers continuing to post altered legal documents on their site?
I’m thinking back to the MDAC request for verification which was posted without the Tepper page 4 altered LFCOLB image.
Who is Bryan? You need to make up your mind you keep shifting names.
Of course, any “anomaly,” no matter how easily explained, makes the birthers go apoplectic. The amusing thing is that the inclusion of this copy of the BC in the amicus brief is really superfluous to the case itself. The exhibits are there solely to keep Alabama Justice Tom Parker from saying something stupid again:
I use Firefox and I continue to experience problems.
Somebody files, as a reference, a scanned copy of a copy and it turns out looking odd at some point. The birthers freak out that this is yet another forgery. The anti-birthers (Obots) laugh and comment on the birthers freak-out. Obviously, the means the we are desperate 😕
Never use store brand foil and always make sure you use multiple layers for extra protection. See, layers can be a good thing.
I love the smell of birther nonsense first thing in the morning.
When and where do you think this happened?
The real problem is that they MUST use tin foil (SN), not aluminum foil (AL). It is probably difficult to get the requisite amount to create the Faraday cage, so they are screwed,
Saynomorejoe, why are you quoting an irrelevant passage?
Read the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 902(a). That is the rule that signifies documents such as birth certificates:
Now, ask yourself why the State Department wouldn’t provide this service to domestic documents? Because it’s not necessary. I see no requirement for the State Department to attest to the authenticity of the document.
Now, lets move onto international documents…
Now, do you see why they authenticate the international documents. Because that’s actually required.
I’ll have to take your word on all of that because neither the PDF image of the ADP filed LFCOLB nor the Fogbow LFCOLB that I obtained have the court filing label.
One would think that the ADP would just have downloaded the WH LFCOLB PDF and merged it into their court document. It would be easy to add the court label across the top edge of this image.
No surprise, you are in error.
Uncertified copies of certified documents are submitted to court all the time. Typically they are attached to motions, as in a personal injury case when an uncertified copy of a police report is submitted as an exhibit. There is a difference between attaching a copy as an exhibit and submitting it as admissible evidence.
If the opposing party challenges the authenticity of the document, it may be necessary to produce a certified copy.
Ah, but everyone seems to miss the important part of what I posted,
They do not certify the contents of the document, only the authenticity of the signatures.
It is , in my opinion, the fact that a certification by a state agency is the equivalent of a public notarization of a document.
And ,it is a fact, that a notary does not certify the accuracy of the document that has been notarized, but only the signatures to the document, is it not.
And, if you look at the SOS document they only certify the authenticity of the signatures on the documents.
Further, of interest to me, but , obviously not to you, is that the certifications are required to have original signatures under the state seal.
Apostille: Apostille (pronounced ah-po-stee) is a French word which means a
certification. In notarial usage, it refers to a certificate used to authenticate the signature
of a notary public and other public officers, placed on documents that are to be sent
overseas. The Apostille certifies that the notary’s commission is current and the notary is
in good standing, and it is signed by the Secretary of State. This type of authentication is
accepted for legal use in all the nations that are members of the Hague Convention of
October 5, 1961.
Authentication: This term refers to either an Apostille or a Certificate of Magistracy.
now that would seem to indicate that certifications are, indeed, simply the way the state notarizes their documents.
So, a notary is a public official similar , in effect, to a state employee , but notarizes rather than certifies.
Throwing mores stones does not bring more knowledge
Ok, now someone post something that says a notary or a state employee certifying a document is responsible for the accuracy of the contents of the questioned document
I don’t care where you get the quote, just the mere fact of finding such a statement would help, as long as the quoted person is not part of these discussion.
Ok, does anyone think that a notary would accept a rubber stamp signature on a document that is being notarized?
Yes, they would. If the person presented ID and stamped the document in their presence.
More info:
http://www.justanswer.com/law/2jx4b-stamped-endorsement-original-mortgage-note.html
My understanding is that those court filing labels are added by the Court ECF system, and not the parties themselves.
Hermitian: One would think that the ADP would just have downloaded the WH LFCOLB PDF and merged it into their court document. It would be easy to add the court label across the top edge of this image.
That’s not really correct. The certification on a birth certificate is not a certification of the signatures on the certificate, but a certification that the contents of the certificate reflects the official records of the agency.
If you want to call it an “official notarization” I don’t have a problem with that, but what is being notarized is the copy of the public record, not just the signature of the person who issues the certificate.
How about I dig a hole 2 feet by 2 feet and then fill it back in? Would that satisfy you just as well?
The Physician who signed the birth certificate in 1961 is certifying that the event happened. The registrars who signed the certificate in 1961 certified that the certificate was filed according to the laws and regulations of the time, and the registrar in 2011 certifies that the copy issued in 2011 reflects the official agency records from 1961.
There is nothing to discuss.
Wrong again. Do you ever grow weary of being wrong so often?
A notary certifies that the document in question was actually signed by the person whose signature appears on the document.
A certification of a document certifies that the document is an authentic and accurate copy or abstract of the original document.
In the case of Obama’s LFBC, the signatures of the attending physician and Obama’s mother attest to the accuracy of the information on the birth certificate. The signature of Onaka and the seal of the State of Hawaii attest to the fact that the copy of the LFBC is identical to the original document.
Ok, here is a BC not from Hawaii. Please note the following:
A) The attending physician certifies that the child named on the certificate was born alive at the date and time indicated on the certificate.
and
B) The state registrar certifies that the certificate is a “true and correct copy of the official record” that is in his custody.
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf02-tlakincertificateoflivebirth.pdf
BTW, what do you make of the attending physician’s signature?
Well, I am glad that you asked that, and provided that document for examination.
One, it is not the original birth certificate as if does not have the birth number on it!
Therefore it is the copy of a document that may have been provided by the hospital to the parents as the copys that are provided to the State are required to have signatures.
It is a valid certified copy of a document, but that does not make it accurate, although, I notice that is , de facto, not valid , as it is shown as a photocopy
It has been typed by a professional typist as it does not contain the irregularities of some fake birth ceritificates., Namely it is tabbbed for the form.
Now, just to throw some juice into the game, it is possible to intrepret the not valid if photocopied to mean that if it is photocopied the certified copy in void.!
Not that the original is void, but the certified copy is voided!
Further , it is not copied onto safety paper, although it is possible that the bordering is considered safety paper, but I doubt it!
And it does not show the varied DPI that is shown on the O LFBC which makes it more liable to be real, then the LFBC
Maybe someone else well show the layers, but I do not have that program!
i don’t think anyone will try though!
It is signed by the state registrar so no, it is not a hospital copy.
As is President Obama’s.
How can you tell if someone makes a photocopy of a document?
This a photocopy of an original certified copy. The original certified copy might and probably is on security paper.
Multiple DPI is not evidence of anything other than the possible nature of the compression software.
Nope… Wrong again… Ignorance must be bliss…
Have you even read the Hawaiian statutes on this?
And if the court decides that such a document is indeed needed, but there is no reason to do so. This is just about the Secretary of State having the obligation to remove an ineligible candidate from the ballot.
Anything else is just irrelevant. Of course, once the judge gets the certified document, the birthers still will not be happy…
Hilarious how desperate they are getting…
ROTFL…
Now the content of the original birth certificate may be fraudulent but that requires a bit more than wishful thinking and it is up to those rejecting its veracity to produce such evidence. Given that it was signed by the hospital attending physician and given that it was filed within days after birth, this appears to be an uphill battle.
Still confusing a scanned copy of the LFBC with the actual document I notice… You do realize that the highly compressed PDF which shows many compression artifacts has no relevance to the LFBC?…
Somehow I doubt this… But then you will continue to look quite foolish as you are relying on a compressed pdf scan of the copy of the original to infer fraud in the original.
No self respecting document expert would make such an error.
You think that a hospital copy can not be certified?
You think that copy can copy safety paper?
You think that O’s LFBC was typed and tabbed for the form?
You think that the LfBC of O contains constant DPI in the copy?
And you think that this is authentic without a birth number in the upper right hand corner?
And you think that a registrar would certify anything that had typed signatures?
You do know that the certification is for the signatures, and not the contents of the document, don’t you?
And you know that the fuzzing on the parents name was done on the document before it was copied for the certification, don’t you? And it was a computer fuzzing nof the usual black pen or whiteout!
And you know that the source of this is an honest source?
And you think that this form has compression artififacts in the copy?
Can you point them out as you claim they are easy to spot on Obama’s
In several different court cases where Obama’s attorney’s associated the letter correspondence between Obama and Fuddy with copies of his purported LFCOLB in court filings.
Now that the mortgage note has been signed by the loan officer, and then it is recorded , that means that the mortgage not can not be fraud, and you never have to worry about fraudulent mortgages that have been recorded and a certified copy issued.
Are you naive?
Do youi folk realize the fraud is prevelant in the USA and you can never trust the document , until you have had it verified!
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/409754/identifying-manipulated-images/
Read it an see how easy it is not!
Hey, I know you don’t want to know if the LFBC has been manipulated or not, but think about the whole problem , not just the LFBC
Yeah, we know about “the whole problem.”
Wow – so much stupidity it is hard to know where to start.
NOT by the state registrar – who states that this is a true and correct copy of the record in his custody.
No, but you cannot tell by looking at a copy if this original is on security paper. You cannot tell anything about the paper that the document used to make this pdf was on.
In exactly the same way that the Nordyke sister Hawaiian BCs were typed and tabbed.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2009/Jul/28/M1139416728.GIF
In exactly the same way as this 1959 Hawaiian BC was typed and tabbed.
http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/298537/
But not in the same way this 1962 Hawaiian BC was typed and tabbed.
http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_front.jpg
Never said it didn’t. But multiple DPI is not evidence of anything other then the software used to create the pdf.
Is it possible that people who put this on the internet may have blocked it out? or is the number SL448103 is the certificate number?
Absolutely, he would.
Nope, the certification is for the entire document which is the “official record”.
They were fuzzed out by the people who put this document on the internet to protect the parents of this gentleman.
Actually, I consider the source of this document to be a modern day Benedict Arnold. He abandoned his fellow soldiers in time of war.
What would have been the punishment for someone who did that in World War II?
It depends entirely on the type of software and the settings used to create this pdf.
An assertion is not an answer. When and in what case was such a representation made? If you don’t know, then just admit that you made it up. Since you now claim “several” I will expect you to come up with at least two.
There’s no shame in being mistaken now and then; however, doubling down instead of admitting a mistake is dishonest.
Sorry but unless one can show fraud, the presumption is that the data on the document is correct. And given the circumstances of his birth, there are no reasons to doubt otherwise. Since people have failed to provide any evidence of fraud, the conclusion is simple and contrary to your foolish position. In court documents that are properly attested to are prima facie evidence and unless they can be rebutted, the court will not entertain unsupported possibilities of fraud.
Sorry my friend, I had no idea you were so clueless about our legal system. Perhaps you want to check up on federal rules of evidence as well as the presumption of innocence.
Good luck educating yourself.
A deliberate troll, with a stunningly long history of senseless trolling, who misuses and misspells simple words such as prevalent has no interest in anything but asinine and sophomoric nonsense intended to fill some vast, personal emptiness.
As you commented on another thread, it’s a fail.
Poor Saynomorejoe has no logic or reason, just foolish assertions and ignorance of law. Fascinating…
Mississippi Ballot Challenge – Motion for JOP filed by MDEC
Alabama Ballot Challenge – ACB filed by ADP
So your argument was that Obama’s attorneys had stipulated things related to the President’s having copies of the LFCB from Hawaii, therefore he was obligated to produce them as “best evidence.”
When asked to back up the claim of such stipulation, you gave two cases (below). In neither case cited was the attorney who filed the brief representing President Obama.
So, the premise of your argument is false.
So you are suggesting that both the Fuddy to Obama letter and the LFCOLB are forgeries and therefore neither has probative value?
Tepper and Begley are the attorneys of record for MDEC and Obama in Mississippi. T & B have not retracted their motion for JOP after Obama became a defendant.
No. Wherever did you get that idea?
The Motion for JOP was filed on behalf of the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee. The fact that they now represent President Obama doesn’t change what they did for the MEDC. You seem to think that now that Begley and Tepper represent both Defendants that both the Defendants are joined at the hip with identical interests. That’s absurd.
No attorney for Obama has made any representations to a court regarding the long form birth certificate, period. You were wrong.
We have actually cracked the code about what happened between the ADP amicus brief being filed and the diamond-background LFCB being posted at Scribd, but I much prefer the story that it is all an elaborate trap set by the evil Fogbow crowd.
Regardless of the actual cause of this anomaly, birfers will always and forever believe that it is an elaborate trap set by the evil Fogbow crowd. No amount of evidence or logic will ever convince them otherwise.
Hermi: I think Doc set you up on this one. I think he (and the rest of us watching this exchange over the past day or so) knew very well that you thought that the Alabama Democratic Party and the MDEC briefs were submitted on behalf of Obama rather than on behalf of the Alabama and Mississippi Democratic Parties. It’s a typical mistake that birfers make, assuming that Obama himself is behind everything anti-birfer.
So you are claiming that Obama had no part in causing Scott Tepper (from California) to suddenly join up with MDEC attorney Sam Begley just when the defense was about to go off the rails? Sure, when pigs can fly.
Defense go off the rails? More fantasy from the Birther Book of Tall Tales?
I think that it is fair to say from the remarks by Mr. Tepper made on the RC Radio program when he was interviewed along with Begley, that Tepper feels Orly Taitz is a blight on the legal profession, and it would seem likely that he volunteered to assist Begley. I have no knowledge yes or no as to whether there was any involvement by the President in that association, but I really doubt that there was.
But back to the point, you said “Obama’s attorney” made a stipulation in court about the birth certificate, and you relied on that premise in an argument. Tepper was not Obama’s attorney, and no matter what hypothetical involvement you imagine, no stipulation on behalf of the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee is binding on President Obama. In short, your argument was a bunch of hooey, and you lack the integrity to admit it.
Actually, I thought Hermitian was just engaging the in the typical “making stuff up” as needed, that we see from birthers. I suppose it’s possible that he made the mistake you suggest, but that would be pretty sloppy for such a high-level birther expert as him.
I saw it coming because I remember him making a similar claim once before. “…[M]aybe you should reflect on the fact that Obama has stipulated to Judge Wingate that he requested and received two certified copies of his original long-form hospital generated long-form birth certificate from Loretta Fuddy on Apr 25, 2011.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/mississippi-fritz-documents-and-copies/#comment-236422
A couple of people (including me) corrected him. But since he is a birfer, I suppose he will continue to make this same incorrect claim until his dying day.
ROTFL.. There was never any chance that the case would proceed. As to why Tepper showed up? He was quite familiar with Orly’s failures and his contributions were well appreciated.
Since you have the burden of proof, I suggest you find something better than personal disbelief or belief?
Deal?
They have found lots of evidence of problems with the birth certificate, of course you refuse to believe any of it, so your mind is closed to anything that will contradict your belief.
“Following the Birther Axiom of Equivalence (BAE):
Anything odd = Fraud”
A simple truism when it comes to documental decisions.
Anything odd about a $100 note is probably fraud!
A refusal to admit erroneous documents exist indeed may be an indication of fraud.
A denial of evidence may indeed be indicatiive of fraud.
A false name on a registration may , indeed, be an indication of fraud.
A belief in the truth of a document may indeed be fraud!
Any denial of fraud may be the evidence needed to determine the existence of fraud.
A true statement may indicate an attempt at fraud.
A wise person knows that fraud can not be avoided completely but also knows that if you believe you can not be mislead by statement, you are a good target for scammers.
Truisms!
There is nothing odd about the short or long form birth certificates. They were filed within the time allotted, and thus not a late filing, they were properly signed by the attending physician. So your standard, which amounts to little in court, has to be rejected as failed anyway.
Given that the officials of the DOH have attested to the accuracy of the documents presented, any presumption of fraud needs more than wishful thinking. And the courts will never go down that rabbit hole. For good reasons.
Not true, they have argued that based on highly compressed PDF files, they can somehow determine the accuracy of the original documents involved.
I am well aware of their foolish arguments and if you want to discuss any particular ones, then by all means. Do your best… But knowing you, you cannot even defend these foolish positions.
Note that I have been analyzing and rebutting birther foolishness since 2007.
Good luck my friend. Perhaps now we can see some more concrete claims rather than wishful thinking?
Note that the document’s accuracy has been attested to by several officials and note that there is NO evidence of any fraud on these documents.
Since Judge Wingate’s ruling is still pending most rational people would assume there is a non-zero probability that the case may advance.
Did Orly ever serve the President, correctly? She has never managed to do it right before and she completely failed with Astrue in this case.
I suggest that you revisit your earlier post “Green Light! Red Light! of Feb 1, 2012.
“Green light! Red light!
By Dr. Conspiracy on February 1, 2012in Orly Taitz, WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily staff writer Bob Unruh published an article today titled ‘Green light’ to see Obama’s Hawaii files.
According to Taitz (and I guess she would know), Obama’s attorney sent a copy of the President’s long-form birth certificate to Judge Malihi and to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. However, as with many things in the past, Orly believes that this gives her the right to look at the original:
That act, Taitz explained, effectively gave the court a copy of the White House documentation, and under ordinary rules of evidence the opposing side is supposed to have access to the original to verify the authenticity of the purported copy.
“They submitted a copy and said this is a copy of the original birth certificate. Now the other party has a right to examine the original,” she said.
I am not a lawyer so I can’t say for sure whether there is any validity to this claim insofar as the original stamped and sealed certified copy that was shown to the Press last April. My feeling is that it does not. Evidence gathering in the Georgia administrative courts seems to be a much more informal process than in Superior Court. The administrative court just collects information to aid in recommendations. Lots of things were admitted into the record of Farrar v. Obama that violate “ordinary rules of evidence.” However, Taitz isn’t stopping at the certified copy; she wants the whole enchilada, a subpoena to Hawaii for the original hospital form, something which the State of Hawaii has already said it was illegal for her to have.”
Obama was a no-show defendant in Georgia. He and his personal records were under subpoena after Judge Mahili ruled against Obama’s motion to quash.
If Jablonski didn’t provide certified copies to Mahili then the defense would have presented no evidence refuting the plaintiff’s claims of forgery.
Your mind was open then but apparently now closed.
Quoting directly from the Unruh article…
“Now California attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought a number of major legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility in various courts up to the U.S. Supreme Court, has told WND that when Obama and his lawyer wrote a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp last week refusing to attend the hearing on Obama’s eligibility status, they included a copy of the image that the White House released last April
“They also sent a copy to the court of Judge Michael Malihi, the hearing officer, whose ruling is expected to be made available in the next few days.
“That act, Taitz explained, effectively gave the court a copy of the White House documentation, and under ordinary rules of evidence the opposing side is supposed to have access to the original to verify the authenticity of the purported copy.
““They submitted a copy and said this is a copy of the original birth certificate. Now the other party has a right to examine the original,” she said.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/green-light-to-see-obamas-hawaii-files/#TySEjPYPPit82rEe.99
Right… Especially given all these 200+ rulings to the contrary…
Hope… The best the birther has… False hopes for the last 5 years. Any case with Orly is doomed from the start as she lacks the ability to properly file, serve, prosecute and argue her cases, as the record so clearly shows.
To place hope on this ‘pending’ case… Well…
Have you given up on supporting your previous assertions? Wise choice my friend.
OK, focusing back on where this started, you said:
So after three tries, you came up with something that sort of fits. (And I am gratified that this web site is a useful tool for finding stuff, since you found it here.) I was mistaken in the general thrust of my remarks saying this hadn’t happened, although it appears that what actually happened doesn’t quite fit the way you describe it. At least in one instance, in the motion to quash the subpoenas, Obama’s attorney, Jablonski, wrote:
The documents in the Farrar case are incomplete and I don’t know where and in what context Jablonski provided copies of the long form. Still it seems not credible that such a submission caused the presentation of forgery claims by Plaintiffs, since such claims were rampant at the time, and part of Taitz’ bag of tricks.
Farrar, in his original complaint to OSAH, does not call the long form a “forgery” but rather factually inconsistent and lacking veracity.
The mootness of this as an example, however, is that the Farrar case is closed, and whatever may or may not have happened, it doesn’t help your original claim: “Under the “Best Evidence Rule” he (at a minimum) is obligated to provide…” Perhaps he was obligated to provide something in 2012, but in the past tense.
Doesn’t matter if a mind is open or closed. The case is closed and has been. Orly lost. That’s it.. No more.
I like the term “vanishingly small.”
Mr. C’s claim was that no attorney for Obama had submitted his LFCOLB to a court. It appears that Jablonski did just that.
In the Mississippi case, she “served” Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and Michael Astrue with papers through the AG’s office in DC, but her proof of service says the court papers were from a case in Indiana.
Tepper and Begley responded on behalf of Obama and Pelosi–who were being sued in their private capacities–based on this obviously flawed service. I suppose they decided to take advantage of having the world’s foremost anti-birfer lawyer–Teppernator–working on this case to get a ruling on the merits against Obama and Pelosi so that it will be easier to get the case dismissed the next time she sues Obama and Pelosi based on this same birfer bullshit, which she certainly will.
The DOJ decided not to respond on behalf of Michael Astrue–who was sued in his official capacity as the (now former) head of SSA–because of her obviously defective service.
Indeed. A -1,756% chance is non-zero.
If indeed Jablonski presented a certified birth certificate (it’s not clear he did), it was for an administrative law hearing, not a state or federal court case.
“Birthers going ape-dip“
Thanks for that usage, Doc! Your writing style continues to entertain. 😀
I believe Jablonski did provide electronic copies of both the long and short form BCs with his letter to the SoS the night before the Georgia hearing. He does not reference them in the letter. It is not mentioned in ALJ Malihi’s ruling, and I certainly would not believe it based only on the word of Orly Taitz, who is a well-documented liar and moron. However, Mark Hatfield who–despite being a birfer–is sane, references them in his appeal of ALJ Malihi’s ruling. I believe him.
But Jablonski sent pdfs, not hard copies or certified copies, and these copies are not part of the record of the case. They are not in any of the pleadings and they are not mentioned in the ruling.
The birth certificate was submitted at the administrative hearing by plaintiffs pushing the “two citizen parents” line of failure. Orly did not object to Malihi receiving it.
The defense did not participate in the hearing, so it could not submit the certificate into evidence.
Whether or not it was attached to a letter outside of the hearing doesn’t change anything.
Even if things were as Orly states (and they rarely are), she has trouble understanding the best evidence rule.
I think there is also a difference submitting a document as an exhibit in a legal and submitting evidence…
So I doubt Orly will even understand how to properly move…
No they wouldn’t, Hermi. A rational person would look at the pile of crap Orly has submitted in this case and wonder why a federal judge has to waste his time on this BS. There is no chance at all that this case won’t be dismissed on the pleadings. It is 100% certain that the defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings will be granted. In fact, I think it is more likely that the judge taking his time making a ruling is a bad sign for Taitz. He might be preparing to make the definitive anti-birfer ruling that will stop this incompetent, America-hating lunatic–Orly Taitz–from abusing the court system. I could be wrong on that last part. He might be slow just because he’s works slowly, but I am certainly not wrong in my prediction that this case will be disposed of on the pleadings.
“non-zero probability” = a grave lacking the last shovel of dirt, which is what birferism has been reduced to.
and what exactly is the difference between a grave lacking a shovel of dirt and a grave?
Not one person has attested to the accuracy of the document! The Doctor attested to the facts of the birth, and not to the document, as the document was modified after he signed it.
Unless you think an attestment includes alterations to the form.
They have attested to the accuracy of the copy of the document, and not of the document itself, as to due that they would have to accept the attestation of the Doctor whose attestation could not have included the modification to the document.
Jah-eez!!
When will you birthers learn?
It doesn’t matter about the birth certificate.
It could be scribbled on a napkin, etched on a pop tart with a laser beam or peed in the sand on the beach.
The BC…. the paper, the certificate, the form itself… is meaningless.
It’s the INFO that’s important: Where and when Obama was born.
So far, all or most copies say August 1961 in Hawai’i.
Why the birther train hasn’t stopped to consider what’s around the next bend is why this is all so ridiculous.
Ok, birthers…let’s say that there actually was a court case where the court AGREED a BC was a forgery.
Da Da!!
Happy now birthers? Think you’ve finally won?
Well…sorry, no, because you would be left with a situation you couldn’t overcome.
Consider: you’ve just proven a document as a forgery, but the INFO on it remains uncontested.
No one has provided any evidence of any other date or place of birth for Obama.
For that matter, you’ve not even offered any evidence who forged the document.
You’ve provided no DNA, fingerprints or other material evidence.
For all a judge knows, you yourselves could have drawn it up during lunch at McDonald’s.
So what difference would any of this make?
None, because it’s the information ON the birth certificate that’s important.
If it’s not accurate, the entire case is actually against the health dept of Hawai’i, not Obama.
They’re the officials swearing under penalty of perjury the info is accurate.
Obama doesn’t have the ability to add or change the HDOH’s records.
All he’s provided us is what the HDOH provided him.
So here’s all this talk about birth certificates and not a bit about any evidence against the HDOH.
This is one of the reasons birthers are so dumb.
They’re out thinking they’re clever chasing clues like little Sherlock Holmes, but all the while are forgetting that the buck stops at the official word of the HDOH.
It doesn’t matter what cases they win. (so far, zero.)
They can’t prove a negative and innocence is assumed unless proven otherwise.
With not a shred of countering evidence, somehow the birthers have overlooked how impossible it would be to obtain discovery with HIPAA laws.
What court in the world would take zero evidence over officially certified state evidence?
None. (again.. so far, zero.)
Dumb birthers.
And you believe that the courts would allow a moron to represent clients, and you believe that a moron can pass the California Bar?
I guess I will have to change my belief that attorney are , generally, pretty smart individuals, but your attack on one attorney kind of smears the rest of them.
Ah, a real explanation of the problem, indeed. Except for the fact that the form is not forged, the document is forged, and the document contains the facts, which, makes the facts unreliable for any purposes.
And in fact there was a case In California (bustamante xlll) where the certified document was not accepable because the document was fraudulently obtained by providing false information as to the birth date of the individual.
That was a case where the document was not forged as it was completed on the right form, accepted, registered, and a certified copy issued, but the evidence showed that the defendent have falsified the application, which, of course , made the birth certificate un-acceptable.
The doctor signed as to the accurate of the information of the form at the time he signed the document. Sure, after this, various stamps and signatures may be added. But in the end, the relevance is that the Doctor signed off on the birth of a baby named Barack Hussein Obama. That signature and the signatures following all testify to the accuracy of the information on the document.
In order to overcome this presumption, one has to do more than point out the possibility of fraud.
Well, there are ways to pass the Bar exam. What we have learned through the actions and filings is that this person appears to be unfamiliar with basic elements of law, the rules of the court and has failed at most every step…
The court does not determine the status of a lawyer representing a client as long as said lawyer is properly admitted.
No evidence of such exists. So far we know that the Doctor signed off on all the relevant facts as to the birth of Barack Hussein Obama and that the document was filed with the DOH of Hawaii within a few days of his birth.
There is NOTHING to suggest that the document is fraudulent, and there is no similarity to Bustamante whose document was put in doubt by its late filing. There is no similarity to President Obama’s case here.
We know from the document that the doctor himself signed off on the fact of the birth on US soil.
Bustamante’s delayed certificate was based on a certificate of baptism…
Big difference.
And of course you have yet to show that there are any evidences of fraud…
PS: we do know that President Reagan’s birth certificate was significantly delayed though 🙂 He also had his certificate signed by those who attended his birth -)
But unlike President Obama’s it was about 31 years late.
Ah and you avoid the original issue… Still having a hard time finding supporting evidence 🙂
Par for the course I would say. Really saynomorejoe, you should stop embarrassing yourself so much, it is becoming too painful to watch.
See also MAH TOI v. BROWNELL 219 F.2d 642 (1955)
And then understand the nature of prima facie evidence. Now if you could show that the signature of the hospital attending physician was forged…
Good luck my friend. So far there is not a single bit of evidence that undermines President Obama’s birth on US soil.
I believe that I stated that it would be easy [for anyone][sic] to add the case label across the top edge of the PDF image.
Next the Obots are going to claim that the clerk of the Mississippi Southern District Federal Court changed the color of the original case label of the page 2/8 LFCOLB from Blue to Green and then added the second case label in Blue to create the new page 4/11 LFCOLB PDF image.
The “Green label” is on page 2 of document 15-1.pdf.
The altered LFCOLB appearing on page 4 of Document 35-1 has the “Document 15-1” case label in Green and the “Document 35-1” case label in Blue.
In other words, we are to believe that neither Tepper, Begley nor the MDEC made these changes nor instructed the clerk to do same.
Sure, when pigs can fly!
The fact that the Tepper page 4/11 LFCOLB PDF image is otherwise a totally a different PDF image than the page 2/8 LFCOLB image doesn’t seem to bother the OBOTS.
This from the same person who believes the same courts are part of a conspiracy because they throw Orly’s cases out?
So you are claiming that judge Mahili reached his ruling as to Obama’s eligibility based entirely on the poorly made copies of the forged LFCOLB PDF image that were produced by the Plaintiffs?
This in spite of Mahili having already seen the actual PDF images attached to Jablonski’s email.
And then he declared that all the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs had zero probative value.
Yes. I believe the courts allow a moron to represent clients. Orly Taitz is proof of that. She regularly screws up numbering on lists. She can’t figure out how to use basic formatting options in Word. In almost five years of birfing, she has never once properly served any defendant, despite judges repeatedly describing to her in great detail what she needs to do. Her exhibits are often illegible.
I doubt that, taken as a group, lawyers are any smarter than other college graduates. There are some smart ones and some not so smart ones, just like in every profession. But Orly is unquestionably the least competent lawyer anyone has ever seen anywhere. That’s one reason why so many anti-birfers are lawyers. Taitz is a disgrace to their profession.
The Obot presumption is that Jack Ryan took the actual B&W LFCOLB PDF image that was filed by the ADP and scanned it for upload to Scribd. Never mind that his scanner would have had to fracture the single bitmap image of the filed copy into hundreds of layers and also produce the diamond pattern in the background.
Why am I not surprised that the Obots have again thrown up their same old worn-out defense that “the scanner made me do it”.
The only problem is that, except for the “white diamond” regions of pixels that have been removed from the Ryan image, the two images are otherwise identical down to the individual black pixels.
This is irrefutable proof that Ryan did not scan the ADP image but rather deliberately manipulated the ADP PDF image to produce the diamond background pattern for his Scribd image.
Moreover, the background pixels are random in position on both images rather than a repeating pattern. Additionally, the pixel size of 1/200 in. X 1/200 in. is much smaller than the diamonds that comprise the background pattern of the Ryan image. These facts together with the fact that moire patterns are always superimposed over the repeating printed patterns that create them totally rules out the possibility than Ryan produced his “oddball” copy merely by scanning the ADP image. There is no way that the “white diamonds” are a result of a moire pattern. A regular moire pattern cannot be produced from a random pattern of small black pixels.
Joe is taking literally what is meant metaphorically. I don’t have at hand the IQ range for real-life true morons, but obviously one could not graduate from high school much less become a lawyer. But figuratively, a moron is one who speaks amazing nonsense and functions incredibly ineptly. Look at Orly’s track record and decide for yourself if she fits the metaphorical definion
Here’s yet another LFCOLB image that is also attributed to the Alabama Democrat Party. This one also has a Gray background except this one has the basket-weave pattern of the security paper. It also happens to be Grayscale rather than binary B&W.
http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2013/05/msm-realizes-obamas-fraud-bombshell-2447536.html
Hence the Obama lawyers continue to create these one-off copies of his LFCOLB.
Did I just hear the carnival barker call out “takes yer pick”.
Bustamante was a case involving fraud. Your argument regarding Hawaii would need to be the same, fraud. You say the “document is forged.” By that I mean you suppose the signatures are forged? That the doctor did not sign, someone else signed his name, or some other variation of that?
Now you are saying it *is* forged or a case of fraud? Not just that it *could* be in some alternate universe? Do you have the slightest evidence?
Regardless of whether it is fraud involving forgery, or just fraud, where is your proof, young man?
As I and others have pointed out to you, Obama is not Bustamante, his situation does not resemble Bustamante’s.
Basic reality 101.
Since my earlier post, I found this regarding moron:
from Roget’s Thesaurus:
moron: One deficient in judgment and good sense: (synonyms) ass, fool, idiot, imbecile, jackass, mooncalf, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, simple, simpleton, softhead, tomfool. Informal dope, gander, goose. Slang cretin, ding-dong, dip, goof, jerk, nerd, schmo, schmuck, turkey.
Antonyms by Answers.com:
moron: Definition: very stupid person
Antonyms: brain
Word Tutor:
moron: IN BRIEF: One who is able to develop mentally only to the age of eight to twelve years old.
That describes many of the birther bigot trolls quite well.
No, facts are facts. Period.
If the wicked witch of the west says some apples are red and she’s later discovered to be a completely fictional character, it doesn’t change the fact that some apples are still red.
Why should it bother me?
The State of Hawaii has confirmed repeatedly- and consistantly- since 2008 that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. The birth certificates that have been issued- the 2007 Birth Certificate, and the photocopy of the original shown at the Press conference in 2011(?) all show the same consistant- and relevant information- that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
I really don’t care if Birthers want to argue about how many angels fit on top of Obama’s BC because Barack Obama’s place of birth has not only been confirmed to a far greater degree than any previous President, he has been re-elected for the second time, and the American voters properly ignored Birther whackjob claims.
Let’s see, since they all read the same—mind you, not just the same words, etc, but the same letterforms and scripts, and in the same proportions (that is to say, the images are identical)—I’m gonna have to say no, no you didn’t.
But hey, nice try. Dumb as ever, Herms.
Is he a professional circus freak?
He did not scan it, but rather used software ABBYY to add the Fogbow label. ABBYy tries to restore the document into its form elements, which explains why there are indeed 100’s of ‘layers’
As to the diamond pattern. I have no idea what happened there.
But it surely has driven some birthers crazy 🙂
We of course know that the high compression on the long form released by the whitehouse led to several artifacts that confused ‘experts’ into proclaiming the original to be a forgery.
Such foolishness..
Hahahaha… Yes, when one does not understand how these PDF’s are created, it is tempting to argue that they are ‘fraudulent’
So hilarious… These ‘experts’ have not even realized how the use of ABBYY software affects the underlying pages…
Exactly. These artifacts, created by the software used to create a highly compressed image or to add a watermark have no relevance to the veracity of the information on the document.
But rather than focusing on this uncomfortable fact, some insist that these facsimiles are forgeries.
Hilarious… So unable to accept the simple facts that they have to make up some imaginary mischief…
Not anymore, he’s retired.
Yes, yes, very strange. why would the number of layers increase? Someone took the time to cut it up like digital confetti?
I could provide you with several salacious ‘explanations’ to allege, but I’m not helping. Let’s see what you can do on your own.
Why don’t you ask Jack Ryan who did that?
The paralegal would need only download the White House LFCOLB PDF image and then use Adobe Acrobat to merge that single page with the PDF of the multipage document. Then the clerk of court would add the case label.
What’s ABBYY got to do with it?
It’s not rocket science.
Let’s test this sterling example of Obot logic.
The file size of the ADP page 33 LFCOLB is 886KB.
The purported “highly compressed” Jack Ryan page 33 LFCOLB is 961KB.
Dumbkin !!!
The METADATA from Ryan’s PDF indicates the file was produced using
“Advanced Scheduling Options in ABBYY Hot Folder”
The resulting PDF was then modified using iText 5.05 (c).
Most likely in a batch work flow.
The was no create tool listed.
Maybe Ryan was minimizing his cost rather than uploading a duplicate of the ADP PDF?
Tsk! Tsk!
Never say never.
You are conflating issues here. Surely even you can understand the meaning of the word ‘or’. The long form PDF provided by the Whitehouse was highly compressed. Jack Ryan’s was ‘manipulated’ by ABBYY software to add the watermark. ABBYY is infamous for trying to recover the document’s original structure, which explains the large amount of objects.
I am sure you have spent to effort looking at the actual PDF and understand all this? Now have you?
Sigh…
Good work on the Hatfield tie-in.
Perhaps, but a more logical one is that Jack Ryan used the tool to add the background. Note that the document provided by the birthers also shows ‘manipulations’ 🙂
The ABBYY tool is infamous for these effects. As to the background, I find it hilarious how people have become so upset by this as it does not even affect the original filing…
Have you even tried to analyze the documents using PDF viewing software which can dump the raw content? Have you used ABBYY to see how it affects the document?
Of course not.
So, you agree that the courts admit moron lawyers to their courts?
And you think that the bar admits morons to the Bar?
Or is it that you do not use the word “moron” in its common usage, but more as a slander or slur on an individual?
As I explained, Orly’s continued failures show her to be somewhat lacking in these areas. I would not call her a moron, but I do understand why people may use the term.
I was addressing your question about admission to the bar or the court, which of course never has guaranteed the quality of the lawyer. Our legal history is full of examples where lawyers were incompetent, or lazy or whatever.
So let’s stick to what I said, not what you wish I said…
Just an example:
and
Jablonski did not have to be present 🙂 Orly could handle it all herself quite effortless…
Wow… most likely…. In fact that is what the hot folder is all about. So you do realize it was manipulated using iText 5.05. What have you found out about iText? What have you found out about ABBYY and the hotfolder functionality?
PS: Both of the documents submitted were processed by ABBYY.
But see Ryan’s latest upload 🙂
http://www.scribd.com/doc/138651077/Obama-Birth-Certificate-No-Seal-Alabama-Supreme-Court-Fogbow-Upload-4-24-2013
Notice anything?
ROTFL
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one definition of ‘moron’ is ‘a very stupid person.’ I believe that definition applies to Orly Taitz. I believe that, in licensing Orly Taitz, the California Bar has given a license to a moron, as has every other jurisdiction that has given Orly Taitz permission to practice law.
She is a disgrace to her profession and an embarrassment to the California Bar, which allows her to continue to craptice law despite her obvious incompetence and unethical behavior.
Who represented Paul Guthrie and Gordon Epperly?
I know that someone recently applied iText to many or all of the court filings in the Mississippi Ballot Challenge case just to change the font of the case labels.
This modification also added Chinese script in one line of METADATA in one file.
Maybe the Chinese hacked into the Mississippi court’s CM/ECF system?
But how complicated can it be to download a PDF from one site and then upload it to another?
How many Obots does it take to accomplish the task?
Lawyers seem to have an aversion for making duplicate copies of any of their court documents.
It’s a good thing that Engineers don’t have the same aversion to duplicate copies of certified engineering drawings. If they did, all hell would break loose.
You can screech about PDFs on the internet all you want, but the State of Hawaii still certifies that President Obama was born in their state, and that they have his original birth record on file.
You have not, and never will, successfully refute the State of Hawai’i.
Why should we change our original explanation? The green came from printing and re-scanning the February filing – printing and scanning each can change the color of a document. The original case label was added automatically by the ECF system in February at the first filing, as was the second case label in April at the second filing. This has been explained to you dozens of times.
ALJ Malihi said that the evidence presented by Taitz had no probative value. He did not say that about evidence presented by the other lawyers. Irion entered a pdf of the LFBC into evidence as proof that President Obama’s father was born in Kenya. He did not question its veracity. Taitz did not object. Perhaps she could have objected and asked that it be admitted only for the purpose of proving who Obama’s father was and where his father was born, and not for the purpose of proving the other facts of his birth, but she did not. She tried to prove it was a forgery, but she failed. That’s what the judge ruled.
As for your comment about the quality of the images, I’m sure that ALJ Malihi is smart enough to know that the quality of a copy of a document has no bearing on the veracity of the information in the underlying document. Furthermore, I don’t have any knowledge of the quality of the pdfs that Jablonski sent to the SoS. My guess is he got them from the same place everybody else did: the White House web site. Jablonski’s copies were not part of the record in this case. Irion’s copy was.
Well, if history is an indicator, none… All that is needed is an empty chair.
YOu forget that court documents also get touched by the Court when they add their own banners and by those who want to add their watermarks.
Sorry my friend but you should at least try to understand the workflows involved here.
—
Huh?
Wait, you admit that a certified birth certificate can be put in doubt?
And that you know that the Doctor’s signature on the LFBC is indeed signed by the Doctor?
And you think that the doctor attested to the document, do you? Check what he said he attested to. The birth and time of the child’s birth, Period, nothing else!
Is that an “are you still beating your wife” question? Of course it can, but that doesn’t help you as long as “put in doubt” only translates to “wild speculation by conspiracy cranks”.
If you want to claim the doctor’s signature isn’t really the doctor’s signature, the burden of proof is on you. If I owe you $100 and pay you back with a $100 bill, the burden of proof is not on me that the note isn’t counterfeit money.
And that is enough as far as eligibility is concerned, isn’t it?
You can still claim there is a conspiracy to hide the “real father” or whatnot, but that is of little interest since it has no legal consequences.
And the location.. Well. that settles it…
Dear BabbleSomeMoreJoe
Purely for intellectual gratification could you explain to the wider audience exactly what “proof” or “evidence” you have of any misdeeds, forgery, fakery, misdirection, obfuscation or malfeasance you have around the multiply confirmed facts around the birth of the President?
Now, remember the question is for actual reality based facts, sufficient to stand up in court, that meet the standards and constitutional requirements for “proof” and “evidence”.
Again, facts not personal belief, supposition, prejudice, surmise, gossip or guesswork.
As a secondary question, do you grasp and can you articulate and explain in the context of your babbling the phrases “Burden of proof” and “Assumption of innocence”…?
“saynomorejoe”
If only.
Fine. For the purposes of Presidential eligibility, that is 100% of what is required from the birth certificate. The birth in Hawai’i (where else did this happen?) and the time (which includes the date).
Maybe you need to review Zullo’s deposition.
Did you miss it?
‘Deputy’ Zullo’s Deposition for the ‘Court’
we haven’t seen it, maybe. this forum is a lot more fun, when more birthers post, which I have to say kudos, and is to the good doctor’s credit. thanks kevin. I still don’t like the personal attacks, but I give it back too, colour me guilty of that.
hang in there joe.
Okay Jackie Jokers quick question. If you yourself were running for President how would you prove your eligibility to your own standards?
the burden of proof is not on me that the note isn’t counterfeit money.
actually it is, if the counterfeit is identified before it is accepted as payment. he who holds it last takes the loss. this actually happened to me.
You don’t get the analogy. If I pay you back with a $100 note, you cannot just say “but I heard of cases where $100 notes are forged, so this note is not legal tender until proven otherwise, you still owe me $100”, nor “but I heard of cases where $100 notes are forged, so you need to prove to me in court you paid me back with real money”, nor “you need to prove to me the signature on the $100 note was really from the guy it says it’s from”.
Besides, your logic is wrong, too. If you say that “the counterfeit is identified”, then you have a material issue of fact and no longer a burden of proof.
Likewise, if you can prove Obama was not born in Hawaii, then you have a material issue of fact and have met your burden of proof. Simply saying “some guy on the internet says the PDF is forged and I don’t believe the Hawaiian DOH because they didn’t use the words I want them to use” does not cut it.
ok foggy, whatever, you are clever. who’s on the show tonite rc ?
Aren’t you debating Frank tonight?
When the HDOH was requested to verify that the WH LFCOLB PDF image is a “true and correct” copy of the original Obama typewritten hospital generated LFCOLB,they refused to do so.
Instead the HDOH verified only that the “information contained” in the WH LFCOLB PDF image “matches” the Obama vital statistics records on file.
“Buck…. b’k…. buckbuck… b’KAWWK!” –Scott Erlandson
There is irrefutable proof that the White House released Obama LFCOLB PDF image was not created by scanning any paper document. Rather it was created entirely on a computer by means of the assembly of bits and pieces of information clipped from multiple birth certificates and other documents within a computer graphics program.
Facts are harder than diamonds.
So is your head, but such is the way of conspiracy theorists. Every qualified expert who has looked at the President’s long form birth certificate PDF has failed to conclude that there is any fakery in it. In fact, one expert, Zatkovich, said specifically that it was a document scan.
I was thinking of the topic: “Benghazi – is it worse than 9/11, World War II and the Black Death all combined?” 😆
Figure it out for yourself. No more training wheels.
And if they had used these words, birthers would have claimed this proves that the HDOH only has a digital PDF on file and no paper document. Sane people don’t play your twisted version of Catch-22, y’know?
How can the “information contained” “match” without being a true and correct copy?
Is this the “the vault document says VOID all over it” myth?
Why would a forger clip individual letters from multiple birth certificates?
Explain the rationale for box 6c. The box reads – “6c Name of Hospital or Institution (if not in hospital or institution give street address)”. Some letters are on one layer and others are on a different layer.
Why would a forger cut individual letters to create that label? He/she could have clipped the complete sentence from any of the “multiple birth certificates”, just like the other box’s labels on the pdf.
Why is the “R” in “BARACK” in box 1a different from the “R” in “BARACK” in box 8? He/she could have clipped the same “R” or having created the first “BARACK” used it again.
All that means is that it is an accurate copy. To be a true copy, it must not have been altered at any point from the original before or during the copying process. So if you make a true copy of the original record, add a certification, seal and signature, and then copy the copy, the second copy -while still an accurate copy- is not a true copy because the copied certification and signature (and possibly seal) were not present on the original.
Note that adding authentification and security to a true copy does not negate the status of “true copy”. But copying a true copy that has self-authentification or security added makes the second copy not a true copy.
Which is why scans of birth certificates are not true copies, even if there is no forgery or fraud.
Ah,
So Hermie is in point of fact Babbling Joe, thanks for the confirm.
As to “Facts as hard as diamonds” you mean the fact that the HDoH has confirmed that ALL the content on the BC’s are accurate…?
Poor Hermie/Joe, fail is such a life style choice for you.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
No buddy he’s not Babbling Joe he’s Hemitian from the amazon boards. Mr. Blake continues claiming he has irrefutable proof yet won’t show it because he’s waiting for his date in court. Well he presented documentation for Orly and didn’t have irrefutable proof then either.
You should hear him ramble on about how Obama killed Andrew Breitbart with a heart attack gun/taser/high voltage access cover plate/jagged street lamp of death.
Oh why are Birthers so dishonest?
The State of Hawaii has confirmed that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii- consistantly and repeatedly. The verification that you want to quibble about is just one of many verifications.
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
Dr. Fukino 10/31/08
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
Dr. Fukino 7/27/09
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.
Director Loretta Fuddy 4/27/11
HONOLULU – The Hawai„i State Health Department recently complied with a request by President Barack Obama for certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “long form” birth certificate.
“We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawai„i,” Hawai„i Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai„i.”
In June 2008, President Obama released his Certification of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “short form” birth certificate. Both documents are legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawai„i, and both provide the same fundamental information: President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai„i at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.
Unlike any previous president, I have seen copies of Barack Obama’s birth certificate. These copies have been repeatedly verified by multiple authorities with access to the actual documents. Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii has been confirmed by two Hawaiian governors- one who whom knew Obama’s parents when he was born.
I don’t care about some stupid Birther argument about background colors of reprints of documents that the State of Hawaii has confirmed are correct.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.
Unless and until you have proof that the State of Hawaii is participating in some conspiracy, through two administrations, Republican and Democrat, all you have are the usual Birther speculation and lies.
Spend as many hours as you want looking at background of copies of documents whose content has been verified- it is your time. But it is a fools errand.
Obama’s birth in Hawaii has been established, and proven, way beyond any point of reasonable doubt- and he has already been re-elected.
Maybe you can start ginning up false claims about Hilary in anticipation of 2012
Why then are you wasting time on us? Get with the program already. Present that irrefutable proof to the Attorney General, or Congress, or somebody official. Time is running out. The President is not going to impeach himself, you know.
Hermitian has a vested interest here. Didn’t Orly file one of his affidavits in the Mississippi case?
Zatkovich’s full report is here.
http://www.ecompconsultants.com/news/Obama-report.pdf
I would characterize it as “fair and balanced” — he gave the creator the benefit of doubt that the “white halos” could have been added in an edit for purpose of enhancing the text.
A middle-of-the road report is expected given the fact that he churned it out within two days of the release of the LFCOLB PDF.
For example here is his summary statement:
“In summary, my analysis indicates that there were modifications made to the PDF, and that the PDF contains, at minimum, slight alterations to the original scanned document. I have identified anomalies in the document in two general areas:
“a. The PDF contains multiple ‘layers’, which is not consistent with a simple scanned document.
“b. Most of the text in the document is surrounded by a white border which would not have been part of the Green copy produced by Hawaii.
He also found that the PDF image included both TIFF and PNG images. He stated that TIFF files are often created by scanning software.
“AllofthemodificationstothePDFdocumentthatcanbeidentifiedareconsistentwith
someoneenhancingthelegibilityofthedocument.Itispossiblethatinadditionto
enhancingthelegibilityofthedocumentthatthecontentofthedocumentwasalso
changed.Thereisnospecificevidenceofhoworwhythatcontentwouldhavebeen
changed,buttheevidenceclearlyindicates thatthedocumentwaschanged.”
“ThatHawaiiDepartmentofHealthstatedthattheyhadnothingtodowithproducingthePDF,
anddirectedmetotheWhiteHouseforallsuchquestions.”
A mixed bag at best.
You forgot “Watergate”.
You would not even know a fact…
But your fantasy about the long form birth certificate is neither irrefutable nor factual. In fact, most of these fantasies have long since been laid to rest…
Yet some people have a hard time accepting these facts…
Excellent! Demonstrate to the wingnuts (o ye of limited imagination…) that there are indeed worse things that Watergate!
You mean, like a Democratic President tying his shoelaces in the morning???
Given that he has that report on his company web site to this day suggests that he still stands by it.
The Certification of Live Birth that was posted on the White House web site has a redacted certificate number and is therefore altered. The certificate has a warning at the bottom that “any alterations invalidate this certificate”.
The COLB posted by the WH also happens to be a forgery created by Dr. Ron Polland.
That’s now old news Noisy Water. Don’t you know anything current?
Sometimes uncommon perfection is undesirable.
Ask Zullo what it means.
Your position may be uncommon but lacks anything that could be called perfection my dear confused friend.
Oh, has the case been settled and all rights of appeal exhausted? Did you withdraw your contribution? You are coming to your senses, after all this time?
That one is so old, the first time I heard it I almost fell off my dinosaur I was laughing so hard. Please think about the difference between a physical piece of paper and a computer scan of that piece of paper. Hint: altering the computer file does not magically change the physical piece of paper.
A little maturity would make you less vulnerable to ridicule.
That is not even worth the response that says it is unworthy of a response.
Hermitian is not the smartest one of the bunch 🙂
He doesn’t have enough common sense to stay away from the south end of a north bound skunk, bless his little, pea pickin’ heart.
I’ll keep that expression for later re-use. 😉
I understand that. I was just trying to get Hermitian to say what he claims is the “obfuscation” involved by saying “information matches” instead of “true and accurate copy”.
Because he doesn’t understand the specific meaning of “true and accurate” that you gave.
The problem with birthers is that they love to play word games, be it that they claim any deviation from the “magic words” they expect to hear means foul play, be it that they mix up colloquial and legal meanings of words, or be it that they jump on key words like “altered” as if it meant “forged”.
Good, but who were the qualified experts? Do you thnk that Karl Denninger is a qualified expert?
He is the one that said it was kerned and could not be an original, was he not
Oh, by the way, I could not find anyone posting a statement that proves the BC is real!
Did your qualified experts fail to post them anywhere.
Oh, you must be talking about snopes, factcheck, or Fogbow, perhaps!
Which other President had anyone “posting a statement” that his BC even exists, let alone is real?
On what? Typewriters? No. PDF’s? No. Forensic document examination? No. So whatever he’s a “qualified expert” in, it’s none of the issues relevant to Obama’s BC.
If he did, he’d have disqualified himself by that statement, same as Paul Irey.
The “kerning” claim was that some letters allegedly “bleed” into the space of other letters, stating “that is something typewriters of that time don’t do”.
Well, first, that is wrong as a matter of nomenclature. “Kerning” is a typographical term of art that means “moving a letter into the space of the preceding letter for aesthetical reasons”. The classical example is “AVA” being rendered in a way that doesn’t create ugly spaces “A V A”.
Somebody calling the overbleed of letters that has nothing to do with aesthetical reasons “kerning” would expose himself as a non-expert in this field.
Second, that is wrong as a matter of fact. Old typewriters create overlapping characters for a plethora of reasons, starting with “ink bleeding into the previous character’s space” over “typist typing two letters faster than the typewriter can advance one space” to “irregularities in the typewriter’s letter setup” (e.g. one letter being set off-center to the right and another off-center to the left, making the sequence of both letters appear closer to each other than standard).
You can easily find examples of old typewritings that show such behaviour on Google. I did when I debunked Irey’s “kerning” claims on WND, he never answered to the evidence I gave him (of course). If you’re too lazy, just tell me and I will look it up for you. But only if you promise to address that argument. I don’t work by “show me the proof and then I will ignore it”.
Joe: You won’t find a qualified expert who draws the conclusion that Obama’s birth certificate is real based on an analysis of the pdf because every qualified expert knows that one cannot judge the integrity of a document by looking at a pdf of it. Birfers don’t get that. What the qualified experts have said is that the pdf on the White House web site is consistent with a scan of an actual document. That’s all a qualified expert would ever testify to if they haven’t examined the actual document.
And let’s not forget, not everyone with a bit of technical knowledge and an opinion is a qualified expert. Certainly Karl Denninger, Doug Vogt, and the rest of the birfoon “experts” would not qualify as experts in court because they were birfers before they became “experts.” They are clearly not neutral. Their experience probably wouldn’t qualify them as experts anyway, but there’s no reason to get into their technical knowledge when their bias is so obvious.
They have opinions. They are free to express them. And the world is free to ignore them.
Exactly. Even if the Stephen Hawking of forensic document analysis said “it’s a forgery” – if he was on record as a birther, his expertise would not mean zilch anymore.
See, saynomorejoe, that’s how it works in court. If one side brings an expert who would pass a Daubert hearing, the court would still throw him out if the other side could prove the expert is on record as biased towards one side. His whole “expertness” would suddenly vanish.
I always heard it as “His face looks like the north end of a south bound mule”, but that version works well for the intended context.
Denninger admitted he did no analysis and that he was too sick and relied entirely on what Paul Irey wrote.
Here:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/428-After-Birth.html
“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.” Dr. Krawetz, PhD Computer Science
And Here,
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/09/genuine-world-class-computer-expert-evaluates-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf/
“In summary I can only say I see much stronger signs of common MRC algorithmic processing of the image rather than some intentional manipulation.” Professor Ricardo L. de Queiroz
And if you believe World Net Daily, here is another expert,
http://www.decodedscience.com/birth-certificate-debate-caused-by-ocr-software-and-digital-optimization/1939
“The changes made to the original document by OCR software and image optimization have rendered it impossible to determine whether these inconsistencies are due to manual tampering, or are simply the result of the optimization and scanning process.” Victoria Nicks, MS Computer Science
This Hawaiian BC has kerned typed letters and look at box 7d why is it so faint?
http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_front.jpg
I think Butterdezillion (“butterdej” = “puff pastry”) answered that one: all Hawaiian BC’s on teh web are forgedy-forged forgerayz [tm]. (Maybe she exempts the Nordykes, but why has one twin “Honolulu, Oahu” and the other “Honolulu, Hawaii” if they were both typed by the same person within minutes? ;))
Polland made the claim that the Nordyke’s BCs are fake. But he also claimed that all the images from President Obama’s childhood are fake, even those printed in the Punahou School yearbooks.
Polland also was claiming at one point that every photo with Stanley Ann Dunham having long hair was also faked.
Because he managed to find an image of a white person with short hair at Malcom X’s funeral, said that was Ann Dunham because Obama sometimes wears sunglasses and is therefore X’s son, and therefore as part of the cover up they altered Ann Dunhams hairstyle.
Nope, not making this up.
ROTFL… Saynomorejoe must feel somewhat embarrased by now, then again, no amount of foolishness on his part seems to cause him any concern.
He should have focused on the compression algorithms… Oh well.
funny how we can’t call it fake but you all can call it real. as far as I know, no one has has been able to reproce that haunting image as a simple scan. that’s highly significant.
i’ll ask him. it’s like the special police in the annotated arduini affair, epi told me he spoke with two of them… I asked mike about that… detective zulo told me he didn’t know any of them, then wong van historian dude dried up and flew away, what’s next??
How was your debate with Frank? I missed it.
would a court qualified, forensic expert ever testify that the PDF of a $20 bill proved the bill to be a forgery?
sorry I meant to write detective zullo, two l’s, didn’t get there quickly enough. I also wrote to ask the president of M.I.T. to maybe make it a freshman “class project, she never responded. I certainly don’t blame her for that, but I asked.
isn’t it funny how ivan zatkovich and tremblay did a sudden turn around. and that no one want to touch this issue with a ten foot poll, but that’s how the Benghazi affair started, look where we are now. (not on the Obama channels much, and when they show the hearing, instead of listening to the hearing, the anchors are making political excuses for obamavich clinton and anyone with a small or large D d after their name. after this miss hillary is done… imho
or real ?? funny how that fits snuggly into the dan pfeiffer pony show that day. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/post_1.html
Of course with the birth certificate we have several statements, verifications and certifications about the document which make the issue far less relevant. But it is funny how the MCSO Cold Case Posse was quick to draw its conclusions, ignoring simpler explanations.
Isn’t that the political objective of the Benghazi ‘hearings’? It’s all trying to smear Hillary… But I doubt that it will have any real impact on the 2016 chances… The US public has a short term memory (Sanford, Bush…)
He confirmed that the multiple layers of the PDF document are anomalous.
“When a paper document is scanned on a scanner and saved as a PDF file it normally contains only a single layer of graphical information. The PDF that appears on the White House website however, contains multiple layers of graphic information. Multiple layers usually appear in a document like this when it is being edited or modified in some fashion.
“It is possible to take a single layer PDF and inadvertently create multiple layers, without changing the image in any fashion. But that does not appear to be the case here. The multiple layers in the PDF document are a result of changes made to the image,” his report said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/293421/#m3RGwWugMId77uLG.99
it was you and frank that couldn’t reproduce it as a simple scan if memory serves.
round and round we go, where birther Benghazi ends, we do not know
define evidence.
THe problem with this argument, is that we have real statements by those who have seen the document, that the documents are real, and match those on file. By any legal standard, this raises the bar significantly.
The document was scanned, and highly compressed, but it shows all the relevant data, the stamp/signature and the seal, there has been at least one photograph of the document, and there have been B&W copies. I see nothing significant beyond the fact that combined with all the official statements, there remains little hope for the birthers.
when will you learn ??
jablonski had a conflict of interest imo, that’s why he didn’t show.
GOing around and around… What you fail to understand is that all these so-called evidences of ‘fraud’ are almost trivially explained through the observation that the document was highly compressed.
We have at least two documents that are a B&W copy and a photograph. But of course, birthers will try to continue to smear our president.
and you don’t… all’s fair in love and birth.
He did not have to show… 🙂 But we can all speculate as to why and inject our own personal beliefs. The facts remain that the Judge made the right decision. Would have been interesting if the plaintiffs had not insisted on a ruling rather than on a default… Either way, I believe they would have lost.
There is just no believable evidence to support that the birth certificate is fraudulent.
define “almost trivially explained”… anyway doc is getting lot’s of traffic and new players, that’s cool. highly compressed, you mean….bad inking ?? lol
nbc: Isn’t that the political objective of the Benghazi ‘hearings’? It’s all trying to smear Hillary… But I doubt that it will have any real impact on the 2016 chances… The US public has a short term memory (Sanford, Bush…)
possible? RAND PAUL: Benghazi Should Disqualify Hillary Clinton From Ever Holding Public Office Again
and WHAT “office” might that be?
Legally admissible evidence that can be used in a court of law to determine the facts of the case.
There is just no evidence beyond the foolish ‘analysis’ of some self appointed ‘experts’ that the birth certificates are fraudulent. Of course, I do not believe any self respecting expert would have argued that the birth certificate was fraudulent. At best the argument would be that the highly compressed pdf shows artifacts that can be explained through the simple observations of the fact of compression.
We have not just the documents but verification and certification of the information. The end… Although for some birthers, hope lives eternally… And when hope is squashed, they are quick to accuse the judges.
Fascinating
why don’t you ask the murdered guys’ families ?
2016 is a long time ago from now, what difference will it make ??
Well, it must have taken a little bit of expertise to understand these artifacts but somehow, these ‘experts’ appear to have ignored the most obvious explanations. The issue has been settled ever since the documents were released but that does not prevent some from foolishly jumping on board to try to smear the president.
Highly compressed – Rather than taking up 30-40MB the document is a few hundred KB. That’s highly compressed.
Glad you asked… It’s important to understand as it helps understand where the ‘experts’ went so horribly wrong.
luckily for us you don’t set the agenda. savannah was a bad girl that day… she broke the rule and disrespected the process, which the whitehouse always wanted, imo. les kinsolving couldn’t have gotten away with that, so there’s one thing. didn’t you hear Helen Thomas objecting to the whitehouse passing out the questions before the briefings ?? lol it’s on youtube, somewhere…
They died… Sadly… Sure, families like to hear that there was some meaning to the death of their loved ones. Sadly enough, some are willing to expose them to further pain for political gains.
I said that the neutral experts said that the pdf is consistent with a scan of an actual document. They did not make any assessment of whether anything was “real.” They know that it is ridiculous to make an assessment about the integrity of a document by looking at a pixelated image of it.
I won’t comment on reproducing the same scanning effects. I haven’t paid attention to that part of the birfer argument. But I do know that the fact that something cannot be replicated does not mean that it is impossible. There is no other person in the world who looks just like me, but yet here I am. I exist.
But I can surely expose the agenda of others. Birthers will continue to ignore the simple explanations as their interest is to smear our president.
I am fascinated by your response. Rather than asking for details you ignore my observations..
The truth can be somewhat uncomfortable…
the issue has been settled for you, we the birthers are still waiting. is that the full spectrum of compression ??
Like a debate with Frank would be uncomfortable? LOL
Well, the issue has been settled, what remains is explaining the artifacts in the highly compressed pdf. Birthers are not just waiting, they are making assertions which are foolish, poorly informed and better explained by understanding the processes involved.
You pretend that the birthers are the more reasonable ones because they have not taken any position. Hilarious… Have you listened to the birthers lately? Many myths have now become ‘facts’ such as the fact that the birth certificate is fraudulent…
Logic and reason are not their strongest capabilities but then again, when you come to the table hating our President, the outcome can be quite biased.
The facts are that there is no credible evidence of fraud, that the documents are prima facie evidence, and that at various times, the information on these documents has been verified, pointing to President Obama’s birth on US soil.
The end.
Of course, now the follies have moved towards selective services documents and SSN… Fascinating…
ROTFL, I forgot about that little gem…
Yes, shame on her for showing a photograph of the actual document that undermines the birthers…
Is that the best you have? But you are correct, I do not set the agenda, I merely expose it as misguided (at best).
Cheers my friend.
Exactly… While the republicans hope to smear a possible candidate, the impact of it will be minimal 🙂
Funny you mention Les Kinsolving since he said he too held it and was satisfied with the document. How is taking pictures of a document and posting them online “disrespecting the process”
It shows that the birthers are full of it and it destroys the little hopes scott.e has that there is something real… Funny how the birthers on the one hand lament that the Main Stream Media ignores the issue and then when they participate in showing the lack of foundation to the birthers’ position, they are ‘disrespecting the process’.
Hilarious and so telling.
It should be clear to anyone that the creation of a PDF from any document can be achieved through many different workflows.
Furthermore, preview is infamous for reformatting the objects, removing many of the hints as to earlier workflow.
Once one realizes the magnitude of the compression involved, one can try to understand the consequences of such compression on how the document appears.
So far most of the ‘experts’ have failed miserably in this area.
I have been hoping to revisit some of these issues in more detail but at present I am having too much fun with “subject to jurisdiction” arguments debunking the Vattel approach to citizenship in the US.
And wasting my tax dollars by the wheelbarrow load.
Not very conservative of you.
not uncomfortable, just high schoolish. I just don’t see the point of a bunch of boring short speeches. i’ll wander in to the viper pit again. I actually enjoyed the last time, it was fun to hear you guys scramble… and mobilize, you have to admit it perked up that show, I think even bill was amused. i’ts on pretty late for me..
how do you know they are your tax dollars, I haven’t spent anyone else’s money, as far as I know.. I’ve never asked anyone for money, fogbow does.
Funny you mention Les Kinsolving since he said he too held it and was satisfied with the document. How is taking pictures of a document and posting them online “disrespecting the process”
that’s not what he’s told me. they were asked not to use any recording devices, savannah did, and to the convenience of the administration… it will all come out I think.
Sure Scott, you are just in for the high schoolish behavior of ‘hearing them scramble’. Do you not realize how your own behavior so contradict your own words.
Look Scott, while you appear to like ‘clever’ responses, you would not survive a debate on the facts.
It’s that simple.
You are just playing games, pretending interest…
How am I doing?
Whatever you have to tell yourself to by is ok with me.
What will come out? That Savannah Guthrie took actual photographs of the document which shows it to be real?
Yes it was convenient that Savannah took pictures as it laid to rest so many of the birthers’ foolish claims.
Does that stop people from having false hopes? Of course not, even you hope deep down that something embarrassing may come up. But you also know that legally speaking there is no controversy.
Did you just imagine all of this scott? I love your unverifiable claims you put out there. The fact is Les has been asked about it he held it and was satisfied. It has come out you guys have nothing but unsubstianted innuendo to feed your egos.
How do we know you are telling the truth here? And as to Fogbow, the requests for money are well out of sight of the casual user. They take donations to pay for the expensive acquisition of court documents. No real paypal buttons or quarterly drives to squeeze money out of its readers.
And eternal hope that something will eventually stick But when it comes to reason, logic and facts, they are somewhat light on their feet.
Any clown could perk up a show my friend.
Scramble? We’ve already established you have a view of events that doesn’t exist in reality take for instance Mark Gillar’s inability to control his guests when they overtalked John Woodman. You remembered it as a civil respecting show anyone who actually has their own ability to form thoughts knows that wasn’t the case. I remember your inability to answer a single question posed to you and instead veering offtopic, changing the subject and throwing out non-sequitur arguments. I also remember your inability to understand words you use like say the meaning of an analogy. Between the things I just mentioned and your instance on trying to rub one out on air at the mention of Orly Taitz the only thing you’ve accomplished is showing you’re an example of how ridiculous the entire birther movement is.
Some ‘new’ analysis of the artifacts on the long form birth certificate further undermining the claims that the highly compressed document is ‘fraudulent’…
That’s the Scott I have come to love 🙂
http://www.mediaite.com/online/world-net-dailys-les-kinsolving-reacts-to-release-of-president-obamas-birth-certificate/
I just emailed les a couple of weeks ago, haven’t spoken with him in a couple of years, but I will try to call him soon. I want to get his perspective looking back. he is a lovely man, a minister at his church, I don’t even know if he is still in the briefing room, he was only there a couple of days a week back then.
he said they ignored him. he told me gibbs was bad, but carney was worse.
so i’ll try to get in touch with him and let you know. he’s been in that room since Nixon, and when I talked to him was the second senior reporter in the white house.
I made a video back then called “one lone voice”, which clearly shows gibbs dodging lester’s questions, and the 0bama reporters trying to drown out les.
it’s so nice to have your blessing…
Like I say if it helps you sleep at night I’m ok with it.
why don’t you just send me a copy of the 0bot script you’d like me to read…better yet just have surranis post it and put my name under it, that’s what he does at PF.
help… lol.. who was that in the background ??
I guess so… you said it not me… and thanks for calling me friend…
I thought I saw a “contribute to fogbow tag, I could be wrong… imagined it
seems unnecessary for a “dead issue” brought forward by “silly people”, maybe i’m wrong about that too. i’m a casual user. i’m also a member, but I don’t usually sign in.
i’m sure you all burned a few clams following/attending the terry lakin trial… also seems odd to me..
How do you know i’m telling the truth here ?,
I guess you don’t, same as 0bama, and all of you…
why worry then ?? if there’s nothing wrong, it should turn out fine…
You’re welcome, calling you a clown is not the best way to initiate a discussion 🙂
No doubts but that does not mean that ignorance does not deserve to be addressed. Some may not care to be ignorant I guess.
Lakin’s trial caused no surprises as anyone who studied prior cases could have pointed out to you.
Most birther cases are so boringly predictable, but it is still fun to point out the continued despair in their filings and arguments.
Personally I despise when people make ‘arguments’ based on flawed premises.
“Burning clams”? What a waste…
Yawn… Poor Scott so desperate to not get involved in a real argument using logic and reason.
I understand why you avoided the debate 🙂
Obama reporters 🙂
You are so much fun…
But when it comes down to the simple facts, you have nothing but innuendo.
Right?
If the big, floppy shoes fit . . .
we’ll see.
don’t take it personally…
some don’t…
Preview doesn’t do file compression Dolt !
Preview’s main utility is that it can open various graphic file types including TIFF, PNG, JPEG as well as PDF files and do simple editing.
If the WH LFCOLB PDF was subjected to PDF file compression then it had to have been by means some other software with compression capability applied to a pre-existing PDF file which pre-existed the compressed PDF file.
Any graphics software with comprehensive compression capability would likely also have the same or better capabilities as Preview.
Hence there would be no reason (other than to strip the pre-existing METADATA from the PDF file) to open the compressed file in Preview.
So far, Obama’s forgers have maintained a perfect record because no two copies of his LFCOLB produced by his attorneys in any one court case have been duplicates.
I believe we have seen enough already.
Why should I take burning clams personally?
Indeed, that by itself explains some of the more foolish posters on this blog…
Well Henry since you spout long discredited manure I’d say you’re the one with the problem of being current.
You haven’t spoke with Les in a couple of years so before the long form was released and here you were acting like you were best buds with him.
Would you like to try that again in English? Form your thoughts before you respond Scotty.
and, given your statements, there is no one qualified to determine the validity of the document unless they are qualified to render opinions in court.
And, of course, qualified experts never differ in their opinions do they?
Is it always the birthers opinions that are in error, or is just flat out bigotry by the postings.
One thing I do know is that they never challenge the evidence , just say that the person is not qualified, and never submit a qualified expert to dispute the evidence.
Just ignore and attack!
Fun and games.
And futher on the above, if no one can confirm a PDF, then everyone is lying, right?
Because no one has seen the original, and everything else is a PDF
Of course that is silly.
First of all several people in the DOH of HI have seen the original. Several people have seen the certified copy of the COLB as well as the Long Form Birth Certificate. Furthermore, the Savannah Guthrie is a jpeg and the AP was also a jpg.
Not bad, only a few mistakes 🙂
Not always but mostly. I have shown quite few errors. But I am not sure you would be interested in pursuing where the data lead.
Am I correct?
Legally speaking that is correct. Now others can speculate based on looking at PDF’s but that’s just foolish.
None of these birther ‘experts’ have shown much familiariity with the effects of high compression.
So happy you posted that bc as it blows all of the comments about the compression, kerning, DPI changes and everything else out of the water.
look at it and try to find any of the DPI changes in the BC.
Look at it and try to find kerning.
As to the faint word, simple, inserted later from a different typewriter with an old ribbon in it.
and my evidence for that statement, It is started on a different tab stop!
The DPI changes are due to the PDF compression. JPG does not use this kind of compression. Jeez my friend…
As to the faintness of the address, this just shows how irregularities can point to simple explanations. Funny how reluctant you are to apply the same standard to the President’s BC 🙂
It is a trivial fact that PDF optimize saves the text at twice the resolution of the background. I thought I had already explained this to you.
And the scaling factors also help understand the original DPI.
Surely you must be aware of this?
Look at Edith or Female…
As to PDF Optimize in Acrobat check out this one http://help.adobe.com/en_US/acrobat/using/images/ed13_popup.png
Color images are downsampled to 150 dpi and monochrome text to 300 dpi
Ouch…
You apparent don’t realize this is not a pdf but a photograph. They are totally different and one would not expect them to be treated the same by the compression software. The fact is that the reason Mixed Raster Content compression was created in the first place was to deal with the compression of documents like the President’s LFBC, a document with both text, graphics and images.
Look at the child’s first name “Edith”. The “E” and the “d” are touching each other and the gap between “i” and “t” is larger than normal and the “t” and the “h” are touching.
Look at the child’s middle name “Pauline”. The “n” and the “e” are touching each other
Look at the child’s last name “Coats”, the space between the “a” and “t” is to large and the “t” and “s” are touching.
Look at box 2 the word “Female” the “ema” are squeezed together.
Look at box 12b the word “Army”, the “m” is nestle in the “y”.
Look at box 7f the word “Company”, the “n” is nestled in the “y”.
Look at box 6c the word “Hospital”, the “t” and “a” are touching.
Look at box 13 the mother’s name “Maria Margaret” the “M” an “a” are touching in both names “Maria” and “Margaret”.
So you are saying that some information was typed up (before the birth?) and the document was then reinserted into a typewriter to add additional information (after the birth?). Cool, that would certainly explain different tab stops wouldn’t it.
Plus how do you know that “Old Plantation Road” is a different tab stop and not the same tab stop and with an extra space?
Joe: Many of the people here enjoy the anomaly hunting and understanding how the compression algorithms work. However, don’t mistake what is really a parlor game with actual stuff that matters. If Barack Obama is required to prove where he was born, he will submit a certified copy of the COLB to whatever authority requires it. The authority would accept it based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. The validity of the COLB could probably only be successfully challenged if Alvin Onaka himself disavowed it, which we all know is not going to happen.
Pixels and layers and halos in the pdf of the long form do not matter at all. There is no future in this for birfers. Neither the law nor the facts are on their side.
The things that amuses me the most in all the Birfoon fascination, nay obsession around the pdf is just how irrelevant it all is.
They really need to commit to memory the phrase, “The map is not the territory”.
The PDF is NOT the BC, it is an image, a representation, an leectronic, easily distributed, legally insufficient picture of the real BC.
Their inability to grasp this simple fact leads to all the other insane pathologies that included the particularly asinine one that still gets trotted out about how by changing the image in some manner, it invalidates the original.
Or how in some magical way the HDoH handed out (how is never explained) a PDF as opposed to the actual physical hard copy.
Or how the CONTENT has been verified as correct on multiple occassions by the custodians of the original.
Still it keeps me amused watching the ever more complex contortions Birfoons tie themselves up into whenever they trot out their talking points of stupidity.
it is not an inability — it is a refusal.
Infantile purblind idiocy….. 😎
imho, all within the margin of corruption, ergo, the controversy and giving birth to the theory of conspiracy arena.
you attach a barb to just about everything you post doctor. care to rephrase without being condescending ? you are a smart guy, why is that necessary ?
The defense maintains that the Obama LFCOLB PDF is a scanned (but not certified) duplicate copy of one of the two certified copies that Obama received from Fuddy on Apr. 25, 2011. Therefore it is their contention that the PDF copy is not a forgery. Under this scenario, the best evidence rule would apply and Obama would be obligated to provide the certified copies instead of the scanned copies.
It has always been Taitz’s legal claim that the Obama LFCOLB PDF image is a forgery. Hence she has raised a legal issue as to the existence of an original hospital generated LFCOLB.
Whenever a legal issue is raised concerning the authenticity of a document produced to the court, neither party to the law suit is supposed to request that the court take judicial notice of the document in question.
Taitz has objected to the MDEC attorneys submitting the Obama LFCOLB PDF image to the court as proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
The fact that Obama’s attorneys have also associated the scanned copies of the Obama LFCOLB with the letter correspondence (between Obama and Fuddy) which support the request and acquisition of the two certified copies (without also providing a chain of custody between the scanned copies and the two certified copies) is a clear violation of the best evidence rule.
A quote from the IvanZatkovichforensic report:
“HowHawaiiproducesthe“Greencopy”ofaBirthCertificate
“ArepresentativeoftheHawaiiDepartmentofHealthdescribedhowthecopyofthe
ObamaBirthCertificatewasproduced.ShestatedthatthecopyofObama’sbirth
certificatewasproducedbytakingtheoriginalpaperbirthcertificate,whichwasblack
printingonwhitepaper.Theoriginalisthenplacedonthephotocopymachineandthat
imageiscopiedontogreen‘safetypaper’.Thatgreencopyisthenstamped,datedand
signedbytheStateRegistrar.
“ThatHawaiiDepartmentofHealthstatedthattheyhadnothingtodowithproducingthe
PDF,anddirectedmetotheWhiteHouseforallsuchquestions.”
So let’s see the two certified copies in a court of law.
You’ve been around here long enough to know the unofficial motto: If you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t be ridiculous.
are you an attorney ? miss misha, just curious. did I hear you interviewing tim adams once on the rc radio free fogbow show ??
I find it interesting that the bots use ivan zatkovich to bolster their position. jeane-claude tremblay, not so much. that whole foxnews angle is very strange indeed, o’reilly and all.
I called him after 4/27/11 (I think, i’d have to check my archives). and I emailed him a couple of weeks ago. how you perceive my various relationships is of no concern to me.
suffice to say I had a long lovely conversation with him about many things including his book gadfly, his work in the pressroom, and my work as an operative in the American political arena.
I don’t know, you know by clams, I mean money right ? I guess I am referring to some of you excoriating people for selling books, with somehow being evil, seems hypocritical to me, because some people on your team sell books and collect donations in the name of purity.
thank you.
I was going to put this in the open thread, but this seems like an appropriate conversation to dump it into.
I am watching the TV show Newsroom S1.E9 as I type this. The nerdy guy is trying to develop a story about internet trolls by by slandering one of the female newsreaders all over the internet so he can earn his way into some Trollers Hall of Fame website .
Once upon a time, the trolls visiting this site seemed to be working tag teams. One would pop up, regurgitate for week, and disappear, only to be immediately replace by another. Roves recent remarks about funding internet misinformation campaigns and the disappearance of the tag teams propose their own answer to some of those ‘events’.
But what about now? What do the trolls get out of keeping up this nonsense? Is it really just some scheme to score points in some weird nerdy trolling game? I don’t know, because I don’t inhabit those realms.
Some of these folks appear to be genuinely… um… “special”, they hang out all over the place with consistently weird BS. Others seem to be sane, but their willful ignorance is transparently fake.
Really, what do those folks get out of this?
I too am a big believer in “if you step into the ring, expect to get hit”. no problem at all, you guys don’t intimidate or phase me one little bit, same goes fro the 0bamas and the Chicago way. i’m right here and on pf, and I expect to wander into the radio free fogbow den again sometime soon, cause I like trying to win you folks over to my side, so i’ll keep trying. it’s “All” political… I think we agree on that.
Now scottie
Care to actually transalate this into English..?
imho, all within the margin of corruption, ergo, the controversy and giving birth to the theory of conspiracy arena
Define “margin of corruption”
Define “theory of conspiracy arena”
Place in context of the point I wrote around idiots in Birerstan who cannot grasp the simple factual statement the “the map is not the territory”.
Place in context that a PDF is not a BC anymore than the picture “The Mona Lisa” is not the actual person.
Place in context that the material content of the BC has been confirmed as wholly accurate by the custodians of record at the HDoH
Just to be 100% clear.
You just outed yourself as a troll.
Good read, even if a bit old hat: HowStuffWorks “How Trolls Work”
The Birth Certificate false controversy is in no way political. It is a nasty, despicable, completely deplorable, fantasy issue. A group of anti-American sad sacks, racists, and liars who operate under the guise of ” asking a question.” Harold Camp has more credibility than the birthers. You seem like a reasonable person Scott E, yet you cling to the infantile idea of a massive cover-up about the President’s birth. The massive disrespect birthers( and by extension, you) show the Commander-in- Chief is disgusting. The massive disrespect they( and by extension, you) show to the state of Hawaii is disgusting. The massive disrespect to the history of the United States… well you get the point.
Birtherism is not politics. It is the inability to confess the most basic of truths. Barack Hussein Obama ll is the, rightful and legitimate, 44th President of the United States. Not liking it; politics; Not believing it; asinine.
No need. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, “It seems that fear is not a sin”.
I think that it is evil to publish books that engage in character assassination and to collect money while not disclosing where it goes, or to collect money under the pretense that it will result in something that has no chance of happening.
Loren Collins wrote a very good book, Bullspotting. and The Fogbow collects donations that go to purchasing court transcripts for public access. There’s no evil or misrepresentation there. Of course, I don’t accept donations and I don’t sell anything.
Oh I’m sorry maybe I should respond as you would. Aww… aww (oh orly) aww. Now now Scotty no need to let your hypocrisy show, remember you get what you give.
Did you then call Hannibal, BA, Face and Murdock
On the political Forum He simply resorted to filling up dozens of threads with the same crap that people had already debunked, over and over and over till he had the entire Misc conspiracy forum filled up with them. I think he kept starting birther threads and the mods simply moved them into the equivalent of the wastepaper bin without comment. He also pretty much was seem by everyone as melting down over the last few months as he became increasingly erratic.
Then, when everyone was sick of him and no-one responded to his crap threads anymore, he declared that he had scared everyone off and somehow won.
I think though that if he tries the same “Never answer a question and link to stuff totally irrelevant all the time when pressed. And post constantly, all the time to fill up threads with already debunked crap” technique here, Doc will just ban his ass.
You never did provide an instance where Obama’s attorney associated the Fuddy letter with the birth certificate. It MIGHT have happened in the Atlanta case, but you didn’t provide a link to such document, and I didn’t find it.
However, there is a fundamental mistake here. At the Atlanta trial, the Defense didn’t even show up, and so no evidence was presented at that trial, best or otherwise. I would point out, however, that the Plaintiff’s in one of those consolidated cases submitted the White House PDF as evidence that Barack Obama’s father was not a US Citizen. That actually was submitted at the trial. So in some context, both sides sent copies of the same long form certificate, neither raising “best evidence” objections.
The Georgia case was a special situation in which the rules of evidence are different (because it was an administrative law court that is authorized to hear evidence that wouldn’t be admissible in superior court). So in that special situation, “best evidence” doesn’t apply. And of course, in no other case did Obama’s attorneys submit a birth certificate.
Finally, the Georgia case is closed. There is no active case at trial, and without a trial, you can’t apply a rule of “best evidence” either.
So in summary, there was never any situation where the birth certificate should have been presented by the President under a “best evidence” argument. Now, will you engage my argument, or ignore it and change the subject like a typical birther?
Well, we have three troll candidates now, Hermitian, Saynomorejoe, and scott e.
I banned Hermition as a troll ages ago, but there is one way in which he doesn’t fit the troll rule, and that is in the asymmetric nature of a true troll. The troll does a little, and provokes a huge response. In Hiermitian’s case he wastes huge amounts of time responding to short comments by others. Plus nobody much reads his stuff. So as a troll, he’s an abject failure. He has, however, birther creds.
Saynomorejoe seems to be a more classic troll, just saying stuff to get a rise out of folks. If he were actually effective in disrupting the discussion, I’d ban him, but, at this point he’s entertainment.
scott e fits the troll model better, though I don’t know what his actual intent is. Nowadays, when real birther news is scarce, he and the others provide some diversion.
So why do you keep whining about it Scotty? You need to make up your mind either it doesn’t phase you or it does since you keep crying about it.
Awww.. to live the impossible dream. When you believe in horseshit scotty as you do you’re not going to win anyone over to your side.
We must be getting very, very close to the bottom of the Bucket of Mud.
I was just thinking the same thing.
My team? I see, you refer to John Woodman whose excellent work has destroyed almost single handedly the myths raised by the Cold Case Posse. See, my friend, there are people on ‘your team’ who write books to destroy people, to embarrass and harass and who sell books. There is a complete business around birthers collecting money donations in the name of purity when all they do is promote false claims.
Surely you must recognize the difference here? It’s not the selling of books that most of us object to, or asking for donations, but rather what happens with the money so collected.
If you cannot see, or are unable to understand these differences then perhaps you need to do some real soul searching.
does this mean i’m banned again ?? will any of this go on my permanent record here ?? people called me a concern troll when I first arrived, but I looked up the definition. if this was a neutral forum would I still be the troll. I did call you and asshole once, but I apologized directly to you for that, which I don’t think you ever posted.
finally, what do you say about the comments you anti-B’s make, the epithet’s and condescending attitude. then people get upset when I fire back, isn’t that a double standard kevin ? and if it is that’s fine, because this is your sandbox, that I am here as a guest.
The Benghazi affair is a sad example of how misfortune is abused by a political side to destroy opponents with smears and innuendo. Visit most any birther side and all they hope for is that ‘this will bring down obama” or ‘destroy Hillary’s chances’.
Ugly politics… But I am sure deep down you do understand, don’t you Scott?
I will.
john and I had some nice exchanges, I think when all of you took over his forum, it changed his perspective. I don’t think he is as edgy (bloodthirsty) as you and some of the others.
and I don’t think his work was destroyed at all, merely challenged, that’s all. i’d like to see it all play out in court sometime, or better yet, in house committee, as with the Benghazi affair.
what about what you all do with the dough you collect ? should we approve ??
What a difference one letter makes! An intentional mis-reading?
Welcome to … Fantasy Island!
De plane, boss! De plane! [shot of WND banner-toting crop duster]
does that bother you, that I cling ? should I just go along with Stephanie cutter about Benghazi ? was it a long time ago, so just forget it. ?
I don’t think it’s news here… I was labeled the first day, years ago. i’m ok with “troll”, and birther too. as long as they come from you.
Yeah, his perspective changed from “Guys you should be respectful to birthers, they are just misinformed” to “Birthers are a waste of space and deliberately believe completely false info because they want to. Attack away, good sirs.” And he told you flat out to knock your crap off as he wanted to still be able to have a drink with you at some point.
Scott singlehandedly keeps the Birther candle lit at Politicalforum- it is clearly a bizarre obsession with him. In essence most days he is talking to himself- posting in dead Birther threads hoping to get someone to bite.
He is practically giddy right now because he has a thread that people are responding to.
Oh and my favorite Birther thread “Were Birthers nutjobs”- which started with a coherant post by a conservative who was dipping his toe in Birtherism….but the pro-birther posts that followed clearly demonstrated to any rational person- yes Birthers are nutjobs- I mean most of them are frothing at the mouth nutjobs- willing to lie, cheat and smear for their cause.
scott mostly just wants to keep poking the hornets nest while claiming “I didn’t do it” everytime a grown up catches him.
m of c usually refers to voting.
theory of the conspiracy arena mean that in this arena, theory doesn’t have to be strictly empirical, hence/therefore it’s “theory”.
this website flies under the flag of conspiracy theory.
I am not familiar with your analogies, sorry.
You and everyone else can share in the money I receive. But even 100% of zero is still not that much money.
The most important reason for my interests is that I like to learn and help others understand. I find it fascinating how fear and ignorance lead to such foolish arguments as seen in the birther movement. And people mindlessly repeat them.
Nor are you familiar with what an analogy actually is as shown by your orly taitz/thomas edison reference on RC Radio
That is incredibly pathetic.
They did not submit the pdf as proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. They originally included it because a copy that Taitz herself had submitted to the court was illegible (because she’s too stupid to figure out how to save a Word document as a pdf so she prints and scans everything every time she needs a pdf). They then submitted to the court a verification from the State of Hawaii saying that the information on the pdf matches the information on Obama’s birth certificate on file in Hawaii. They did not claim the pdf is proof of anything.
While I have no inside information on this, I suspect that part of the reason the MDEC lawyers even bothered to submit a legible version of what Taitz herself submitted is precisely to bait her to submit frivolous motions based on it so that Judge Wingate can see that she’s a vexatious moron who is abusing the court system.
As long as Alvin Onaka stands behind Obama’s birth certificates, the birfer “evidence” that the pdf is a forgery is not anywhere near what would be required for a court to accept that it introduces the possibility that that Hawaii does not possess a birth certificate that says Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. She had the chance to prove that the pdf is a forgery in her Georgia trial. She failed, spectacularly and hilariously.
I think she should dedicate her time to encouraging the US military to overthrow the federal government, a topic on which she has posted a couple of times over the past day or so, because that demonstrates, beyond any reasonable doubt, that she is an America-hating fascist.
that’s why you always come across as teaching.
Thank you for the compliment. I cannot stand ignorance, especially if trivial research can overcome it.
sfjeff: Scott singlehandedly keeps the Birther candle lit at Politicalforum- it is clearly a bizarre obsession with him. In essence most days he is talking to himself- posting in dead Birther threads hoping to get someone to bite.
He is practically giddy right now because he has a thread that people are responding to.
Oh and my favorite Birther thread “Were Birthers nutjobs”- which started with a coherant post by a conservative who was dipping his toe in Birtherism….but the pro-birther posts that followed clearly demonstrated to any rational person- yes Birthers are nutjobs- I mean most of them are frothing at the mouth nutjobs- willing to lie, cheat and smear for their cause.
scott mostly just wants to keep poking the hornets nest while claiming “I didn’t do it” everytime a grown up catches him.
thanks mr. jeff.
you just accused us of working for the ayatollah, that was nice. I haven’t been giddy since grade school. remember you have to include the “reads” not just the posts. I don’t mind saying I poke the hornet’s nest, that’s why i’m here, grown ups be not afraid.
i don’t mind standing alone for what I believe in, I never have. same for Benghazi. anti birthers aren’t the last bastion of morality or being rational.
finally, when we first met years ago, I thought you were a nice guy, sadly now, you are becoming like them. same as woody.
aww did wittle scotty get his feelings hurt? My offer still stands for that hug
you are no gentleman, and you are certainly no sfjeff… lol
Every terrorist stands for what they believe in. Standing for what you believe in is only admirable when what you believe is in the realm of reality, and isn’t just a prop for prejudice and hatemongering. Sadly That’s exactly what birtherism is; prejudice and hatemongering with no basis in reality.
Anti-Birthers may not be the last bastion of morality and rationality, but at least we’re a bastion.
Birthers are not even in the fort. Birthers are the invaders, which the bastions of morality and rationality stand firm against.
I know which side I’d rather be on.
Even a gentleman like Dr. Ken knows when it’s time to take the gloves off and drive the swine with a stick. A gentleman proffers manners to people who deserve them. Seditionist, anti-American birthers like you do not deserve manners.
Wow, you are stating that because someone said something inaccurate once in the fog of war days after a terrorist attack, the whole admin cannot me trusted? Well I’m glad that you were stridently campaigning against the Bush administration when they said for years that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 2001attacks.
Here’s a hint, Iraq wasn’t.
And of course when Birthers say something inaccurate they therefore cant be trusted either. You know, consistency.
But glad that even you recognize that your “whistleblowers” yesterday were so pathetic that you have to go back to Cutter for something use as a distracting one liner.
It’s pretty sad when you have to laugh at your own jokes that’s mostly because you can’t find anyone to laugh with you instead of at you.
No it doesn’t. However, anything you say on the Internet pretty much goes on your permanent record.
Any decent color scanner would not change the color of the case label from Bule to Green.
I find the rather selective outrage to be fairly hypocritical Scott.
The very slimey Snooky at PF makes all sorts of outlandish claims and lies- and you cheer him on.
He said that “it is very likely that Obama …{fill in with usual Birther slander of Obama}.
I said in response “it is very likely that Birthers are foreign agents of Iran”.
Do I think you or any Birther is a provacateur for Iran? I think it is as likely as any Birther claim- which is to say- no I don’t believe it.
You will notice I am not jumping in on the Benghazi issue- that is because I am waiting to hear more- what I do think is just pure Birther drivel is to equate the Birther lunacy with Benghazi.
It is possible that Obama screwed up in Benghazi. It is possible that he or his administration was trying to cover things up. Depending on what comes out, I am more than willing to condemn any action that he or his administration was culpable for.
The Benghazi smells of political partisanship- but there are reasonable people who are asking legitimate questions about Benghazi.
You hope Birthers will get invited to ride on the back of the Benghazi bus, but the Conservatives will skitter away from Birther nutjobs, regardless of whatever happens regarding Benghazi
I read all of your comments.
Well said! I am with you on this.
I haven’t worked with but a few scanners, so I am not competent to say what a decent one will do. However it if was scanned, then it was first printed, and I KNOW from experience that color printers can sometimes render colors quite badly.
That topic is really off-topic for this blog as it goes to Obama’s job performance, which is NOT what we talk about here.
i’m not surprised. hillary’s either.
Particularly in case of vector graphics constructed with RGB (additive) colors, which is typically the default. Printing involves translating the additive RGB palette to the subtractive CMYK palette, a process that will alter colors. The gamuts overlap, but neither is a subset of the other. Pure colors are particularly affected. RGB (Red Green Blue!) has no trouble representing green and blue distinctly. Shades of blue and green produced by a CMYK printer are primarily cyan, which simply isn’t the same. CMYK can combine to produce approximations of every hue around blue—aqua, purple, indigo, teal—but never a pure blue. Cyan, Yellow, and blacK do make pretty decent greens.
The printer’s ink/toner levels, and operating condition of the printer are also factors.
When scanning, it’s all about white balance.
Printing, and then scanning, are both translations. It isn’t a question of whether the colors will be altered, but a question of how much.
I don’t think lawyers have time to trek to a service bureau to have the prints proofed just to address the unreasonable and ill-informed faux concerns of online nutcases.
Not that Herms wants to risk educating himself, but Googling “RGB vs CMYK” would be a great start.
You (and by you I mean birfers in general) don’t realize how tying your subjective evaluation of his performance / policies in with your supposedly objective evaluation of his eligibility complete destroys your eligibility-related arguments, do ya?
Had he morphed into a tea party puppet he would have been real eligible all of a sudden. Hmmmm.
Many birther bigots have their own special color theory and definition of white balance.
word on k street is miss hillary is getting prepared to scuttle the obama’s ship….
you heard it here first…
Still making up ‘facts’? Hiding behind ‘word on k street’… Either you are gullible or just an incredible troll.
You’re such a troll. Trying to get yourself banned by making foolish non responses…
Have you no shame?
You mean, she has intentions of derailing his run for a third term? Noooooo!
Former Sec/State running for office. This ‘scuttles’ Obama ship how? Did you expect Michelle to run next? Sasha and Malia are a bit too young.
If Hillary runs, she will run ‘away’ from O. It’s what every former subordinate does, to establish themselves as separate and new. Sometimes (GoreGoreGore) they overdo it, and blow it.
What Hillary won’t be doing, is running toward the other side of the aisle.
Or is this more conspiratorial (and therefore more germane) fantasizing? You’re imagining Hillary is going to “spill the beans” on Benghazi, aren’t you? 8-|
I used to work on K Street, at Farrugut North. Source, please.
Word on K Street is that Rick Santorum runs a white slavery ring. I have a source:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/406797/january-24-2012/indecision-2012—rick-santorum-s-senior-pandering
Heard what here first? You doing your best John impression?
yeah right, you.ve been so wonderful missy, i’ll sure spill the beans to you first…
it was never my intention to help with the ratings here, so i’ll see you all in awhile.
in the meantime, get your shit together, and try to get that nice woman Deborah back,
or just keep beating yourselves up, follow Obama into the failed president’s graveyard or not, it’s up to you. see you on the radio, sometime soon. don’t take any wooden nickels.
Your father was wrong. You did amount to a hill of beans.
Troll… Pathetic… I propose that Doc C puts Scott E. on probation and only allows postings that meet a standard of relevance to be seen.
That was my retort to scott e. Did you watch the video?
We have many statements about the copy and none about verifying the truthfulness of the contents of the document!
History repeats itself, does it not?
believe in their leaders until their leaders are proven to be bad leaders, and even then they mourn the demise of their leaders.
Here we have people that believe some things are impossible to accomplish, and then they get suprised when those things are shown to have been done.
A BC is considered truthful because some one attested to it, and certified that a copy was correct, and then refuse to believe that the original bc was false. Remember the California case , Bustamante Xlll, where the certified bc was shown to be false.
And the response here was that occured because if was a late filing, and would never happen with a regular filing. And all ignored the OIG of HHS which reported that 50% of the state registrar said that birth certificate fraud was occuring in their office by their employees, and the result here was that it couldn’t be HDOH because they were not named as having it occured.
Ignoring the 50% chance they were doing it.
You believe what suits your beliefs and ignore all evidence that you claim has been debunked, and yet you can not show that any forensic document examiner has ever claimed it was not fake.
You use the fact that a reported handle the document and claimed that proved it was OK , and yet you ignore that fact that the reporter may not have been qualified to descern fake from valid, as she was just a report.
Selective accepance is on both sides of the discussion.
Complete and utter lie. Prevarication. falsehood. incorrect. You couldn’t lie straight in bed.
Your position on this is not ignorant, because you are not ignorant of the fact, it is pure and simple juvenile stupid, baiting; trying to play word games for no justification what-so-ever. It isn’t even entertaining.
Disputing that using the word ‘matches’ as in ‘x matches y’ is not a ‘verification’ that x is the same value as y is below juvenile. Hawai’i said the contents of the published documents ‘matches’ the contents of the records in their files. Every individual data item (that was asked for) separately, and the document as a whole (which includes all data items, even those that were not specifically asked for). That is verification. 100% verification. And they did it twice.
Ever since you chickened out of the debate on RC, and then tried to cover your cowardice with ‘ see how I punked them guys ‘ you have been exposed as nothing but the center target on the north end of a south bound mule, and your participation on the internet is not for the sake of honest discussion, but for the sake of sensationalizing your readers response and drawing their ridicule.
This is the last comment I will make about anything you say.
I am done with you.
I’m done with you.
So you are incapable of reading… They verified that the certified copy matches the document they have on file.
Of course, there is always a possibility that the original document was filed fraudulently but there is no evidence to support this.
So what now my confused friend?
It was a late filing where they showed that the filing was fraudulent. There is nothing to support such a thing with President Obama.
Yes, the birth certificate is accepted as prima facie evidence and unless someone can raise real objections… Well, you get the point… But pretend you don’t…. Very smart.
So our foolish friend Saynomorejoe ignores
So what now my deluded friend. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.
Nope, what was pointed out is that late filings have a much higher risk of being fraudulent. A certificate filed days after birth and signed by the attending physician makes fraud very unlikely. Not to mention that unlike the CA case, there is NO evidence suggesting any fraud.
Nope you are confusing two very different statements… You ignorant fool.
80% of the people state that murder occurs in the US is not the same as 80% admit to being murderers.
You fool
Apart from the fact that this isn’t true, you still have the burden of proof. If the HDOH attests to the validity of the BC, you need to find a forensic document examiner (not a self-proclaimed “expert”) who claims it is a fake, not the other way around.
Remember that *no* President has ever had a forensic document examiner claim his BC was not fake. And don’t give me the “nobody ever doubted any other President” line. Because that’s the most obvious confirmation that only the black guy raises concern with you.
Now now, remember that our friend Saynomorejoe is somewhat confused about the constitution so do not hold him to rules of evidence.
It was actually “scott e” who chickened out of the debate. That said, troll Joe is not worth any time either.
So do trolls, but one can learn from history. You, not so much. I’ve decided to ban you.
That’s pretty much what he’s wanted all along. Now he can believe himself a martyr.
That being said…. I won’t miss him
Huh. I actually thought I WAS talking to “scott e” when I wrote that.
One beer. I swear it was only ONE beer.
Miss who?
Nah, I’ve never seen “Joe” (not his usual nom de plume) play the martyr. At least not in reference to his treatment at any given site. He’s just bored.
More “birther” evidence —I apologize if this has already been posted..
OBAMA’S KENYAN BIRTH RECORDS DISCOVERED
IN BRITISH NATIONAL ARCHIVES WHERE LIES GO TO DIE
Evidence discovered shows British Protectorate of East Africa recorded Obama’s birth records before 1963
and sent returns of those events to Britain’s Public Records Office and the Kew branch of British National Archives.
By Dan Crosby of The Daily Pen
(Editors note: The records eluded to in this story were discovered through a May, 2012 search through BMD Registers, a BNA partner site, using the search term “Obama”. Corroborating evidence through public sources only implicates the identity of those involved but does not explicitly prove their identity in the absence of the availability of original documents.)
KEW, SURREY, GB – The last place anyone would think to look for a birth record of someone claiming to be a “natural born” U.S. citizen is Great Britain. The very inclusion of the Article II eligibility mandate in the U.S. Constitution was explicitly intended by the founding fathers of America to prevent a then British-born enemy usurper from attaining the office of the U.S. presidency and thereby undermining the sovereignty of the newly formed nation.
In the absence of honor, courage and justice on the part of those serving in the U.S. Congress and Federal Judiciary, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case investigative group has concluded the only law enforcement analysis of the image of Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” posted to a government website in April, 2011 and found it to be the product of criminal fraud and document forgery.
The seeming endless evidence against Obama has now taken investigators to the foreign archives of Great Britain wherein it has been discovered that vital events occurring under the jurisdiction of the British Colony in the Protectorate of East Africa prior to 1965 were recorded and held in the main office of the British Registrar in England until 1995 before being archived in the BNA.
It now appears the worst fears of the U.S. Constitution’s framers were well founded as investigators working on behalf of the ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama have found yet another lead in a growing mountain of evidence within the public records section of the British National Archives indicating the occurrence of at least four vital events registered to the name of Barack Obama, taking place in the British Protectorate of East Africa (Kenya) between 1953 and 1963, including the birth of two sons before 1963.
Recall, investigative journalists working for Breitbart.com have already discovered biographical information published by Barack Obama’s literary agent in which he claimed he was born in Kenya. Prior to Obama’s ensconcement to the White House, many international stories also stated that Obama was Kenyan-born as did members of Kenya’s legislative assembly. Since then information on Obama’s ties has been curtailed by government officials as the Obama administration has coincidently paid nearly $4 billion dollars for capital projects in Kenya.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/07/shock-claim-obamas-kenyan-birth-records.html
I don’t know if it has been posted here before but it is not new. The fact that they cannot produce an image of any of these documents or proof that they exist has been pointed out time and again. The Daily Pen has been found to not be the most of reliable website.
There are excellent reasons why ORYR and Daily Pen are in the Ugly Section at the bottom of the page.
Their steaming piles of paranoia fueled online dung are nothing more than truly idiotic, easily debunked and outright ludicrous birther bigot lies and asinine political smear attempts from cretins with a whole lot more spare time than common sense.
Just a re-release of the He, Lucas Smith fake birth certificate. Yawn……
I found Obama’s Kenya BC. Fireworks! See for yourself:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-kenyan-birth-certificate.html
This was mentioned some time ago. The records in the discussion are the records that were transferred to London at the end of the colonial period. Colonial administrators transferred a large amount of government papers to London in error because they wanted to make sure there wasn’t anything embarrassing to Her Majesty’s Government.
They sat, sort of lost, in a storage room someplace for 50 years because nobody could decide who they should belong to. They should have been left in Kenya (or Cyprus or Malaysia, whereever they came from), Archives didn’t want them, Foreign Office didn’t want to admit they had them.
Then they released them in 2012, setting up a committee under Cambridge academic Tony Badger to curate them.
‘Lost’ colonial papers made public
I personally spoke to Tony Badger when he was in Australia with the Cambridge choir last year and asked him if they had found any evidence of a Barack Obama birth certificate. The answer was an unequivocal NO. He said they did have the records of his father’s flight to the USA for study, but no birth certificate nor evidence of an Obama Jr. birth.
When I reported this conversation to WND, they backed off the story so fast it would make your head swim.
I see a story, but I don’t see any evidence.