The web is populated with lots of folks who believe the birther story that President Obama was born somewhere besides Hawaii: Check our Twitter feed, or visit web sites on the “Bad” and “Ugly” lists at the bottom of the page. Beyond the believers, there are individuals who tell their own personal stories and put their own credibility behind a birther anecdote. These lone individuals tell stories often inconsistent with majority birther belief and with each other. Birther opponents ask the birthers to show some evidence to justify their claims; these people claim to have seen it!
What follows is a catalog (in alphabetical order) of the ones I can think of, with hyperlinks to articles about them:
- Linda Joy Adams – claims the President was born in Kansas. In this version, Obama’s mother was only 15 (making the President 3 years older) and Barack was born at Forbes AFB in Topeka. The evidence is DNA in the back seat of a ‘48 Chevy where Dunham’s water broke. Adams is a prolific blogger.
- Tim Adams – Was a chief clerk for the Honolulu Elections Division. He first said on a white supremacist radio program that he knew Obama had no Hawaiian birth certificate because of what he found while working for the Elections Division in some unspecified “database.” Later he changed his story to say that someone in a supervisory position at the Elections Division provided that information to him. The supervisor was never named, nor the database where the information was found. The Elections Division does not have access to birth records at the Department of Health.
- James (Race Bannon) Bancroft – Bancroft, a poster at the Free Republic, blog tells a story of meeting a young black man who either is or may be Barack Obama (depending on when the version of the story) in Honolulu in 1980. The story goes that the unnamed black kid said he was born in Mombasa and raised in Indonesia.
- Andrew D. Basiago – Claims to have been involved in a secret government teleportation project with Obama, whom he met on Mars between 1981 and 1983.
- Laurie Hathaway [link to Taitz web site] – Whistleblower for Orly Taitz who claims to have seen paperwork at the Higher Education Services Corporation in New York that Barack Obama obtained a foreign student loan as an Indonesian national to attend Columbia University. The HESC only assists New York residents. Obama transferred to Columbia from Occidental College in California. I have not been able to verify that Laurie Hathaway is a real person or employed by the HESC.
- Tom Fife – made frequent trips to Moscow, Russia in 1992-1994. He claims that a Russian Communist told him that a black man with an African father and an American mother was being groomed to be President of the United States. This Communist sleeper was from Hawaii and lived in Chicago. The Russian said. “have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet.” “Soviet” in Russian means “advice” or “consulting group” and makes little sense when the country, the Soviet Union, had ceased to exist the year before. “Communist” or “Bolshevik” might work in context, but not “Soviet.”
- Allen Hulton – a postman who claims that he had a conversation with the wife of Tom Ayers (father of Bill Ayers) who told him Ayers was paying for Obama’s college, Obama being a “foreign student” or he thinks it may have been Obama. The story changed over time in multiple interviews.
- Paul Irey – did an analysis of typed letters on Obama’s birth certificate, but he stated that before doing that he already knew the certificate was a forgery because of what a Secret Service agent involved in vetting candidate Obama told him–or was it a “look” the agent gave him? Irey did not say what the agent told him precisely, nor explain why the Secret Service was involved in vetting political candidates.
- Nancy Ruth Owens (Molly Nancy Owens, Nancy Owens Barger) – a Florida woman, claims to have been hired by Pablo Escobar to forge President Obama’s birth certificate in 1985. She also says that she is Obama’s sister and took some of the photos of Obama’s in his “college years.” She explained how Floridian Obama had Hawaiian newspaper birth announcements in 1961 by saying Pablo Escobar was very powerful. She didn’t explain why she (not a professional forger) was hired by the powerful Escobar.
- Lucas Daniel Smith – claims to have traveled to Kenya and obtained a Kenyan birth certificate naming Barack Obama. Smith maintains a web site promoting Obama conspiracies.
The true believers among the list above remind me of UFO abductees. Some of them seem like fraud, some false memories, and the others downright crazy. None of them actually present evidence for their story (except Smith whose Kenyan birth certificate was shown to be a fake).
Two more for your list:
Tom Fife:
http://rense.com/general84/brck.htm
Andrew Basiago:
http://www.colbertnation.com/articles/obamas-secret-martian-past
http://www.ufodigest.com/article/mars-visitors-basiago-and-stillings-confirm-barack-obama-traveled-mars
“The HESC only assists New York residents”
.
Orly was advised of this when she first brought out the whistle blower story, she stayed with her story and deleted any post that gave the truth. She knows full well that birthers will eat this story up.
Doc,
How could you miss out Sven and his in depth narrative of Barry and The Pirates.
Indonesia, seizure by the Catholic church, name changes, loss of nationality etc. A compelling story……
Doc,
Has it been confirmed that Mr. Taitz’s whistleblower is, in fact, a birther and not an innocent (or fake) person being used to punk Orly?
My personal favorite is the guy who claims to have teleported to Mars with Obama.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/obama-mars/
And you can’t leave out the guy who claims Obama is a human/reptilian hybrid.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/baracksoetorofamilyphoto16sep08.shtml
It’s perhaps worth noting that “Race Bannon” originally published his “I met teenage Obama” story under his real name:
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/11/first-hand-witness-to-obama-admitting.html
from Orly’s thread about the imaginary intimidation of her imaginary whistleblower:
❝SticksNstones
August 10th, 2013 @ 8:19 pm
I thought others also witnessed the docs and copied them.❞
❝dr_taitz@yahoo.com
August 11th, 2013 @ 4:30 am
yes, I have more names❞
I’d like to know more about this story. There’s a lot of wild talk about it in the comments at ORYR, but I’m hoping that Dr. C (or others) will provide a more rational article in the near future.
Yeah, the time-travelling Mars stories and crazy reptilian ones are still my favorites! At least those could be turned into a super cheezy political sci-fi Z-grade movie thriller for the Sy Fy channel! I mean, not quite a “Sharknado” or “Mansquito”, but the campy ridiculousness of it all would certainly provide some mild entertainment.
However, at the other end of the spectrum is the bottom of the sewage pile, where there are several dregs of humanity who have some sick compelling need to make up all sorts of twisted sexual-drug-murder stories about people they hate… those folks are not even worth the mention. Their sick stories only speak volumes about their own diseased minds and possible predilections and nothing at all about the actual man who is President…
I am not aware that Sven claims to have personal knowledge of his stories.
At Free Republic, Sven claimed to have seen the 1983 Certification of Naturalization for President Obama.
The short answer is that only New York residents are eligible for student loans through New York Higher Education Service Corporations.
Student must be a legal resident of NYS for at least 12 months prior to the start of the term
– Student resides in NYS and intends to make the State his/her permanent home
– Solely living within NYS does not demonstrate residency
– Living in NYS solely to attend a postsecondary institution does not, in itself, establish legal residence
http://www.hesc.ny.gov/content.nsf/CA/TAP_Training_Modules/$file/Module2Eligibility012413.pdf
Obama could not have met the residency requirements because he was not in New York during the 12 months prior to enrolling at Columbia.
In the early eighties the agency was know as New York Higher Education Assistance Corporation, but the eligibility rules were the same. I know this from personal knowledge because I was a New York resident when I attended college and my student loans were guaranteed by NYHEAC. I don’t know if NYHEAC guaranteed loans for non-citizens who were residents of New York, but it certainly would not have guaranteed loans for a resident of Hawaii.
And of course Orly’s “whistleblower” has yet to provide any evidence for her claims, just like Ed Hale’s “proof of Kenyan birth,” the Michelle Obama “whitey” tape, etc.
Thanks for the background information, Rickey.
And one of the basic problems with all of this stuff, is that , throughout the discussions, there have been people who put out all sorts of stuff to encourage comments, or discourage comments about the problem.
And then you get to the people who post things with the obvious intent to deflect the original statements by putting out absurdities.
As to Lucas Smiths being ruled fake, by whom, and who has ever seen the original enough to determine true or false.
Was it kerning in Smiths, and not kerning in Obama’s, was it wrong name in Smiths, and strange signature in Obama’s.
All to no avail, as Orly keeps filing suits and claim in her attempt to find out why her suspicions are not real or false.
Let me give you two examples:
Birthers said that Obama’s birth certificate was a fake because his father’s race was “African” and such a thing was impossible at the time because “Negro” was the required term. Research showed that the Race was self-reported and no limited list of values were required, Kenyans at that time considered their race to be “African” (based on Kenyan census forms from 1962) and we found examples of all sorts of odd-ball races and combinations on Hawaiian certificates from 1961. [Code 9 in Hawaii was for “other race”. There was no code for Black or Negro as such births were rare in Hawaii.]
On the other hand anti-birthers pointed out that the hospital administrator who signed the Smith certificate hadn’t become the administrator until after the date on the form was signed. That’s an Impossible contradiction which remains. No further research changed that.
Birthers said that Race code 9 was impossible for the response “African” because “9” meant something else. Further research showed that the race code set put forth by the birthers was not only from the wrong year, but conclusively was not used in Hawaii in 1961.
On the other hand, anti-birthers pointed out that dates on the Smith certificate were in the mm/dd/yyyy format, when most of the world, including Kenya, used dd/mm/yyyy for dates. Further research showed universal usage of the dd/mm/yyyy format in every document found and in government standards. The date format in the Smith certificate was not used in any official document.
This is an example of how birther objections don’t stand up to scrutiny, but anti-birther objections strengthen under scrutiny. And that’s why birther stuff is not worthy of belief, but anti-birther stuff is. There is no equivalence.
Two more examples:
Birthers objected to “kerning” in the Obama certificate, but there were many problems with that objection, including the fact that if the certificate had been made with a word processing program, it wouldn’t be kerned because word processing typewriter fonts are monospaced. Only a well-used and poorly-maintained typewriter does that unless somebody went to huge amounts of trouble to manually kern something that shouldn’t be kerned.
The typeset portion (not typewriting) of the Smith certificate does appear to have kerning in a font which has variable spacing, making it a candidate for a word processing program, while at the same time making it unlikely to have come from typesetting technology in 1961. Kerned letter slugs at that time were reserved for large sized of letters, such as you would see in the title of a book.
When the Smith certificate was released, none of the FOIA documents about Obama Sr. were available. All that was known about his date of birth was based on the age on the Obama birth certificate. On the Smith certificate the mother’s date of birth is in full, but the fathers just the year. After the FOIA immigration files came out, we see Obama Sr. using a full date of birth on every document.
Unlike the first two examples which make the Smith certificate impossible, the latter two just makes it unlikely.
Also no unquestioned birth certificate from Kenya has ever appeared that looks remotely like the Smith certificate, while Obama’s Hawaiian certificate looks like the rest of the unquestioned examples. WorldNetDaily itself said that authentic Kenyan birth certificates were of a different form.
The case against the Smith certificate is so strong as to rule it a fake. Who ruled it a fake? WorldNetDaily and I did. You should too.
Doc, did you leave out that Mr. Smith is a convicted forger, who refused to produce any evidence that he had been to Kenya?
Helen, you know what evidence is, don’t you? That’s where we take the word of the
government official who certifies a birth certificate over a convicted forger.
Where was Pres. Obama born, Helen? Why do you keep ducking the question?
I do not have to see an original document in order to determine that Monopoly money is not real money.
Lucas Smith used to post frequently here, and he rejected numerous requests to produce evidence that he has ever been in Kenya. He also is a convicted forger and swindler.
In 1993, while a graduate student at the Courant Institute (NYU), I received a student loan administered by NYHESC less than six months after moving to Manhattan from North Carolina.
Three people that I know of have seen the original and they have gone on record attesting to its authenticity. One is a Republican (Dr. Chiyome Fukino, former Hawaii Director of Health), one is a Democrat (Loretta Fuddy, current Hawaii Director of Health) and one is a non-political civil servant who has worked in Republican and Democratic administrations (Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics).
All three have issued official, on the record statements attesting to the authenticity of the original, hard copy, vault edition, long form Obama Certificate of Live Birth.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e9D4n6_Uifk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3De9D4n6_Uifk
BINGO! This is a key point that deserves to stand out on its own….
On the other hand kapiolani hospital proudly promulgated a letter from the prez that said he was born at kapiolani hospital but then they pulled it from view right around the time it became clear that using false info to raise funds was a felony.
I’m not saying they’re related but it’s suspicious.
What was involved in administering the loan? And who actually made the loan? Were you claiming to be a resident of New York State at the time?
I don’t see how you could have qualified for a New York State loan after living in New York for less than six months, unless a mistake was made.
Since the President’s birth certificate says he was born at Kapiolani exactly how would the hospital raising money on that fact be illegal? What’s suspicious?
I’m not sure if I was claiming NY citizenship (my [now ex-] wife had a job there and I had a NY driver’s license), but I wasn’t hiding the fact that I had just moved there (certainly the financial aid department at NYU knew my circumstances) and I highly doubt any mistakes were made or anything untoward was done. As for what’s involved in administering the loan, I don’t really know (I’m very bad at dealing with the bureaucratic details of life), but I regularly get letters from them and they have contacted me within the last couple of months (there was some confusion due to Citibank having sold my loan to Sallie Mae which already held a different student loan of mine). The loan was probably a federal loan (Stafford?), but NYHESC was definitely involved and certainly still has records of it (at least as of two months ago 😉 ).
Does that answer your questions?
Isn’t it also a lie? I thought that President Obama’s letter was still available on the hospital’s website. Even if it was gone, in light of the point you made, when, exactly, did it “become clear” that it was a (non-existent) felony? Goal Poster is a pretty pathetic and dishonest little troll.
They didn’t “pull” the letter at all. The letter was a part of a fund-raising campaign for the centennial anniversary of Kapi’olani Hospital. The letter and the centennial anniversary page at the Kapi’olani web site stayed up for the entire year plus five additional months, then the page was taken down, including the Obama congratulations letter which contained the phrase “…the place of my birth.”
It’s silly to celebrate a centennial after the centennial is over.
I just checked, the letter is still available at the Kapi’olani Foundation web site. See page six of the Centennial Anniversary magazine, which is where the letter was originally published.
http://www.kapiolanigift.org/document.doc?id=22
Thanks for the info. I’d also think that after nearly a year and a half that they had gotten just about all of the fundraising out of the letter that they could have.
Excellent! So now we get to test and see if Goal Poster has enough integrity to admit that he was completely wrong or if he’s just another dishonest birther troll. I love experiments! 😉
Goal Poster:
Kapiolani Medical Center 100 Years 1909 to 2009
This is their magazine which carries the infamous letter from Obama stating Kapi’olani Medical Center is the place of his birth. (PAGE 6)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52083178/Kapiolani-Medical-Center-100-Years-1909-to-2009
and the youtube video (thanks Doc):
Kapi’olani Centennial Video, January 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YpAa891AmA
For anyone wishing to search for the Obama letter to Kapi’olani Hospital, you have to go to the Kapi’olani FOUNDATION web site, not the hospital’s web site. I then searched under Centennial and then I clicked on Other Publications: Centennial Magazine-100 Years of Caring For Children and there it was.
The foundation is the fundraising division of the hospital. The Centennial year was 2009.
Goal Poster’s information is usually coated with brown colored stuff which is caused by where he pulls this info from.
Also on the Smith Birth Certificate:
The administrator who supposedly certified it was not an the chief adminstrator at the time, which Doc mentioned to you above. However, he also mis-spelled his name both on his own signature, and on the stamp that he supposedly used to stamp the certificate. On the birth certificate, it’s spelled Dr. Helton Mangana. However, on his own linked-in account, it’s Dr. Heltan ManganaLet me ask you this question, Helen, how many people do you know misspell their name in their own signature?
I checked the hospital website and didn’t find it but I see you and several others found it at the foundation site. Oh well…..another good story ruined by over checking, as we used to say in the news business.
It took me less than five minutes to find the Obama Centennial Letter of Congratulations at the Kapi’olani Foundation web site.
I don’t think tat Goal Poster understands that google is our friend!
If he admits his mistake, then he didn’t understand that google is our friend (but hopefully does now), if not, then he had no interest in the truth and just wanted to smear President Obama. I know where my money is…
“On the other hand, anti-birthers pointed out that dates on the Smith certificate were in the mm/dd/yyyy format, when most of the world, including Kenya, used dd/mm/yyyy for dates. Further research showed universal usage of the dd/mm/yyyy format in every document found and in government standards. The date format in the Smith certificate was not used in any official document.
“From Luca’s Smith’s Blog
“I own the three (3) letters pictured in this report, all of which were typewritten and signed by Tom Mboya.
In the first letter Mboya styles the date in the following format:
January 22nd, 1960.
In the second letter Mboya styles the date in the following format:
25th March, 1963.
In the second letter Mboya stlyes the date in the following format:
5th October, 1965.
Why the difference in date format on the 1960 letter? Is the letter not authentic being that the British DAY/MONTH/YEAR date format was not used? Skeptics have indicated Obama Jr.’s 1961 Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa, British Protectorate Kenya, birth certificate is not authentic on the very same grounds.”
Now why would you assume the dates are wrong when they used both dates in correspondence
Thanks for the links!
Doc,
Helen,
You’re being disingenuous again. If this were the only anomaly on the FKBC (Fake Kenyan Birth Certificate), then his letters with multiple forms of the date would ease skepticism, but that just isn’t the case.
Let’s say you started out by saying that there is a 50% chance that the BC is fake.
What would happen to that number after you found out that the administrator’s name was wrong?
When you found out that the author of the FKBC, refuses to show the passport stamps he got entering and exiting Kenya?
When you found out that the administrator wasn’t administrator when the FKBC was allegedly obtained?
When you found out that the measurements of the baby included things not typically reported and fell far outside the human norm?
When you saw the footprints on it? (Indicative of a hospital souvenir, not an official BC)
When you saw that it was different from legitimate BCs of the same vintage?
When you found out that the author was a convicted forger and known scam artist?
When you found out that there aren’t any Kenyan officials who are willing to stand behind the FKBC?
Any honest, intelligent, and objective person would be forced to conclude that, in the face of the evidence (and I didn’t list it all), there is virtually no chance that the FKBC is real. On the flip side, if we do this same exercise for the LFBC and the COLB, it becomes crystal clear that there is even less chance that President Obama’s birth certificates are fake. It is only due to your prejudice and lack of integrity that you continue to pretend that there is any merit to your arguments whatsoever.
You’re welcome. I’m glad that I could help to dispel a rumor for you.
Oh, no doubt about it, Obama wrote that letter, as he use the wrong verb in the sentence,did he not?
“Wa” is a preterite and “is” is present tense
Oh, well, he is just a lawyer!
May depend on the language. In German, citizens of the Soviet Union were called “Soviets” (“Sowjets” in our spelling). I don’t remember for how long this continued after the Soviet Union disbanded.
Still the story is bogus because it has the “I predicted the Chernobyl accident but there is no trace of this prediction before the accident” quality that most “psychic predictions” have.
I can claim I met a Russian in 1960 who said a US movie actor with initials RR was being groomed by the KGB to become President all day long, it’s still just some outlandish bogus claim.
Have your read his blog where in he explains the information?
That was bound to happen. It’s Orly’s version of “the dog ate my homework”. First her “whistleblower” was allegedly unable to mail her the docs because of “problems with my Adobe” (Doesn’t that ring a bell, using the company name in place of the software name? That’s Orlyspeak.) and now weeks later she can’t get the docs because of “intimidation”.
Oh well, one would’ve assumed Orly learned from her constant claims of “threatened judges” to only yell the name of her “whistleblower” around the interwebs *after* she got all the goods, but no, of course not.
The good part is that now we have a simple third explanation: Orly is neither monumentally stupid nor an Obot in disguise who fails deliberately but simply made the entire story up. The only thing missing is an Illuminati connection and we have the next Dan Brown novel. Dr Langdon to teh rescue!
Smith explains nothing. He’s assembled a plethora of documents where misspellings occur and thinks this explains away his monumental screw-up of somebody misspelling his *own* name in a *signature*.
Helen,
Why are you so prejudiced against President Obama and why are you so dishonest about it?
Why do you think it is fair to hold the POSFKBC of He, L*c*s Sm*th to a ridiculously low standard while holding President Obama’s records to a standard that no one, including yourself, could possibly meet?
Helen,
I’ve read some of his explanations—I’m just wondering why you hold them to a far lower standard than you do explanations regarding President Obama. Are you so dumb and ignorant that you are incapable of being objective or are you so dishonest that you are unwilling to be objective?
I’m just asking questions…
First, when dealing with a forger, and Smith is a convicted forger, one would not reasonably accept any document he produces in support of another questioned document he produced.
But assuming that those letters are authentic, it’s not the same thing as we see on his fake Kenyan birth certificate. When the month name is spelled out, no ambiguity is created. When it’s numbers only, one simply cannot use a non-standard format on an official document–it would wreak havoc because you wouldn’t know whether 8/12/2013 was August or December.
I myself on this blog and elsewhere use both date orders when the month name is given. I would never do this using just the numbers. For US documents it’s always mm/dd/yyyy and for foreign documents it’s dd/mm/yyyy,
Are you talking about this sentence? “Kapi’olani was one of Hawai’i’s earliest hospitals” Because that’s grammatically correct, even under your preterite definition.
“serving to denote events that took place or were completed in the past.” (Wikipedia)
Pretty much!
Of course, our own personal experiences with NYHESC (previously NYHEAC, for me) may have little relevance to Obama’s. My loans were issued a decade before Obama’s and yours a decade later. The one constant seems to be that you have to be a New York resident to obtain a student loan through NYHESC. Administering loans which were issued out of state is something I hadn’t heard of before.
Rickey,
Just to clarify, I was residing in New York and attending grad school there when I got the loan, but I had been resident there for less than 6 months. My loan was in no way issued “out of state” and was a federally guaranteed loan issued by Citibank. I have since left the state, but NYHESC still has some involvement (seemingly as a facilitator/advocate) as evinced by my contact with them this spring.
It was not something that happened in the past, as it is still applicable today.
Was means it does not apply today
Hapioalan is one of the oldest hospitals in Hawaii.
I don’t hold any explanations to a different standard from which I usually hold standards.
If an explanation make sense it makes sense.
If a statement is worded in such a way as to cause doubt, I doubt it.
Sample
Obama is a good person , who loves children, and would never do such a thing.
That is a statement I would doubt!
Obama is a good person, who loves children, and could have done such a thing.
I would not doubt
Regardless of the thing in question
Helen,
I guess your ignorance is not just confined to your birfing.
Kapi’olani was one of Hawai’i’s earliest hospitals.
That is something that was established in the past (it became true over a century ago and nothing in the present can change it).
Kapi’olani is one of Hawai’i’s oldest hospitals.
That is something that is true now, but could be falsified by, for instance, the hospital closing.
At least we see something about the lengths to which you will go for even a minor baseless smear against President Obama. Why do you hate him so much?
In other words, you consider a proposition more credible if it conforms to your existing prejudices. You have just admitted that you completely lack objectivity.
Helen,
Real objectivity would be subjecting statements to the same degree of scrutiny regardless of whether or not you agreed with them beforehand.
For instance, if you subject the statement: “President Obama’s LFBC is a forgery”
and the statement: “He, L*c*s Sm*th’s POSFKBC is a forgery”
To the same standard of evidence, it is impossible to conclude anything other than that the first statement is false and the latter one is true.
That certainly explains the reactions to much of what you post here.
Try this:
Statement 1 – George Washington was elected President in 1789.
Statement 2 – George Washington is our first President.
Is Statement 1 true or false? How about Statement 2?
I noticed you have said nothing about the Cold Case Posse investigation. Early on LFBC supporters were saying that OCR and optimization caused the layers that appear when the document is opened in Adobe Illustrator, it is now known that those processes were never done. When the LFBC is opened in Adobe reader, you can zoom in on the signature of Ann Dunham Obama and see the change from a ball point pen to it looking flat and wide, why? You have also overlooked all the photoshoppers that examined the LFBC when it was first put up on the White House website. There is also the uneven alignment in Obama’s BC that does not look the same as other BC’s from the same time. So far I have not seen these birther arguments fall apart under scrutiny. I would love to hear the explanations.
Carl,
[smart ass] I believe that statement 1 is false as President Washington would have been elected in 1788 and inaugurated in 1789.
[/smart ass]
I would also say that statement 2 [was or is] grammatically incorrect, but that doesn’t make it factually false.
Point one: Hmm….when were the elector’s votes received by Congress back then? We know that happens on January 6th these days. Not sure about then.
Point two: What’s more important….grammar or facts?
Adjectives add description to the noun.
Carl,
Point one: good point—I don’t know the answer.
Point two: Facts are more important… unless you are Helen and a perceived grammatical error can be used to smear the president, in which case why should facts start to matter now?
Let me set you straight on OCR.
Early on some folks used Adobe Acrobat Standard (not Reader) to create PDF’s from scanned documents. It was found that turning on OCR caused the PDF created to have layers. So one set of instructions for showing that scanned documents can have layers was to use Acrobat with OCR turned on. No one claimed that Obama’s certificate had layers because of OCR, but that OCR proves that normal scanned PDF’s can have layers.
It was quickly noted that the Obama birth certificate doesn’t have any OCR information. It was also noted that selecting an Adobe Acrobat option, Optimize Scanned PDF’s, also creates layers without turning on OCR.
All of this is largely irrelevant because Adobe Acrobat wasn’t used to create the PDF the White House released. This was also noted early on. The only relevance of Acrobat, optimization and OCR, is just to say that normal scanned documents can have layers.
I showed how this happens in an article from July, 2011:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/the-doc-got-layers/
The reason you see a peculiarity in the signature goes back to the layers. Part of the signature is one layer and the other part is in another. The “background layer” that has most of the pre-printed form and the security paper is a JPG-like image, and when you zoom in on a JPG you get blurry stuff. The rest of the signature is on a monochrome bitmap layer, and when you zoom in on that in Acrobat Reader, it isn’t blurry.
Early on, I scanned my own birth certificate in Adobe Acrobat, with optimization on, and the signature on my certificate ended up on multiple layers in the resulting PDF. Lo and behold the same fuzzy and non-fuzzy parts showed on when I zoomed in with Acrobat Reader.
I showed this in an article I wrote in April of 2012:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/04/pixelation-is-normal-cold-case-posse-lied/
Again, Acrobat was not used to scan the President’s birth certificate. But I knew, and the readers of this blog knew, very early on that what the birthers said was proof of forgery was actually normal.
I hope that you are REALLY interested in an explanation, and that I haven’t wasted my time giving you concrete examples of how Cold Case Posse claims fall apart under scrutiny. See also the Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories, which has lots of other examples.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/debunk/
Could you be more specific?
helen: Adjectives add description to the noun.
do you say “democrat party” or “democratic party”?
por ejemplo: DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ. VS. DEMOCRAT PARTY OF MISSISSIPPI
TIA
Mark Whitman
you are talking about an informational copy that was produced for mass distribution, Why don’t you compare it to the photo Savannah Guthrie took (she also touched the seal), you can ask the reporters who saw the original, the original that Hawaii sent is still at the White House. To claim an informational pdf copy is a forgery is just silly. The contents of the original are the same as the pdf, that was affirmed by the State of Hawaii. so go on and question the informational copy and be laughed at
This article is about people who claim to have have personal knowledge about Obama’s history. The Cold Case Posse comes to conclusions based on documents and the evidence of others. Mike Zullo never claimed to have witnessed Obama being born in Kenya, or having meet him in 1985 and been told something. The Cold Case Posse doesn’t fit the criteria for this story.
The Cold Case Posse “investigation” has been covered extensively on this site, however:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/tag/cold-case-posse/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/joe-arpaio/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/mike-zullo/
In Birtherstan facts take second place to everything else.
What investigation?
Other BCs from the same period have the same left margin as President Obama. There is link to two of them at the bottom of this website. In the right column,
click on Nordyke twin birth certificate.
There were over 12,000 births in Hawaii in 1961 and you’ve seen the records for how many of them?
—-
It also was one of the earliest.
I was reading RJP. stuff, and I have come to the conclusion that some of the shaping of the paper is caused by the method of micro-filming in the filed documents.
normally you put the book in the filmer, turn the pages and take a picture of each document.
But, as you do that, on a thick book, where the pages do not lie flat, the deeper the document is in the book the more the page is distorted near the binder,
As that happens the page distort, rising near the binder and lowering near the outer edge.
This would affect the perspective the camera sees , and that would result in a different look to the document as the paper distorts and bend
this would happen unless you used an edge clamp , top and bottom , to flatten the page of photoing, And that would not usually be done when mass copying.
No effect on the information, but introduces error in size.
What is there to say? Since it’s inception the CCP has been a wash-rinse-repeat of the following phrases:
“Felony Fraud has been committed!”
“We’ve got VIPS!”
“Person on interest!”
“Experts have been brought in!”
“Send Money!”
“Big news coming in 3 to 6 months!”
They’ve yet to solve a single cold case, as they’ve been focused completely on demonizing Obama. Of course what can you expect from a sheriff, whose spent more time pointing his finger at the camera, for photo ops, than actually solving crimes!
The context of the sentence is looking back 100 years to when Kapi’olani WAS founded.
Parsing the words was and is in a Centennial celebration congratulatory letter is grammatical pettiness in the extreme.
Besides, I thought birthers believed Obama was a low-grade student who only made it to the Ivy League by Affirmative Action. Now claiming that a “grammatical mistake” was “impossible” to come from the President shows their ODS once more.
Goal Poster has already been proven completely wrong, as Birthers always are, but I’ll add this also, from my state senator Sam Slom who made a fool of himself in this & other interviews when he stepped in the Birther “kukae” & had his 15 minutes of fame in Birfistan:
“Sam Slom: No, not at all. I don’t have any information than anyone else. [sic] I will say that we had requests in our office to find out why the letter that was delivered by Congressman Abercrombie two years ago to Kapiolani Hospital from the President was not on display. I tracked that down and talked to several people at Kapiolani. I also talked to Kim Gennaula because originally the hospital said “Boy, we’re so proud of this, we’re going to put this on display in the lobby.”
Kim Gennaula told me that people tried to steal the letter so it’s locked up in the Executive offices right now and we couldn’t even get a copy of the copy.”
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/hawaii-senator-tackles-issues-surrounding-obamas-birth-certificate-and-other-unreleased-personal-documents/123
Kim Gennaula is a popular former newscaster who was Kapiolani’s director of PR at the time.
Keep in mind Birthers, that the team of folks at Kapiolani are focused on saving the lives of children & Birthers should be ashamed that their harassment takes time away from those efforts.
Remember, the birthers are the ones who lionize convicted felon Terry Lakin cowardly putting soldiers at risk by refusing his orders to deploy to Afghanistan. As far as I can tell, they don’t feel shame.
Turns my stomach, when I read about birthers calling men like him heroes.
My favorite birther/Kapi’olani Hospitalstory is about Peter Boyles, a conservative radio talk show host in Denver who called Kapi’olani to inquire whether Barack Obama was born there. The person that he spoke to (probably a hospital phone operator) confirmed the president’s birth there and talked to Boyles for about fifteen minutes about Obama’s life in Hawaii. Of course she was speaking from her own general knowledge and not as any kind of official spokesperson but Boyles treated her as if she was an Obama birth expert.
“Keep in mind Birthers, that the team of folks at Kapiolani are focused on saving the lives of children & Birthers should be ashamed that their harassment takes time away from those efforts.”
Yes, indeed , the do a good job and should be proud of it.
But, they do have a Public Relations Officer, do they not, and what is his job, but to answer questions without disturbing the operation of the Hospital.
What did they say to you when you called?
No comment, necessary , or provided.
A mistress of obfuscation, indeed.
it is amazing how people think!
People in the armed forces are at risk alll of the time, they just have added risk by being is combat zones, and added risks where you are in a combat zone where the REO stop you from providing total protection for your group
The added risk caused by any one person is in-significant. except when that one person is protecting your back! Or flying the aircraft!
Or say when he is your unit’s surgeon.
You’re confused. Terry Lakin threw a tantrum , and refused his CO’s orders to deploy, because he didn’t think Obama is really president. Rather than do his job! He got court marshaled, and whinged about how he’s a victim. Explain the heroism in that!
Because where I’m from, we call that a yellow bellied coward!
Hell, he got off lucky! If this were the 1940s, they would have charged Lakin with treason, backed him up to a wall, and shot him. Possibly on the same day. What he did cost him his medical and military careers, but in the grand scheme of things, he got off pretty lucky!
Thanks. When I went to college, my loan was issued by County Trust (which became Bank of New York and is now Chase) but guaranteed by NYHEAC.
Based upon your experience, it does appear possible that NYHEAC could have been administering Obama’s student loans while he was attending Columbia, but he would not have been eligible for a NYHEAC-guaranteed loan.
It certainly is.
Nonsense. Most people in the military aren’t at risk for anything worse than carpal tunnel syndrome from pounding on a typewriter or, these days, a computer keyboard all day.
Yes, men and women in combat are in danger but they are a very small element of our total military these days.
No. He would have been charged with desertion. In all of WWII, only 1 guy was executed for desertion* .. and his desertion took place over seas … and it took a perfect storm to result in execution:
http://militaryhistorynow.com/2013/03/27/runners-the-untold-story-of-wartime-deserters/
* Well, through official channels and via due process. Who knows about potential summary executions / possible vigilantism / lynching in the field…? I suspect such would be very rare. Demoralizing, barbaric, disruptive to command structure.
Your article is limited to those that say they have personal knowledge so you didn’t mention the CCP, sounds logical. I still do not understand your explanation on the signature. You say it has to do with two different layers, but why would two different layers cause the difference? You say one is bitmap and the other is JPEG, but when a document is scanned it should not alter the way the image looks regardless of the type of image. What kind of scan would copy one part one way and another part another way? That would be altering the document and be unreliable. You also state you got the fuzzy and non fuzzy lines with optimization on, but optimization was never used on the BC, how would it happen then? I fully agree that OCR and optimization cause layers, but in re-creations I have seen, scans that do not have OCR or optimization done, only have about 1 – 3 layers, and they do not turn on/off parts of the document like in the LFBC. Everything was showing up on one layer in the re-creations. The alignment I was referring to, has to do with the carriage return in typewriters. The typed characters on the left generally line up vertically because the carriage return goes back to the same place. even when starting to type on different rows. A couple pictures of other BC’s (Nordyke twins I think) the vertical alignment on the left was very straight, Obama’s wasn’t. There also are some letters that are identical right down to the pixel, that people say are the result of a copy and paste process, do you have an answer for those? And yes, I am very interested in the answer you have about the signature and other stuff. I have asked the same question in other venues and you are the first to even attempt to answer them, I was pleasantly surprised, I thought I would get ignored. I do have another question too, when the BC was originally released, it could be opened in Adobe illustrator. Then when going to the links setting, it would show pieces that were imported into the BC, rotated and resized. Some of these wound up on their own layer. How can this happen if there is no human manipulation?
Maybe I’m thinking a bit farther back in history then.
Wow, talk about a condensed paragraph of all the birther claims ever. Might I suggest actually using the search function and avoid wasting everyones time with stuff that has long been debunked?
Or go to http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/author/john-woodman/ where everything you just said has been explained, as long as you are willing to put in some effort into reading it. Buy the book too, its pretty good.
“•Andrew D. Basiago – Claims to have been involved in a secret government teleportation project with Obama, whom he met on Mars between 1981 and 1983.”
Doc, I’d never heard of this guy, so I went to his “Project Pegasus” site. Turns out you were NOT making this up! 🙂
But I learned a new word: CHRONONAUT.
I think the letter ‘a’ in that word is unnecessary.
It’s not a difference in how a document looks, but in how how Adobe Reader displays them.
This is a grossly simplified example, but it should help you get the idea.
Let’s say that you have two tiny dots, separated by a space the size of one of the dots, and the image you are looking at is just the two dots and the space between, a 3 x 1 pixel image.
Now blow that image up the size of a baseball. What does it look like?
Well it might be a two big squares with a square blank space between them, or it might be two big fuzzy dots with some fuzzy stuff between them. The former is how a bitmap is displayed, and the latter is how a JPG is displayed by Adobe Reader. With the Obama birth certificate different parts of the signature are in different formats, and Adobe Reader WHEN BLOWING THEM UP BIGGER THAN THEY ARE IN THE FILE fills in the extra space in different ways.
But the PROOF is that you can take a document and scan it with Acrobat, zoom in with reader, and you see stuff like in the Dunham signature. And the better proof is that you can take a Xerox WorkCenter 7655, scan a birth certificate, open and save it in Mac Preview, and you’s see all the stuff birthers are saying means it’s a forgery.
Obviously, the re-creations you have seen are done by software and under conditions that are very different from the software and conditions used by the White House to scan the President’s long form, and I might remind you that Cold Case Posse report number 1 by “expert” Mara Zebest said that a real document should have something like 30 layers.
Anyhow, Obama’s form was scanned by a Xerox WorkCentre 7655, opened in Mac Preview, rotated and saved. Do that and you get something very like the President’s PDF.
Silly, it’s not the scan, it’s the compression. MRC, Xerox-style. Once you wrap your head around it, you’ll agree it’s hella-nifty.
It’d be so tempting to launch into a birds-and-bees speech … if given links to a technical paper, do you promise to read them?
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20110069885.pdf
The Nordyke certificates were taken from the DOH microfilm records–you can tell because they are white print on black background. The images were microfilmed from the originals before binding. (We know that the records were microfilmed in 1961 from official sources, and it wouldn’t make sense to microfilm them AFTER binding.)
Obama’s certificate was taken from the original in a bound volume. We know that from comments by contemporary DOH staff. If you have ever photocopied a page from a book, you know that text near the top and bottom gets curved when scanned. You might ask why the text is curved and the security paper is not, but that is because the certificate was copied ONTO security paper. The Security paper is not part of the original certificate in the files. Originals are never on security paper because security paper is designed NOT to copy well.
Keep in mind that the text portion of the birth certificate is a fairly low resolution bitmap–that limits the number of possible configurations a letter can have–and given that that it was the same typewriter, it is not surprising that two letters appear identical.
I did some further research on this. It turns out that the JBIG2 compression method used on the bit map layers has a shape recognition feature. When it sees two shapes that are similar, it stores it only once and references it. The result is that very similar shapes turn in to identical shapes. It’s not OCR in the usual sense, but it does recognize things like letters for compression purposes.
You would do better to go to NBC’s blog for some very detailed on how all this stuff appears no normal Xerox scans.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/
On the other hand when they aren’t identical the birther “experts” say that it’s two different typewriters.
There’s no science behind any of the birther imaging claims, just uninformed speculation,.
Well, if you had read all 2,900 articles on this site, you would have.
Oooh. Loved figures 10-D and 10-E!
I would add those who say that the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit stated on TV in 2010 that President Obama told Gheit that he (President Obama) is “still” Muslim, as is the rest of his family.
No one has yet provided a copy of a video of Gheit saying this, so who knows if he really said it?
Here is one link, but there are many out there.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html
obama’s kenyan family are 7th day adventists
obama eats shellfish, pork, drinks alcohol, wears gold jewelry (a no no for muslim men), probably mixes “threads” in his clothing, etc – he was baptized in1988 when he was 27
some muslim
I know I’ve gone down this rabbit hole before, not sure when… this article in American Thinker(!) by Pamela Gellar(!!) in turn is quoting an article in something called Israel Today.
If you poke around for that title, you’ll find that Israel HaYom, literally “Israel Today”, is a free newspaper with the largest daily circulation in Israel.
This isn’t that Israel Today.
The one Gellar is referencing is Israel Today Monthly, aka nai – News from Israel, a magazine which from at least a cursory glance seems to spend a measurable amount of its time hating on Obama. It would also appear to have some kind of tie-in with, surprise, WND.
It was founded by one Ludwig Schneider, who according to the German Wikipedia is apparently, surprise again, a bit of a crank. Or possibly an anti-Semite.
Don’t forget that he takes Holy Communion too.
“It’s not a difference in how a document looks, but in how how Adobe Reader displays them”.
Did a little more checking. The first part of the signature shows gradations in how much black is shown and I believe that is called anti-aliasing (I think you are calling that JPEG), and the second part shows an even amount of black through the whole line (which is bitmap style). Adobe reader will just display this signature two different ways because they are formatted differently for their respective layers? Are you saying the scanning procedure will use different formatting processes, in different layers, while in the same scan? and that that will be done when no OCR or optimization is done?
Also, no compression/optimization was done in this LFBC so that is not an explanation for the problems.
Yes, I am not only saying this, but it is one of the unambiguous things in the file. Each of the layers (or objects) is labeled with the kind of compression/format it uses, so we can simply read out of the file what format was used for each layer. There is one JPG layer and a bunch of bitmaps using a format called JBIG2.
As for “no optimization” that is simply not true. The Xerox machine optimizes the hell out of documents, not to put too fine a point on it.
If there had been no optimization on the Document it would be well over a Meg in sise, rather than around 300 K
Oh, my. Mark, if you’re willing to exchange correspondence, and patient, I’m willing to attempt to walk you through to an understanding of what you’re seeing.
aesthetocyst@yahoo.com
Bigger; the 150dpi, RGB background would be just over 6Mb, if it were not a highly compressed JPEG. That over 98% compression.
That poor, poor background.
Yes indeed – he had fried shrimp and fried oysters for lunch today.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/08/13/obama-marthas-vineyard-nancys-oak-bluffs/2648371/
Helen,
You once again demonstrate your ignorance. When convicted felon Lakin defied the order of his commander (a winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, by the way) not only placed a burden on the surgeon he was supposed to replace (who had to stay longer) and the person who replaced him (who had to deploy sooner than planned), but he also put the soldiers who’s back he was supposed to have at risk. According to the testimony of the surgeon who replaced him, a couple of days after he arrived in-country he had to handle a mass-casualty attack for which he was not properly prepared due to his training being cut short to deploy in CF Lakin’s “slot”. I wonder if you would be so tolerant of CF Lakin’s failure to live up to his oath if, say, your son had lost a limb or even died because this dishonorable idiot demanded something he wasn’t entitled to and threw a tantrum when he was told he couldn’t have it. He’s lucky all he lost was his pension and a couple of months of freedom. If it had happened on the battlefield, he could have been shot (and his commander would have been right to do so).
I doubt a single member of our armed forces, past or present, would deny, when presented with those facts (and most of what I said is indisputable fact from the court martial), would deny that CF Lakin was a cowardly Blue Falcon* and that the military is better off without him.
The birther’s lionizing of CF Lakin is almost as despicable as some of the things they’ve said about Dr. Dunham. Birthers like yourself and the fellow travelers you silently enable are truly vile and pathetic human beings. You should be ashamed by the company you willingly keep—hopefully your family and friends have abandoned you and spared themselves your seditious babble, but, if not, I pity them.
While I’m an atheist, I truly wish there was a god so that all of the birthers would burn in hell.
* Think of a phrase with the initials “BF” that rhymes with “ruddy sucker”.
Just a minor point. There’s no such thing as a congressional medal of Honor. There is the medal of Freedom, which is given at the discretion of the President, and the Medal of Honor, which is given by an act of Congress. Understandably the medal of freedom is more common than the medal of honor, but they are both the highest honors America can give.
I don’t know which Lakin’s CO has, but it still means he is someone to be deeply respected.
lakin is a recipient of the Bronze Star Medal – The medal is sometimes referred to as the Bronze Star and is the fifth-highest combat decoration and the tenth highest U.S. military award in order of precedence.
Actually, when a document is scanned it must look different. Scanning is what we call a “lossy” process. In other words, the scan necessarily contains less information than the original. This is further compounded by converting the scan (which would be a bitmap) into the pdf format. Pdf is a hybrid format, meaning that it has several different ways to store the image information. The conversion process breaks the information in the bitmap into different parts, each of which can be stored in a different way (depending on what requires the least space). This is another “lossy” process which again distorts the image from the scanned bitmap. The details of these processes are technical, but every birther “anomaly” is easily explained as an artifact of scanning and conversion to pdf.
Wrong question. The answer to your question is that it is the result of algorithmic manipulation (it was done by computer code), but the question you should be asking (regarding all of the artifacts) is, “was it done by a human or an algorithm?”. The fact is that none of the artifacts can be explained as something a human forger would do, but they could all be created by computer code. For instance, a human would recognize a signature as a single unit, but an algorithm might not be able to distinguish it (or might only distinguish a portion of it) from the border. If you were forging a document, would you break it up like the pdf LFBC image? Not unless you were a complete moron.
There you go. If you’re an honest person, you will admit that there is nothing in the LFBC pdf image that suggests forgery, if not, then you’ve upgraded yourself from ignorance to either willful ignorance or stupidity.
It’s your choice.
Thanks for the clarification. I believe that Lakin’s CO was one of only two Medal of Honor recipients on active duty. I would classify the Medal of Freedom as the highest honor a civilian can receive (and, personally at least, I think of the Medal of Honor as a higher honor).
I am a veteran. This post of yours proves you’re a moron. Please don’t insult my brothers and sisters in arms, and myself, by commenting on our service. You’re making my uniform smell bad.
Daniel,
Thank you for your service to our country and your service in telling off Helen.
Two terms are being used here, compression and optimization. It is my understanding that these are the same processes, and there are 2 or 3 versions of them (at least in Adobe illustrator), Their purpose is to be able to send them through the cloud more efficiently by re-ordering the info in them and possibly making the size smaller as well. So there is definitely good reason to do those processes. Every re-creation I have seen that optimization was used, it created like 50 or more layers. When the layers were turned off, sections like squares were turned off in the safety paper background and that happened in a random manner (most likely because of the automatic algorithm it used), and never was only the background removed in one layer, leaving the text there, like the LFBC does. Neither did the text layers work like the LFBC. I did see a re-creation though, where the text layers did act like the LFBC text layers with optimization, but they did not use a green safety paper background. They did not answer my question about the background when I asked about it. I guess my skepticism is that in all the re-creations that are available, no one, and that includes John Woodman, has actually been able to re-create the LFBC in the way that it originally appeared on the White House website in the manner it was said to have been done. I would like to see a re-creation of something similar to the LFBC and have it done in the manner it was stated it was done. As far as the file size being 300K and that meaning optimization was done, I am not sure that in the last 2 years that optimization was not done and the current file size may be reflecting that. I do not know the original file size so I will have to say you have an interesting point.
“I did some further research on this. It turns out that the JBIG2 compression method used on the bit map layers has a shape recognition feature. When it sees two shapes that are similar, it stores it only once and references it. The result is that very similar shapes turn in to identical shapes. It’s not OCR in the usual sense, but it does recognize things like letters for compression purposes”.
Based on this it would seem that all of the same letters would then be identical, and not just 3 or 4 of the same letters identical while others of the same letter vary. Also, this explanation also seems to rely on OCR or optimization, those were not done. The LFBC could not be searched for text, which OCR makes possible, and optimization was not done when it was originally put out, or at least every re-creation I have seen with optimization done, the properties/attributes of the document were inconsistent with how the LFBC worked.
Dr. Conspiracy wrote:
“Obama’s certificate was taken from the original in a bound volume. We know that from comments by contemporary DOH staff. If you have ever photocopied a page from a book, you know that text near the top and bottom gets curved when scanned. You might ask why the text is curved and the security paper is not, but that is because the certificate was copied ONTO security paper. The Security paper is not part of the original certificate in the files. Originals are never on security paper because security paper is designed NOT to copy well”.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
I was just looking at the LFBC on the website. They know have it in a viewer and I am unable to download a copy apparently, but that is OK. What you said about the text is curved but the security paper is not. In the LFBC, top left corner where it says State of Hawaii, you can see the safety paper is bent, and that corner is darkened. Why would the security paper be bent?
Ummmm …. nope.
Yes, it was curving away from the glass, away from the light source.
Since it isn’t, why do you think it is? You may be falling prey to an optical illusion. You know the page being copied was curved, your mind wants that pattern to follow the curve. Look closer and follow the green lines across. Straight as can be.
The Medal of Honor may be given by Act of Congress or by a decision by the command staff. Two different paths. It is presented by the President, to the recipient or to his or her family.
The Medal of Honor is not “won.”
Col. Roberts was Lakin’s superior officer. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his service in Vietnam. At the time Lakin willfully disobeyed an order. there was only one or two Medal of Honor recipients on active duty.
Mark,
On the minuscule chance that you are honest and just confused, I will endeavor to answer your questions.
I’ve done my best to answer all of your questions, so now I would like you to answer two of mine:
Do you believe that the pdf image of the LFBC was constructed by a human?
If so, can you give us a hypothetical workflow which describes how all of the documents, images, and photographs came to be, as well as statements by the Hawai’i DoH and the White House, better than the theory I’ve outlined above and has been discussed on this site and others in great detail? Plus a motive for the forgery in light of the willingness of the DoH to stand behind the legitimacy of the LFBC? If not, you might as well just admit that you think that the LFBC is a forgery because you are prejudiced against President Obama since you can’t come up with a better scientific theory.
ODS in full effect. If you had taken as much effort as to use a ruler (a graphics program tool, not a physical ruler pressed on your curved CRT monitor screen), you’d have realized the lines are straight. You can’t even get that simple thing right, yet require “beyond 100% proof” that other things you consider “wrong” aren’t. Priceless.
Did you apply the same scrutiny to Romney’s BC? Did you ask anyone to scan it in exactly the same way so that a bit-wise 1:1 copy results, and claim foul play if any recreation is different in “some way”?
“originally”??? Hoo, boy, implying a swap. Haven’t heard that one in a while. What would the point of the alleged swap be, unless the new file perfectly addressed birthers’ faux concerns?
That’s a level of predictability that theories dream of, but reality never satisfies. To achieve this, you’d have to be scanning a perfectly uniform document featuring perfectly uniform characters, that happened to align perfectly with the scanner’s resolution. That’s a lot of “perfectly”s.
*sigh*
Look on the page for the word “PDF” in parentheses. Assuming your computer has a “mouse,” move it until the “pointer” (usually a line with a triangle at one end, colloquially known as an “arrow”) is over that word.
On most “web browsers,” such as Mosaic or HotJava, you will see the line-triangle thing turn into a pointing hand. It kind of looks like Mickey Mouse’s glove!
At this point, press the LEFT-HAND button on your “mouse”. It will now “download” a PDF image of the president’s BC — from the cloud!
Helen,
you make no effort to answer ANY of the points brought up by people who have FACTS that repudiate your FKBC. Not a single point they make do you respond to with believable, provable facts.
You sidestep, make other equally improbable accusations rather than just answer a point with a counter point.
That is why you are considered simple minded closet racist by the rest of the logic thinking, fact understanding rest of us.
Magic Pants Romney’s BC has “VOID” all over it.
You are right, that an exact re-creation of the LFBC would be almost impossible, and never meant to imply that that was what I wanted. I would like to see a re-creation that at least looks similar. So far, the re-creations I have seen, that use optimization, create many more layers than appear in the LFBC, when the layers are turned off the layers that change are inconsistent with the way the layers are in the LFBC. So far, all the re-creations I have seen have been consistent with each of the other re-creations, and not with the LFBC. I am also skeptical about different types of optimization being done on two different layers. When optimization is done, the setting is chosen and then applied at one time to the entire document. Seems kind of strange that one type of optimization is selected and then two types of optimization get performed on the document, seems like it would be inconsistent and unpredictable in results. I especially do not see why somebody would want that on a legal document that would lead to arguments like the one we are having.
So far, I still believe that the BC was at least manipulated by human hands. There are more questions to be asked. To go on to your second question will require more digging on my part. Will try to answer it later.
As far as the lines in the safety paper background bending in the top left, I will need to do a bit more checking. My screen is flat (LCD not CRT) but not necessarily high resolution. When I zoom in too far, it gets blurry. I can also see when I move down the edge that other lines do appear to be straight, but not at the top. Will need to do some checking on this.
Yeah, when you zoom in and the data points get further and further apart, the software has that much more to fill in to try and guess what the document looks like. Pieces that didn’t scan well, they can really look freaky when you zoom in and the software applies its logarithms to what data points is has and fills in. There’s some GREAT examples of this if you download some of the Mars pics and attempt to zoom into those. You see all sorts of things that don’t exist but on the computer.
Have you seen the new scans using the Xerox 7655 and 7535 WorkCentres? The segregation of the layers is nearly identical to the LFBC. They have a green background layer with the form and some text that is touching the form lines. The text is in another layer, the date stamp in another, and seal mostly in another. The number of layers varies from 5 to 13. Most of the other layers in the LFBC and the new scans are pretty much bits and blobs just like the LFBC. The files sizes are compatible at around 250 – 300 kB.
NBC has links at his blog. I have the Xerox 7535 scan posted at my blog in a new article, Xerox for Dummies”>
Mark Whiteman: So far, the re-creations I have seen, that use optimization, create many more layers than appear in the LFBC, when the layers are turned off the layers that change are inconsistent with the way the layers are in the LFBC. So far, all the re-creations I have seen have been consistent with each of the other re-creations, and not with the LFBC.
Tsk. Tsk. “…nearly identical…..” isn’t going to cut it for the birthers.
I know. John already informed us that his standard for success is that the scans have to be identical to the LFBC or we have failed. Of course that is only until we succeed and then it will be something else. His standard for success for the Clown Case Posse is slightly less. 😆
You haven’t seen the BC. You’ve seen a scan of the BC. Just to be clear.
So here’s a link to higher-resolution scan of the BC:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg
You’ll notice a couple of interesting things about this. First, it’s hosted on a birther web site. Second, it cannot have been produced from the PDF you’ve been examining. Do you agree this is so?
Note that the data on this higher-resolution scan (date of birth, hospital, and so on) is the same as on the PDF you’ve been examining. Do you agree this is so?
So here’s the big question:
If this is a higher-resolution scan, and it is not derived from the WH LFBC, and it contains the same data… (drum roll): why would anyone waste any time analyzing the WH LFBC? Why not examine the higher-resolution specimen?
Now, you might argue that yes you should examine the WH LFBC, because it is posted on the White House site. This next question is tricky, so take your time and think about it: does that really matter? Explain your answer.
… to overtake John’s ever-fleeing goal posts.
This must be keeping you up nights.
The PDF has never been presented as a legal document, nor has it been represented to be a legal document. It is merely a copy of a legal document.
Well, human hands presumably placed the LFBC into the Xerox WorkCentre 7655, and a human hand presumably pushed the button to make the PDF.
Apart from that, what would be the point of “manipulating” it? In 2008 Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle, a strong supporter of John McCain, confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. The Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that the information contained in the PDF copy which is posted on the White House website matches the information which is on the original document in the DOH vault.
What do you imagine is on the vault copy which would have been changed when the PDF was made? The only details which are relevant to Obama’s eligibility are his date of birth and the location of his birth, and the State of Hawaii has repeatedly confirmed that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Are you saying that the officials in Hawaii have been lying?
Is this what you are looking for?
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/the-proof-forgery-done-by-xerox-workcentre-7655/
Only five layers and they are all similar to the White House PDF.
I’ll bet good money you won’t get straightforward and honest answers.
I presume that you’re not a long-time reader of the blog here, so you wouldn’t know that pretty much every objection to the LFBC has been examined carefully so far as it could be examined.some time ago.
An article that might be of use on this topic is:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/curved-print-straight-background/
One of the things that I have spent a lot of work on is making the site useful for research.
The Bookmarks Menu has a wealth of organized information from many sources. Two special pages are also especially useful:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/debunk/
Finally, there are the quick-reference links lower right. The visitor’s guide (see menu) offers considerable detail about the site’s features and especially the Search function. There is also an article on more effective Google searches:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/google-101/
In order to get a very close approximation, you need two things, the President’s birth certificate, and the same equipment that scanned his. One can make a fairly good approximation of the birth certificate for testing, but only recently have we figured out, and figured out with a great degree of certainty, the equipment and work flow used by the White House.
Now that we know the equipment, the PDF files that come out are astoundingly similar in gross appearance, and in tiny obscure details. It shouldn’t be a surprise that when you scan a similar form on the same equipment you get similar results, but it still is remarkable to me.
Birth certificate forgery arguments based on artifacts in the PDF file are no longer viable. It’s just a matter of getting folks to look at the results.
I looked more closely at the top left where the bending is at. I have to say that I cannot determine if the green safety paper is straight or bending because of the shading that is there. The green safety paper does appear to be straight as you move down the edge though. At the top it does appear to be illusory because of that shading. I still thought it seemed to look kind of strange, I tried doing some scans/copies on my own printer over the spine of a couple of books, and I used a colored graph paper so I could compare the scan to straight lines (couldn’t find any safety paper at the store). I must say in my copies, where the bend is and the shading occurs, the writing, or text, as well as the boxes around the text, pretty much gets distorted beyond recognition in that space. The lines and the penciled in numbers that appear in the LFBC in that shaded area still look pretty well focused. Seems kind of strange, but I realize that I only have an HP Officejet, and will have to assume that the actual printer used has a lot better quality. I also thought the border on the left seemed a little too straight and neat. Most scans I saw were kind of messy at a spine edge, but adding a straight edge next to it, re-created it. So until I know more, the benefit of the doubt goes to you, on this point.
“In order to get a very close approximation, you need two things, the President’s birth certificate, and the same equipment that scanned his”.
While I do not disagree that this would be useful, I do not think it totally necessary. A scanner does not care if a document is a birth certificate, a contract, or a page out of a textbook, but it should have a similar background and format. I do believe there would be lower end models that have the same image quality but not all the other capabilities that are in the original copier. But an as true to life re-creation would be the most convincing.
This is not true the high end office models have totally different capabilities from what you have in lower models. The scan to e-mail function is an important one.
Open this PDF on your computer and right click anywhere on the document. It will tell you the type of scanner available to the White House in April, 2011.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/POTUS_taxes.pdf
I spend endless time trying to a scan of some music to not look like crap on my home HP All-in-one. Scan it on the Xerox at the office and it looks 10x better the first time. Do you find it odd that a $10,000 commercial machine would work better then a little $250 home device?
Surely, someone with your expertise would have access to every machine available. Just contact Arpaio, and he’ll provide you with whatever is necessary to help him convict Obama of something. BTW, if you provide Arpaio with a deposition, “assume” will render your testimony useless. Just thought I’d let you know.
Great. Please provide links to the textbooks and papers you have published. Thanks.
Whew – now I can sleep soundly for at least one night.
Oh, no – now I’m going to be up all night. Make up your mind.
Are you some sort of commie?
You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. … It’s been established. He was born here.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
That’s a bet you would probably win.
I posted at 6:56 p.m. Doc then posted notes about scanning at 8:51 p.m. and 8:57 p.m. Mark responded to Doc’s posts, but he ignored mine.
At this point I’d be impressed if he just showed the integrity to admit that no one has claimed that the PDF of the LFBC is a legal document.
As predicted, you won’t get any straightforward and honest answers to your questions from Mark Whiteman.
Same tired birther dance.
Quelle surprise.
I can’t recall one birther who has explained why the PDF matters at all if the information that is pertinent to eligibility has been verified (repeatedly) by the relevant, legal authority of the State of Hawaii.
I have noticed that some birthers try to somehow make the President responsible for reporting his birth information and the accuracy of the data and keep moving the goalposts towards the White House rather than admit it is the responsibility and legal authority of the state where he was born just like with all citizens including themselves (if they’re not foreign birther bigots).
I didn’t get any answers to my (more serious) post either, but in his defense, I had just slapped him around pretty hard for his inability to find the “PDF” link.
But really. Mark, you can’t find the download button in your quest to BRING DOWN THE PRESIDENT. You gotta up your game, man.
(It’d be like a supposed “computer systems analyst” being stymied by connecting a device to a network. That’s just not gonna happen, is it?)
That’s because Birthers are just name-callers in the final analysis. They don’t have any real evidence of a crime on Obama’s part, so they just declare he’s committed one. The informational PDF which they call a forgery, isn’t offered as an original document, and complaints about it being one carbon atom short of the number of carbon atoms making up the original document whose vital information it authentically reflects (as confirmed by the appropriate officials in Hawaii), don’t make it a “forgery” any more than the same information would be a “forgery” if it were spelled out with Carl Gallup’s bodily waste on Mike Zullo’s front lawn.
These crazy Obama-haters are nuts now to the point where if Obama ordered a spy satellite to photograph a foreign agent rendezvous at a sidewalk restaurant and there happened to be a dollar bill visible on a nearby table, Mike Zullo and Carl Gallups would accuse the president of ordering the counterfeiting of U.S currency.
Xerox holds a patent on the kind of compression found in the President’s birth certificate. For that reason a Xerox scanner that implements that type of MRC compression (or maybe a machine containing the licensed Xerox code) is absolutely essential for reproducing the President’s certificate PDF, and any attempt with something else has to fail to some extent. A scanner is one thing, but this Xerox device creates the PDF file with its own internal software, and there are innumerable ways to create a PDF. The equipment is essential to the process if it actually creates the PDF.
We’re talking about a machine that can not only scan a document, but convert it to a PDF file and then email the resulting file to someone. Papit tried lots of software for computers and found that it didn’t do what he saw on the President’s form. However, the software that created the President’s PDF was in the Xerox WorkCentre, not on a computer, and Papit never tested anything like that (because if he had, he would have found a match to the President’s form).
If you look at the source code for the PDF, you’ll find that that Preview on a Mac computer is designated the creator of the PDF, and this was noticed almost from the beginning. So we knew that the file had been opened and saved on a Mac with Preview–and that is another essential step, because Preview writes out a different version of the PDF standard than the Xerox does–and that forces it to re-compress the bitmap layers which creates the rest of the artifacts we see in the President’s file.
You do not like these guys, but this is about the shortest and most pertinent I can find right now about conflicting statements from Hawaiian officials. At 35:29 it starts with Linda Lingle, Chiyone Fukino, and Neil Abercrombie and is about 10 minutes. http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/obama-bc-fake-video-from-cspoa-2013-convention-chief-investigator-mike-zullo-presents-evidence-showing-obama-birth-certificate-is-forged/
In regard to higher and lower end models. In television sets, you can have high end TV’s that have features with Blu Tooth capabilities, Wi-Fi, cameras, extra inputs for multip[le devices to be connected, and you can have lower end models that have just as good a picture but do not have the bells and whistles of the others. GM cars, there have been many makes and models, and a great number of them used almost the same engine and drive train for a long time, some were a little nicer and cost more, others a bit more basic and were cheaper. I do not understand why a lower end printer could not have the same copying technology but have some of the features removed so it can be better adapted to smaller, or medium sized, work environments. It is a very common practice. Do not understand why it is not possible for printers.
Dr. Chiyone Fukino, made statements about the birth certificate that it was 1/2 written and 1/2 typed, and that was about 2 weeks before the LFBC was posted at the WH. When that came out, the description did not fit the LFBC. There was a birth certificate that was put out several years back that was 1/2 written and 1/2 typed and was taken as a forgery back then as well. I find it strange that Dr. Fukino’s description matches one that was said to be a forgery. There have also been a couple videos comparing the two BC’s, and showing that they seemed to have identical pencil marks in them (Mainly the number 2). I really have not paid much attention to that BC, but the conversation here was reminding me of it and I find it interesting.
I have not argued about where Obama was born, so in that sense, I am not being a birther. I do believe the LFBC is a forgery. I feel that there is a level of trust that is implicit to every person holding office, as well as to that office itself. If the LFBC is indeed a forgery, that trust is violated. If they will misrepresent on this level, I believe they will do much worse. That is part of the reason the LFBC is important to me, even if the information in it is correct.
Some of your arguments are interesting, and some I find difficult to accept, like two different types of optimization going on, in the same document at the same time, that caused the anomaly in the Ann Dunham Obama signature, even though the signature is on two layers.
Also, I seem to get an awful lot of notifications in the email for posts that are here. Do I get notified every time somebody posts at obamaconspiracy.org but only get sent to this page?
I appreciate the answers you have given. So far you are the only guys to answer back on anything that would be considered technical. I do have more questions, but I am too tired right now. Maybe later.
Yes, the pdf of the LFBC is supposed to be an accurate and true representation of the original record, it is not itself the legal document.
Yes, if that Xerox printer is unique with a patented software system, then it would require that specific model to re-create the problem. Absolutely.
There are laser printers, ink jet printers, dot matrix printers, and others. Each type has different levels of expected qualities and performance. If somebody forks $10,000 for a printer, the image and performance better be great. The device used for the LFBC must be good if it can still clearly copy the image that is not sitting flat on the glass.
Well, I went to the WH site at 12AM last night, so I did not look real hard for a download. I went back today after reading about clicking on PDF and it went to another screen that opened on the whole page, but did not find a download link, I did not look real hard then either. When I got home today, I went to the copy I already had anyways, but thanks for the instructions anyways.
First, let me make sure I understand: Have you seen the original long form record in Hawaii or, as I suspect, are you talking about the images of the certified copy you have seen on the internet?
If that’s the case then there is no way for you to know if the original is a forgery, is there?
Same with the certified copy, right? You haven’t seen that either, right?
So….all you’ve seen are the images on the internet, right? And, for the sake of discussion, let’s say they are forgeries…..what difference does it make since you appear to acknowledge that Obama was born in the U.S. and the internet images mean nothing legally?
Bottom line: What’s the point?
What is your degree in?
Mark, you do seem to be possibly looking for answers (even though you seem to have already come to a specific conclusion). So let’s give this a shot.
It’s not that we “do not like these guys,” thus we reject what they say. Rather, it’s that what they say is a load of unsupportable dingos’ kidneys, and we do not like them because they are apparently incapable of doing anything other lying through their teeth.
This 10 minutes of mudslinging basically boils down to, “You should not believe the canonical authority for Obama’s birth certificate when they say the birth certificate is legit.” They spend a lot of time in semantic games, picking and choosing phrases they can parse in their own way, while skipping over unequivocal flat statements such as Fukino saying, as posted on Hawaii.gov:
“Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen”
Mark, how do you interpret this? Is there some way you can make this say anything other than “Barack Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American Citizen”?
Re: “half written and half typed.” read this as “part written, part typed”. Note also that there is another page to the birth certificate, containing confidential medical information which Fukino would have seen, which we do not get to see. But more importantly: really? This is something to get concerned about? Listen to all the things Mark Gillar says that just aren’t so, and you worry that Fukino once said “half written and half typed”?
Much other arm-waving and slicing, including moving now-governor Abercrombie into the delivery room based on his statement that he was “here” — Honolulu — when Obama was born. Mischaracterization of what Abercrombie was looking for, which was publicly releasable information on Obama’s birth — that is, information not covered by privacy laws. (He was right of course, there was such a record — the birth index — and it was indeed available publicly.)
Now a long chunk taken up by a recording of a reporter who admitted shortly thereafter — long before this CCP recording was made — that what he said was, plain and simple, completely made up.
Some slagging on Jill Nagamine, accusing her of partisanship, and saying “wow, everyone says she confirmed the record.” No, no one said that. Because that’s not her job.
More dancing over words, ignoring that Onaka has indeed verified, several times over, the data presented for Barack Obama.
Do you see a pattern here? Here it is: The CCP is not honest about the information they present. Why is this?
Do you see similar dishonesty on the part of the people here? No, you do not.
Since I have not seen the original, therefore I cannot say it is a forgery? By the same token if you have not seen the original, how can you say it is genuine? I believe it is a forgery because of the inconsistencies found in the document when it is opened in Adobe Illustrator, primarily. I brought some questions about it, some were answered, and I am still not satisfied enough to believe the LFBC is genuine. I will have to bring more questions about it later. Debate is on going.
If there is no BC but the info is accurate, why did they not say it? Why the lies and cover up if everything is so above board? You folks do not like the CCP because you think they are a pack of liars, but then it does not matter to you if they lie about showing a BC as long as the info is accurate? At one point you care if people are lying, but at another point you do not care if they are lying, seems strange.
Obama backing a forgery, as well as Hawaiian officials putting out a fraudulent government document is a criminal act, why shouldn’t I be concerned about that?
If they have lied about this, what else are they lying about?
@ Misha, I have graduated High School, have an AA in Liberal Arts, a Cisco Certified Network Associate certification, a CompTia A+ certification, as well as a Testout PC Pro certification. You do a good job of leaving out the context of things I typed, you do a good hatchet job. Since you cut that sentence out, I assume you also read the reasons why, but doc did give a reason for definitely using the same printer, apparently it has software that is unique to it.
Well, I put up something about statements from Hawaiian officials. You feel that everything they say is a pack of lies, so if I try to put up anything later on, I will need to find other sources than them.
As far as the natural born citizen requirement, my understanding is that both parents were supposed to be citizens of the US at the time of birth. Officially Obama’s parents were not. Unofficially, I do not know who Obama’s real father is.
And there you have it. This is exactly what a real document expert would say: you cannot tell that a document is genuine or fake without looking at it.
So how would you describe someone who says that a document is fake without looking at it, as Shurf Arpaio and the CCP have? Oops, and you said this too. Ouch.
@ gorefan, I think there is too little to really get a good opinion on what he has. I think I would need to see his follow up on it.
By that reasoning, who in the US *does* have a genuine BC?
Since every legal scholar in the US (including the entire SCOTUS), apart from a handful of birther lawyers, disagrees with you, how can you reconcile this cognitive dissonance? I mean, other than “they are all in on it, all tens of thousands of them” which is crazier than a flock of flying monkeys?
Mark,
If you select a sentence or two in someone’s comment (like the question you are answering), it will be easier to understand who you are replying to as well as providing a link to that comment. One of the more annoying traits of most birthers that post here is an inability or unwillingness to follow the common etiquette of the blog. Politeness shows respect to your readers and helps build your credibility. Just a suggestion.
You may be new to this, but we are not. Our minds are made up, not because of preconceived bias, but on the basis of extensive scientific arguments (which stand or fall on their merits) and overwhelming relevant authority (for instance, the Brazilian professor who holds the patent for Multi-Rastar Compression).
The device used to copy the original bound document was a scanner of some sort at the Hawai’i DoH—there is no way to determine what this was once the scanned image was printed onto security paper in Hawai’i. The document scanned in the White House would have lain flat on the scanner.
How many other PDFs have you opened in illustrator to test your theory? Have you tried scanning your own BC on a xerox copier, compressed, optimized saved as a PDF and then opened in Illustrator to see what might happen? PDFs are never meant to be opened in illustrator.
It’s not about not liking them it’s that they have repeatedly got caught saying things that aren’t true. It’s that their “investigation” was backwards. Instead of interviewing people who might have direct tangible knowledge first thing like say DOH officials they instead went straight to birthers and only birthers. The CCP has no accounting of where their money goes and gets spent on despite supposedly being a charity. The CCP presented falsified coding manual codes they claimed were from 1961 but were from 1968.
Do you not understand how stupid this sounds? How can the issuing authority in this case the Hawaii DOH “put out a fraudulent government document”? They own the means of production anything they issue and certify is considered genuine.
So to answer Misha’s question you have no relevant experience. Networking has nothing to do with the PDF claims, CompTia has nothing to do witht he PDF claims. You have no relevant experience.
I find it difficult to accept that you read the Xerox patent on multiple types of compression in one PDF document and still think it’s irregular in Obama’s birth certificate. I find it difficult to accept that you could follow the links I provided that show the Electoral Vote of the State of California in the National Archives have signatures on multiple layers, and still not accept this as normal. I find it difficult to accept that you find our arguments “interesting” while not engaging in the back and forth of the argument, providing any critique of them or offering any justification for not accepting them as conclusive. In summary, I find it difficult to accept that you are being honest with us (or perhaps not honest with yourself.)
If you’re not going to look at the evidence, read the links, make the smallest attempt at independent thought, then you are wasting your time here and you wasting our time answering your questions.
If I decide that all you are doing here is raising questions for the hell of it, then you will be banned from the site permanently.
So then you just believe in nonsense. There is no two citizen parent requirement but under your theory does it take two living citizen parents at birth?
By that same unofficial standard, you don’t know who any of the previous 42 Presidents’ fathers were either. Somehow the country survived and it totally isn’t a double standard.
Mr. Whiteman, lay out for us the basis of your believe that a President needs two citizen parents. Make sure you discuss the court cases which say otherwise. Make sure you tell us the Constitutional basis for denying eligibility to a person who does not know his Father, or an adoptee with sealed records.
Its not our fault that you’re operating on an incorrect assumption.
Actually and technically, that’s not true.
Professional artists and graphic designers use Adobe Illustrator to open PDFs all the time to gain access to the vector artwork within. For example, if I need a logo in a PDF that has the logo as well as other items such as text and other artwork, I would open the PDF in Adobe Illustrator, select just the vector logo and then copy and paste it onto a blank Illustrator file to isolate just the logo for further uses. PDF forms are opened in Illustrator to make minor revisions and then re-saved as a PDF.
But yes, for viewing purposes and a quick and handy way just to disseminate information, a PDF once generated is meant to be left alone.
Completely agree. Illustrator is a great PDF editor. Further, if you are creating a PDF in Acrobat, select a vector element, and tell Acrobat you want to edit that element, it will open that element in Illustrator (or the vector editor of your choice), and then return it, updated, to the complete PDF in Acrobat. Nifty. The same functionality works with rastered objects, going out to Photoshop or another raster editor.
Way back on 4/27/11, a blogger wrote that he had opened the PDF in Illustrator, saw a structure he didn’t understand, blogged about it, and the bizarre ritual of mindlessly (and pointlessly) futzing around with this file in Illustrator became a nationwide birfer fad. A ritual the diehard faithful are performing to this day.
I have an early beta version of AI 88 still loaded on a Mac SE (with the first SuperDrive!) and on a floppy disk at home somewhere.
It’s not to difficult to spot a birther bigot who is playing with Adobe products and doesn’t have a clue. The ones with an (alleged) IT background are especially strange and a little pathetic. They tend to scream MAC instead of Mac (and we know why).
If you graduated high school and have an associate’s degree, you surely must have taken history and civics classes. So please tell us where you were taught that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents at birth. Were you taught that in school? Did you read it in a textbook? Was it mentioned during the debates on the Constitution? Is it in The Federalist Papers?
Please cite a single textbook, school syllabus, or anything published prior to 2008 which makes the two-citizen parent claim. Then, when you can’t find anything, ask yourself why.
No fewer than 10 courts, plus courts of appeal have ruled in Obama and McCain eligibility lawsuits that there is no such parental requirement. See:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/lawsuits/recent-court-rulings-on-presidential-eligibility/
So it find it difficult to accept that you hold the view expressed below.
I note that you have questions about things which are well-documented. You ask questions that have been answered. You are oblivious to the evidence. So your not knowing who Obama’s father was says much more about you than it does about the President. Your mental defects cannot be remedied by visiting this web site.
Your understanding is wrong. Perhaps it would help if you didn’t rely on birther websites to get your “understanding” of the law or facts.
The total lack of give and take leads me to think that we are dealing with a concern troll here.
Sorry, but I cannot answer every question you put up. Some have asked about degrees and natural born citizen and I gave my opinion and/or degrees. My main concern and focus is on understanding the LFBC, the other issues surrounding Obama and the LFBC are important too, but I am only one person and am not able to fully respond on those. I am going to try and focus on some other questions regarding the LFBC and COLB, since you folks seem willing to give answers to them. But it is going to take me a day or two to work on them. You say I do not know enough about compression to understand what is really going on, and I must admit that my knowl;edge on it is limited. I need to go, work is starting. more later.
So how do you get around this?: http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
You put up a pointer to 10 minutes of the CCP slinging every piece of mud they could find to impugn the officials of the State of Hawaii. It’s 10 minutes of unsubstantiated trash, which I did go through and debunk for you. Not by saying “we hate these guys,” but by showing you evidence that they are not telling the truth.
It’s 10 minutes where the CCP is quotemining, slandering, and devoting a significant chunk of that time to a reporter’s unsubstantiated screed that the reporter himself apologized for and said was wrong.
Just to be clear on this: The reporter, Mike Evans, said his piece in January 2011. Within a couple of days, he then admitted he’d never talked to the governor about this at all.
And over two years later, in June 2013, the CCP is still using this reporter’s words as a key element of their proof that the State of Hawaii cannot be trusted to accurately report the circumstances of anyone’s birth.
We don’t “feel” that everything they say is a pack of lies. We can document that the things they are saying to bolster their claims are just not true.
So yeah. You really should find other sources than them.
That and that he shifts memes when cornered. Pretending to want a cure for his PDF Madness …. then revealing he’s acquired broad-spectrum Birther Disorder. The entire mélange of ODS, if you will.
Your opinions are meaningless unless you can support them with facts or cited authority.
Has anyone else noticed that our latest concern troll’s last name is WHITEman?
Just asking.
You might save yourself a lot of time and angst if you spent a day or two going through all the materials right here on this site that address virtually every question you have raised.
Just a thought.
He has a Facebook page. His “favorites” include Steve Stockman, Patriot Action Network, Extremely Pissed Off Right Wingers, and Obama Release Your Records.
But he is not a birther!
I have always marveled at the many different and distinct ways the President is supposedly ineligible. Even when those distinct ways conflict with each other. For instance he forged his birth certificate (even “forging” it without changing any of the data) and yet for some reason kept his father as a non-citizen parent. You’d think that when the President was “poorly forging” his birth certificate he would have realized that he shouldn’t admit to his grand usurpation (or maybe when he was writing his best-selling book).
Birthers think their conspiracy theories about Indonesian adoption, two citizen parents, and de Vattel writing the constitution are evidence of how guilty the President is. That it comes off as smearing the President with everything including the kitchen sink eludes them completely.
When a hardcore birther bigot cites Kerchner’s WordPress blog as a source, you know you’re probably dealing with someone who either doesn’t understand or care about credible evidence or reasonable and credible authorities.
As JPotter so aptly described it, this is broad-spectrum Birther Disorder (bsBD).
And it comes complete with backup birthery de Vattelism and missing father smears and FUD.
It rarely takes long for the true and ugly motivations to bubble past the scabs to the surface.
Yes, it rarely takes very long for the true and ugly motivations for smearing the President and deceased members of his immediate family to surface.
And then they usually pretend they can’t understand why people are disgusted by yet another birther bigot and self-proclaimed expert spreading paranoid and delusional lies in a pathetic attempt to delegitimize the President of the United States.
Yes. Probably a mulatto trying to pass.
It sounded contrived.
I found what appears to be his Facebook page; I wonder if it’s the same one you saw, Rickey? It also appears that he’s recently scrubbed it, as I’ve found cached posts he’s made about BC forgery theories, that are now deleted — one from less than a day ago, wherein he says he’s been making posts about Obama’s BC for about a year.
I don’t see any reason to divulge too much about him, other than that he lives in a major west coat metropolitan area, and that “Mark” would seem to be his middle, not his first, name.
That’s the one. I noticed that his educational history matches what he told us here, so there is every reason to believe that he is indeed our latest concern troll
He also has been commenting favorably upon birther YouTube videos for the past six months.
So are you guys gonna hate me more because you found out I have made posts about Obama’s birth certificate in fb? Are you also gonna try to make me out to be some kind of racist because my last name has White and man in it? I realize it is difficult to look through the Internet and see my motivations for what they really are, and whether I am honest or not, I would expect you to have some skepticism about me, same as I would have about you regarding your motivations. You think that I may be a troll, is it not possible that some of are you are trolls in fb? Many of you seem to have the same talent for ridicule as some people in fb. Since you do not seem to care for conservative pages, I presume that that is putting you in the left of the center politically. Is that gonna be a problem for you when there are more questions about the birth certificate? I have expressed skepticism about the explanation of the signature of Ann Dunham Obama. No one is disputing the difference in the writing. The explanation given here is that a different form of optimization was performed because that part of the signature is in a different layer. Sounds like a simple enough explanation. My problem is that it seems to be an unreliable form of compression, and I do not understand why people would want to have their work altered in the slightest fashion like this. If this keeps occurring, then the next scan scan may take the anti-alias portions and convert them to bitmap, and the bitmap portion is converted to anti-alias? I mean when there a say 100 copies running of something, people generally want them to look alike, not little differences here and there. Even at this, this does not mean that that form of compression does not exist, but I fail to understand why somebody would want to use it in a document like this. The other reason for my skepticism, is another person showed how in Adobe Illustrator, one could do writing in it, and perfectly re-created writing that matched the unham Obama bitmap lines. To me, the simplest explanation is the latter.
To you a 52 year conspiracy involving thousands of people and the complicity of the State Department of Health, members of congress, the state of Hawaii, and several presidential explanations is the simplest explanation?
And one can explain this quite trivially. The parts that touch other objects tend to remain in the jpeg layer, the others move to the foreground. This is quite repeatable…
That’s an argument from ignorance my friend. You cannot understand, therefore…
But if you understand how you can compress documents far more effectively without really affecting how the picture looks, you may come to understand why…
Check out how this is standard workflow on a Xerox WorkCentre which reproduces a dozen or so observed ‘anomalies’…
What now?
And I have found that the similarities are quite limited and fall apart quickly with minimal scrutiny…
You need to look a bit deeper than what you ‘see’ and actually look more carefully at the similarities and differences. Those provide you with the telltale signs that will allow you to conclude forgery or not.
Check out this blog
Let me know if you have any questions. I believe I can explain all your concerns with a simple workflow.
Why would someone do that? Did your “another person” have an explanation?
It’s the birther version of “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon”.
Polland at the WND… He succeeded at a superficial level but failed to match the many details. I may write up something about this failed experiment.
But my question is why would someone change her signature…..to what end?
And, of course, we are talking about the scanned image(s) and not the original, right?
While most obots are on the left, politically speaking, it is not hard to find the occasional conservative amongst us. On the other hand, it is absolutely impossible to find a liberal obot or someone who says something like, “I really like President Obama’s positions and policies, but I wont vote for him because I don’t think he is eligible”. Why do you think that is?
The problem is not the conservative sites you are linked to, but the birther sites. If you’ve been birfing for any length of time, that means you cannot possibly be ignorant (which says nothing bad about you—everyone is ignorant on a wide range of topics), but instead must be willfully ignorant (which is another thing entirely).
There is no reasonable explanation for the separation of text and objects into foreground and background layers which is why the forger explanation has never been based on positive knowledge as much as on ignorance.
You’re kidding, right. You don’t understand why someone would scan the BC as a PDF, one of the most widely used formats for loading a file onto the internet. And you don’t understand why they would want the PDF to be at the smallest file size possible when it was easy to assume that hundreds of thousands of people would be downloading it.
The AP photographs do not show evidence of anti-aliasing etc, those artifacts are all caused by the Xerox WorkCentre…
The technical stuff is beyond me. I’m an old newsman, a professional skeptic, and that’s what prompts me to ask “why” about these things. The answers are so twisted that they fail of their own weight.
And that makes sense to me: A picture, albeit a digital picture these days, is different than a scan.
No, not at all. And I agree with you that the comments about your last name were out of line. People should learn that a funny last name is not any reason on its own to presume there’s something funny going on.
(However, would it kill you to toss in a paragraph break or two? And maybe learn how to use this site’s quote feature, like all the other Cisco Networking Academy kids have? I don’t “hate” you for not doing this, but it does continue to cast a shadow on your putative technical acumen.)
Now, my two simple questions to you:
1. Now that I’ve listened and responded to the CCP’s slagfest on the credibility of Hawaii’s authority on certifying the BC, do you still think their own credibility in that area is anything greater than zero? If so, why?
2. Since you seem to at one point agree that it’s impossible for anyone to confirm or deny the authenticity of a document without actually seeing the document, and none of you, us, the CCP, or any “expert” enlisted by the CCP has indeed actually seen it, why do you still believe the LFBC is forged?
(I may be putting words in your mouth here. Perhaps I should ask: DO you think it is possible to confirm or deny the authenticity of a document without actually seeing the document?)
Btw, you really should get in touch with Garrett Papit. He’s apparently needed someone who knows how to hook devices up to a network, for about a month now.
Even there the two become somewhat hard to distinguish. But so far it does not make sense to apply MRC to photographs 🙂
In both document scanning and photographs there are various standards: RAW which contains the most information allowing one to make fine tuning adjustments, TIFF which is a pure bitmap, and can be compressed, even lossy, but typically is not. And JPEG a well known lossy standard. Yes, there are JPEGs that are not lossy compressed but again, we are talking about real world use cases..
Not all that different. It’s all just light going through a lens system and hitting a sensor, the electronic output of which is then digitally processed and spit out as a bag of bits. The major difference is in the details of how it’s all packaged up physically.
Our bank now lets us “scan” all our checks for deposit (the very few we still get as pieces of paper) by taking pictures of them with our camera phones, which is pretty darned convenient.
Interesting. Thanks for the lesson.
Now that I think about it that makes sense. Thanks.
And, yes, the scanned check thing is just fascinating. No more floating checks!!
There are two other major differences between scans and photographs: lens distortion, and lighting. Differences in how the information is gathered. No differences in how it is stored.
It makes sense to apply MRC to certain photographs, when file size is a consideration … any with text (like signage … or superimposed captions or date stamps), legibility of which needs to be preserved.
@ justlw 1) I will need to check on the statements of the Hawaiian officials a bit more. It has been awhile since I read about them, and a refresher is about due. At any rate, Linda Lingle never saw the BC, she sent Chiyome Fukino to do that. I found references to the half written comment in another article, but did not find the actual quote. At any rate, need to do more checking in that area.
Quite frankly, I still have questions about the BC’s authenticity, and if I question that, the Hawaiian official’s statements do not mean that much to me. If what they are presenting is questionable to me, then what they are saying is also questionable.
2) This is one area where I relearned a bit on this question. The LFBC is supposed to be a true and accurate image of an original document. Showing that this LFBC, posted at the White House, that it is a forgery does not in itself prove there is no BC or that Obama is not qualified to be president. But it does raise questions. I still have questions as to the authenticity of the LFBC.
I thought I would post more questions right away, but this seems to be such a lion’s den now, that I feel like I am going to be treated like a troll and be dismissed regardless of the question, why do I want to expose myself to that? At any rate, I intend to go through more of the pages here, at least the topics I am interested in. I did a short look through and none of the topics seemed to talk about what I was interested in or the questions I had. but in 2900 articles (as somebody pointed out) there has got to be something. So later.
As noted it would be nice if you used the quote back function. Notice the word Quote in brackets up next to the date. You can use that to quote back the entire message or any material you highlight like I just did above. Thanks.
Now….a couple questions to try and clarify exactly what you are concerned about:
Do you question the original form filled out in 1961 and that is in the Department of Health vault or the certified copies of it that the White House has?
In either case what makes you question their authenticity……especially the original, typewritten form?
We await with bated breath.
I went to quite a lot of trouble answering your questions with details and facts. Ignored them like water off a duck’s back.
If you can’t process the answers to your questions already answered, what possible justification could have have for pestering us with more?
See, that’s the thing. The PDF is not “the LFBC.” It’s a scan, created solely to be posted to the web. It has no legal standing, nor is it intended to have any legal standing. It’s a picture of a piece of paper. Actually, it’s a picture of a picture of a piece of paper, but you haven’t even gotten to the point where you can internalize that yet, I would say.
What you, or anyone examining the internal workings of the PDF, are doing is equivalent to looking at a bulletin board that has some data pinned to it, and deciding that the data may be false because the bulletin board has a fake wood grain.
You cannot determine the authenticity of the president’s LFBC by looking at the internal workings of a picture of it. The anomalies that you are talking about it are not features of the president’s LFBC; they are artifacts of this particular picture of it. These artifacts do not exist in other pictures of it.
The term “Obot” as I understand it, is short for “Obama robot” and I understand that term to mean “mindless supporter of Obama.” So to the extent that there is some such thing as an Obot, that person would have to be of the same political persuasion as President Obama.
What I would rather say is that anti-birthers are not all Obots, but include persons of different political persuasions, liberal and conservative.
Mindless supporter of his politics, or of his eligibility? It takes a rational person to split those hairs. To birfers, if’n you ain’ a’birfin’, you is an OBOT!
I’ve always thought of the terms “obot” and “anti-birther” as synonymous (and tend to use them that way), but as long as people understand what meaning is intended, it doesn’t really matter to me. Out of curiosity, do you remember when the term anti-birther started being widely used? It’s common these days, but I don’t ever remember hearing it back in the day.
I started consciously using it a month or so, based on my own thinking about the correct term. And it does seem to be trending elsewhere. Originally, I accepted the term “Obot” under the idea that labels are meaningless–an idea I no longer agree with. The term “anti-birther” was first used in a comment on this blog by Kimba in July of 2009.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/07/hawaii-homelands-declares-short-form-good-enough/#comment-12894
It has appeared in 644 comments over the years.
I first used “anti-birther” in a similar context in a 2011 article, when I described The Fogbow as “a very successful anti-birther web site.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/02/war-of-words/
My understanding of the meaning of “Obot” (in my comment above) was expressed by commenter Dave in November of 2010 when he said:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/11/the-birther-nonsense-will-be-put-to-rest/#comment-77288
Nice feature. Thanks for the heads up.
The questions would be related to the certified copies.
I will have to get back to you later on those questions. Right now I am going through this website. If I find answers there, I won’t bother with them here.
Yes, but those artifacts should be consistent with the narrative given, and with the copying process. If they are not, If there are inconsistencies and problems that cannot be adequately explained, then there is a problem, isn’t there? And then determining if the problem is big enough to warrant a closer look, is another step.
Something tells me that you will keep breathing.
You guys have more stuff on the CCP then I do. I may have to start using you for a reference.
OK. Just understand that you haven’t seen the certified copies. All you have seen are pictures of them provided by the White House.
If I understand it is the anomalies in the pictures, the PDF’s, that concern you, right?
I believe if you read what’s available on this website and listen to some of the folks here you will find out that those anomalies have no bearing on the certified copy or the original document.
Here’s a question for you: How should the facts of a person’s birth be authenticated? Because, according to the US Constitution, the Hawai’i DoH is the final authority on who was and who wasn’t born in Hawai’i. You are working to set up a situation where it would be impossible for anyone to authenticate their birth certificate because you reject the verification proscribed by law. The fact is that President Obama’s birth in Hawai’i must be taken as fact in any courtroom in the US. You yourself cannot meet the standard that President Obama already has (COLB, LFBC, DoH official statements including sworn testimony). Why is what has already been presented not enough for you?
Because, we answered your questions in good faith. If you don’t try and do the same for us, then your lack of integrity will be obvious. The way to avoid being treated as a troll is to not act like a troll. Doc and the rest of the commenters here have seen this play out over and over again and you are beginning to look like the ghost of trolls past. Ultimately, you will have only two options: admit that President Obama is eligible or (implicitly) admit your own dishonesty. I admit that it is a pretty crappy hand for you, but you chose to play it. You don’t have to like President Obama, but if you have any integrity then you have to accept that the facts say that he is eligible for his office. Why is that so hard?
Thanks for the info Doc. Anecdotally, I don’t recall it being in widespread use before the 2012 election, but that may be a result of my own inattentiveness rather than actual trends. My own thinking on the term “obot” is to accept the title and show that it doesn’t mean what the birthers think, but I understand the desire to avoid inaccurate terms. And I certainly agree that names matter—just think about “death panel” or “death tax” or “patriot act” or…
The procedures that have been outlined seem to be good procedures, if they were properly followed. A narrative was given about how the LFBC was obtained, and that procedure seems to be a good one if it was indeed executed in good faith. If legitimate questions remain to the authenticity of the copies that were put out for public use, then the good faith of the certifying institutions is in question.
So far it is not enough, for me, because I still have questions that have not been answered. I will have to get back to you with those questions though. So far I have gone over every section in the header up top, and have not found anything that answers the questions I have. I need to work on those questions though. May take a couple days to get them.
Well, you cannot see my motives through the Internet. I do not consider myself to be a troll, but that does not mean to say I do not come off as one. I have also tried to deal with people that seemed like trolls to me. Some of the same arguments I got in fb, I get here. Goes two ways.
Regardless of the motivations of either side here, there are some questions I would like answers on, and I intend to bring the questions later.
Then you have not looked very carefully.
Yeah, they’re grifters.
It is not the policy of the Hawai’ian DoH to provide certified copies of the long form—they made a special exception to that policy at the request of the president. Not something that the average person can do. There are laws that govern this sort of thing, and by those laws the COLB that the president initially showed is prima facie evidence in any US court. In other words, it is proof of the facts of his birth absent evidence to the contrary. While the birthers have lied about a great many things in their attempts to smear the president, they have never presented any sort of evidence that would even begin to call the COLB into doubt. Furthermore, the facts on the COLB (and the LFBC) have been repeatedly verified by Hawai’i DoH officials, further raising the bar for birthers’ burden of proof (the one they couldn’t even come close to clearing before).
Why do you (and other birthers) think that it is okay to hold President Obama to a standard that you yourselves could never pass?
While I technically agree, I usually avoid wasting time talking about labels. When talking to a birther, even the meta discussion if the “birther” label is appropriate for him (or the “Obot” label for me) tends to distract from the actual point, and birthers sometimes love to derail the discussion by trying to make it one about which label is correct (or whether Obama is a “good President” etc.).
I have no problem being labelled “Obot” (or even labelling myself thus) because ultimately, the merits of my arguments don’t depend on whether I’m a mindless Obama supporter or a curious foreigner with a passion for logic and reason, a conservative or a liberal, a man or a woman etc. Obsessing with labels and people instead of arguments is the crank way, not mine.
Magic M,
I’m a big believer in arguments standing on their own merits regardless of who authored them as well.
Except that it doesn’t really matter WHAT the certified copy looks like. What matters is the INFORMATION that the copy reports. That INFORMATION has been verified in every way possible.
It does not matter if the INFORMATION is displayed on toilet paper, if it is correct then it is correct. The state of Hawai’i has repeatedly verified the INFORMATION.
Arguing about a PDF file is akin to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
How do you explain away the verification? http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
Mr. Whiteman is back, not having answered any questions.
If you don’t want to be perceived as a troll:
What is the basis of your belief in the natural born citizen requires two citizen parents theory. Be precise. Hit the same level of precision you require of Pres. Obama but no one else.
What is the basis of your doubt about the identity of the President’s father?
Then explain whether a child of a rape victim, adopted with sealed records, can become President?
He’s obviously “jaqing off” (just asking questions). It’s the popular refrain from a troll. The fact that he’s admitted to asking the same questions for quite a while on facebook as well and other sites proves that this isn’t someone acting in good faith. I’ve run across this multiple times from birthers there is no way one can be “ambiguous” about Obama’s eligibility this late in the game.
Dr. Ken:
Mr. Whiteman’s behavior is not unique to birthers. I run into this on other topics, and I even have a few friends who delight in raising question but shy away from any answers. It is socially frustrating to interact with such people.
Mr. Whiteman can’t even be shamed (and neither can “Helen” or others before her.)
How about it Mr. Whiteman? Are you going to answer questions or are you a troll?
Birther John’s behavior is identical. You can throw facts at him all day and he just ignores them and comes back with something else equally stupid. Then in a month or sooner he will go into recycle mode.
BTW John how is your Xerox testing coming?
“Do unto others.”
If you exect others to answer your questions, simple even-handed justice requires that you do the same.
He has now been asked that several times and he still provides no answer. He graduated high school and has an associate’s degree. Surely along the way he took some history and civics classes, so it would be instructive to know where he learned the two citizen parents theory. It certainly wasn’t from a history textbook, a civics textbook, or a book on Constitutional law.
Or Reality
That too!
Hey guys, I gave you my opinion on natural born citizen because somebody asked for it. My opinion is based on articles I have read on it. I am not prepared to cite articles, sources, or legal documents. Besides that, I think that after two elections it is now a moot point, unless the case can be made the LFBC, or the reproduction put out by the White House, is a forgery, it will stay a moot point, at this stage.
I did say that I had a few more questions about the LFBC. The first one is related to the feature of kerning. I did not find anything that directly spoke of kerning in the header at the top of the page, or in the links at the bottom, neither in search. If you have a link or two to put up, please do.
Thank you.
Actually, HDOH can not confirm whether a person has been born in the State of Hawaii,
they can only state a birth has been recorded in the HDOH and issue a certified copy if needed.
Further, the courts of the USA can make a ruling that a person was born in the State of Hawaii even if there is no birth certificate on file, and the HDOH will have to issue one.
There is no mention in the USConstitition of Hawaii as it was not a state at the time.
the verifiction does nothing more that tell the applicant that the data that is one the form conforms with what the applicant provided. No validity other than that
Not much is taken as fact when in court when the defense challenges it. FACT can not be challenged. Opinion can be!
The only thing that counts as prima facie and full faith and credit are government documents, and they sometimes have to be authenticated.
You indicate that there are sworn statement by the Hawaii Government? Can you give me a url or site? That is on the birth certificate , not on any other stuff, unless you mean sworn testimony in some court outside of Hawaii
Helen, you’re a troll. Still not answering questions. Still a troll.
You are right, Hawaii is not mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is Indiana, where I live. In fact, 37 states are not mentioned in the Constitution. What is the significance of this? Does that make Pres. Obama ineligible because, in addition to your racist requirement that the President be white, does the President have to come from one of the 13 original colonies? What does that do to Ronald Reagan’s eligibility? Dwight Eisenhower? Or a bunch of others?
Second, you are an idiot. Fact can be challenged in Court. It is the jury’s job to determine facts. That’s what trials are about.
Third, you’re an idiot. If a court in the U.S. determines that Pres. Obama was born in Hawaii, other than the courts in Hawaii, the courts in the other 49 states can’t order Hawaii to issue a birth certificate.
You’re a troll. Try answering a question before you pose more.
Mr. Whiteman, you’re a troll.
Try answering some questions before posing more. “I read some articles somewhere” is not an answer. Try backing up your assertions with some facts.
And if you so all-fired up about Pres. Obama’s birth certificate, help out your fellow troll, Helen, link to McCain’s, Palin’s and Romney’s birth certificates and tell us all whether you think those are genuine.
Stop being a troll.
Concern troll is concerned. What were the odds?
Why? You’ll just ignore it or move the goalposts. Admit that if I am correct it means that President Obama was born in Hawai’i and I’ll give you the reference you want. If you won’t, why should I bother?
At last. Someone who knows how to use the quote function.
That is most certainly false.
The verification says that the data on the form is what was provided by Kapiolani Hospital back in 1961, as attested to by David A. Sinclair, MD. Birth certificates don’t have “applicants,” they have “informants.” An “applicant” is someone who requests a copy of a certificate.
Markwayne, izzat you? Are you prepared to start giving a sh__, now?
I will forever crack up at the memory of a plumbing scion using that phrase!
Wow, that’s some vintage PDF Madness there. It’s always 2011 somewhere. Google is your friend. It’s isn’t kerned, that’s a function of typesetting. The document in question is partially typewritten, partially handwritten. The preprinted form would have been typeset … so your kerning concerns must be about the form iself, right?
So you basically admit you have no reason to believe what you do since you can’t cite any sources or legal documents.
How does your misunderstanding of what you think Kerning is get around the verification I posted before?
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
Dr Kenneth Noisewater: How does your misunderstanding of what you think Kerning is get around the verification I posted before?
this motion by defendants’ attorneys also contains the request for the verification (complete with the birthers’ assertions), a copy of the birth certificate and the verification
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96200621/2012-06-06-MDEC-Motion-to-Supplement-Response-to-Motion-for-Sanctions-S-D-Miss
Here is an example of “kerning” in a letter written in 1943:
http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/lf.jpeg
Look at the salutation (My dear Kenner:), see how the spacing between the name Kenner is variable. Now look in the body of the letter you should be able to find examples of variable spacing quite easily. Examples in the first sentence include Washington – it almost looks like Wash ington and conjecture almost looks like con jecture. Finally look at the complimentary close (Most sincerely,), it looks like “Most s incerely,”.
How many examples of “kerning” are in the President’s LFBC?
Mr. Whiteman is a troll who wants to ignore Hawaii’s certification of the data multiple times, in multiple documents, by inventing a concern with a PDF of one such document.
Donna just asked the same question the rest of us have asked, which Mr. Whiteman keeps ducking. Why? Because he can’t find information at WND as to why what was filed in Mississippi is false.
He’s a troll.
Here is a second link for you about “kerning”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/sample-certificatelivebirth-hi-med2.jpg
Look at the word “Army” it appears twice and both times the “my” are “kerned”. Plus there are other examples of letters with variable spacing.
Since you fell for the “kerning” nonsense, I’m going to assume you also fell for the “different fonts” nonsense.
Here is a preemptive response to that question:
http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/2011/06/17/paul-irey-doesn%e2%80%99t-like-us-we-are-not-shedding-tears/
Whats next in the birther script of debunked nonsense from 2011?
Today’s winner in the “that’s not even wrong” challenge. I have high hopes for this one making it to regionals.
Or to quote one of my favorite cartoons of all time:
“Well now. Isn’t that cute? But its WRONG!!!!!!”
—-
A certified birth certificate is self-authenticating evidence in a court of law.
Great link. I added it to my Fact Check and Debunking page:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/
My favorite examples of variable letter spacing (none of this is “kerning” because kerning is by definition intentional) are from Jerome Corsi’s doctoral thesis. That typewriter really needed work.
They did about four articles here is the first one. Irey shows up in the comments.
http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/2011/06/12/dear-birthers-grasping-at-straws-hurts-the-conservative-cause/
This is the money quote for me:
“In the sixth paragraph, Patton mentions “Raymonde.” …Notice how the spacing between the “R,” the “a”, the “y” and the “m” are all different. This is an example of what the people who point to the kerning in the birth certificate say is impossible. This difference in spacing comes from the typist literally “out typing” the machine. It was quite a common phenomenon. The typist would be pressing the keys faster than the mechanics of the typewriter could respond. Thus, you had letters being imprinted when the carriage had not yet completely moved to the next spacing. You will generally find this type of spacing issue on any letter from the period.”
Sounds like somebody just earned a banana sticker! 😉
No kidding! Every time I see someone go to such lengths to debunk, I am both in awe …. and always worried they might be obsessing. It was an enjoyable read. And from such an early date in the annals of PDF Madness ….. I forgot Irey had been around that long!
This is a good one too.
http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/2011/07/09/we-get-letters-some-birthers-want-it-both-ways/
His answers to the comments are also quite entertaining.
I enjoyed where Irey’s stunning ignorance and blatant agenda is exposed and his completely incompetent analysis is ripped to shreds.
There is no mention of 49 other states in the Constitution.
Sorry, Northland. The 13 original states are mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution.
DUUUUH!
No state’s agencies cannot actually confirm anyone’s birth in that state–unless, the relevant official actually witnessed it. Not rocket science.
But, that is the reason a given state’s records are official. In the case of births, the state officially declares that at a point in time, an official of the state had sufficient reason to believe that the person was born on a certain date, etc., so the birth was recorded. Legally, the question is settled by the records maintained by the state.
Rage, rage, against the dying of the light.
Not good enough. I think we need a public official in ever birthing facility. On call 24 hours a day to witness and certify every birth.
I sense a new mission for the Cold Case Posse.
I fully realize that “I read some articles somewhere” is not an adequate response. If it hasn’t been clear up to this point, I will fully admit that I am not prepared to debate on that subject. I gave you my opinion based on what I have read on it. Dismissing my opinion is your choice.
If there is a consensus that I should never ask another question on this site, until I give a firm answer to that one, let me know.
I am trying to learn more about some things that I am interested in. Kerning is one of those things. I am currently looking into what Gorefan put up.
The use of the word “kerning” by the birthers is nonsense.
Kerning is the process of reducing the space between letters for aesthetic reasons. Some electronic fonts have kerning information in them. Typewriters have mono-spaced typefaces, and electronic typewriter fonts are also mono-spaced. That is, if Obama’s birth certificate were faked by computer-generated text, it wouldn’t be kerned because computer typewriter fonts don’t have kerning–each letter is the same width. This kind of argument is raised by someone who has no familiarity with electronic fonts.
A slightly less stupid idea is that since typewriters have mono-spaced typefaces and the typewriter advances a fixed amount between each letter, no letters should touch each other or overlap.They do on Obama’s long form. Letters don’t touch with a well-maintained typewriter. It is not true with a worn out one, like the one used at Kapi’olani Hospital, or the one used to type Jerome Corsi’s doctoral thesis. One has to go no further than Barack Obama Sr.’s INS file to find much worse typewriter spacing than on the birth certificate.
The birthers generally equate their inability to understand something with forgery by an incredibly clever and inept forger. They do that even if there is no plausible scenario under which forgery explains whatever it is they don’t understand.
It is not only an inadequate response: it is an inadequate way to live.
I vote that you give a firm answer to the question put to you before you ask another question.
A total lack of appreciation for the difference in the theoretical and the applied.
Of course a typewriter can’t (theoretically!) overlap character strikes. It’s designed not to. Duh.
And cars aren’t designed to blow head gaskets. All mechanical systems wear over time, literally destroying themselves in a sense.
My favorite was the guys that used to argue that typebars are physical objects, and two objects can’t occupy the same place at the same time …. as if all the letters were struck at the same time!
That’s not typewriting. That’s printing on a letterpress!
All it takes to “figure this out” is a few minutes with a good old manual typewriter. Any and all are welcome to come over and take mine for a spin any time.
I believe that we can make an educated guess about where you didn’t find those articles – in peer-reviewed law journals.
The irony here is that your two-citizen parent requirement argument becomes moot. if the LFBC were proven to be a forgery, because the LFBC and the COLB are the only prima facie evidence we have to substantiate that President Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen. If Barack Hussein Obama was not the father, how do we know that the real father was not a U.S. citizen?
That has always been the conundrum for birthers. Even if the LFBC were proven to be a forgery, how do you propose to prove that Obama wasn’t born in the United States? After five years of this nonsense, you still have nothing.
Actually, birthers tried to do this in the Atlanta hearing. The judge heard three complaints, presented by Orly Taitz, Mark Hatfield and Van Irion. While Taitz presented the long form as evidence of fraud, and Van Irion presented it as proof that Obama’s father was not a US citizen, Hatfield studiously avoided presenting the birth certificate, and in fact in an appeal said of his case (pretending the other two didn’t exist):
Hatfield was wrong, though. His Exhibit 6 contained Obama Sr.’s immigration file obtained by FOIA that has the probative statement by William Wood of the State Department that both states that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and that his mother was a US Citizen.
I wrote about this here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/mark-hatfields-error/
I suspect that most birthers are men who have never used a manual typewriter, of if they did it was two-finger typing. When I took typing my senior year in high school, there was just one other boy in the class. When I went to communications school while in the Navy, 37 of the 39 people in the class were male and only a handful of us (including the two women) were able to pass the typing test the first time it was given. The rest of them had six weeks to learn how to type 30 WPM.
The Navy had a lot of worn-out typewriters. I have several documents from my Navy years which have examples of bad spacing, which the birthers erroneously call kerning.
Thank you for posting this.
First off, I agree that the letter does show variable/proportional spacing.
In variable/proportional spacing, the typespace that a letter uses varies on the size of the letter. A capital W and a small i will use an overall typespace that is proportional to the letter size. Variable/proportional spacing is not identical to kerning.
Kerning does take place where there is proportional spacing. However, kerning will have letters intruding in another letters typespace, while the letters do not, or barely, touch each other. The letters do not overlap each other.
Wikipedia does show a quick example of kerning here, top right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerning
I went through your letter to check for kerning. There were parts that I did pay specific attention to, such as:
The “RT” in HEADQUARTER, the “st” in Postmater, and the double n in Kenner.
1st Paragraph – the “ng” in Washington, and the “en” in eventually.
2nd P – the “ge” in disadvantageous, “pr” in present, “pa” in occupation, and the “ex” & “eme” in extremely.
3rd P – “rf” in perfectly, and “it” in position.
4th P – “rm” in Palermo, the “ew” in few.
5th P – “iv” in received, “et” in letter.
6th P – “am” in am.
As well as the “st” in Most.
I was able to hold down the ctrl button while pushing the + button and increasing the size. I then used a standard 8.5 x 11 piece of printer paper that I used as a straight edge. I placed the paper on the flat edge of the screen frame and was able to move it sideways over the letters. I was able to verify that the vertical paper edge was straight, because it was parallel to the black vertical lines on the front of the LCD screen. If you do not see those vertical lines on your LCD screen, get closer to the screen.
By this process, sliding the paper sideways, I was able to completely cover one letter before covering the next letter with that paper. This means that those letters did not intrude on the other letter’s typespace. I found no examples of kerning in this letter.
Examples of kerning in the LFBC;
Box 6c the “ap” in Kapiolani.
Box 7c, the “no” in Honolulu.
Box 12b, the “ty” in University.
The kerning that can be seen in 7c, can also be compared to the Honolulu in 6a and 7a. I see a noticeable difference in them, even in the lower quality Savannah Guthrie photo of the LFBC.
My question would be:
1) Do you see the examples I am talking about?
2) Do you believe it is kerning?
3) Do you have an explanation of it?
Also. I am not concerned about any kerning that may have been done in the standardized form. Kerning was able to be done, but was the result of typesetting. I am mainly concerned in the areas of the form that had to be filled in, where kerning is concerned.
I admit that I am not well prepared to defend the position that I believe, but I still hold to that belief currently. I suppose that since all this questioning is coming up, I may spend a little more time on it. But to get back to you on this I think would take too long and I would not be able to get back to you on this in a timely manner.
Mark,
Do you know what happens when a competent touch typist uses a worn mechanical typewriter?
Why do you think the things you pointed out are best explained by being the product of a human forger?
Finally, what would convince you that President Obama’s BCs are correct and would you be able to meet that standard if it was your BC in question?
If you are making this statement in good faith, then you can answer my question about what it would take to make you accept the facts on the COLB and LFBC and the answer will be something you could do to demonstrate the facts of your own birth. Anything less would be dishonest and hypocritical.
Explanation: worn out typewriter.
In fact, I was just reading a thread somewhere on the Internets, can’t remember where, where folks were giving all sorts of examples of manually typed documents that had similar variable spacing.
One of these examples — and this is kind of a hoot, I’m sure you’ll agree — was a well-known birther’s doctoral thesis!
I can’t remember where I saw this, but I’ll let you know as soon as I remember, or find the PG UP key on my keyboard, or something.
I do not see how this directly relates to kerning, other than you want me to take this at face value and ignore any other questions I have.
I also find it interesting that this letter does not say the LFBC is an actual true copy of what is on file. It says the info in the Certificate of Live Birth matches the vital records of the vital event.
That would be because Alvin Onaka is authorized to weigh in on the info. He is not authorized nor qualified to weigh in on whether the PDF of the LFBC is an actual true copy.
He is, however, qualified and authorized to weigh in whether the LFBC itself was legitimate. In fact, it’s his job to do so. That’s why his stamp appears on it, as it does on the abstract, which he was also qualified and authorized to do.
Do you see the difference here?
No that’s not what it shows. It shows a letter written on a well worn manual typewriter with unkerned type. In other words ever character – period to W – gets exactly the same amount of horizontal space.
There has never been a manual typewriter that could do proportional spacing and the electric typewriter that could, the IBM Executive, was not widely available until the 50’s and it certainly wouldn’t have been used for this sort of routine correspondence even then.
The uneven vertical and horizontal spacing you see is the result of two things and/or their combination:
First is the typist. Typing too fast or depressing two keys to fast in sequence.
Second is wear and tear. The type slugs are soldered on the end of the type bar and they come loose after years of pounding on a hard platen. Until they fall off they move up and down. You see that with the lower case “a” in the letter. And when they’re soldered back on they are invariably crooked. Been there, done that.
Add in worn or bent type bars, a worn segment (where the bars are mounted) plus a worn platen and that’s how you get the little things you are so obsessed with.
Honest that’s how it works. No conspiracy. No forgery.
I looked at Army in 6c and 12b. I was able to do the same procedure that I described in my previous response to you. I saw no kerning. One thing about this bC, is the bolder typeface. I believe that that can cause the ink to run onto an adjacent letter more easily.
Especially in 12b, when you enlarge the page, you can see there is space between the letters. Once again, variable spacing is not kerning.
I have heard of the different fonts. I have learned I do not know enough about the different fonts to determine their legitimacy. I had no intention to pursue it, but I may check your link. I haven’t yet.
Wrong. That is exactly what it is.
Variable spacing or proportional spacing requires proportional type and neither Patton’s letter or the Obama birth certificate show any evidence of that. They, in fact, look like they were typed on manual typewriters with Pica or 10 pitch type which means 10 characters to the horizontal inch.
You do not see how the department of health verifying that the PDF matches the information on the original document on file has any relation to your claims? Are you blind? Did you read the last line in which they reference the PDF and say that the information contained on the pdf matches he original?
And that is part of the reason I do not pay more attention to this question of natural born citizen.
I must point out that the part you quoted was related to the natural born citizen requirement, not the LFBC or the COLB.
I fail to see how proving the facts of my own birth does anything to prove or disprove anything about Obama’s birth or BC.
If I had to prove the facts of my own birth, I would undoubtedly follow some kind of procedure that would be similar to the official narrative of how Obama got his BC. That, or I might call my mom, I think she still has a copy of my BC.
There is nothing wrong with the official story of how he got his BC. I think there is reasons to doubt the veracity of the document that was posted on the White House website, and so I do not trust the story. In order to believe this is genuine, I need the questions of why I believe the LFBC to be a forgery to be answered in a way that satisfies me.
Yes, Mr. Whiteman, I’m of the view you should never ask another question on this site.
You do give an interesting difference. Yes.
No, I think you are missing the point completely.
The majority of the Patton letter and the majority of the LFBC are monospaced type. It just that there are examples of letters that appear to be variable/proportional spaced type.
There was no magic button on the typewriter that allowed the typist to switch back and forth between the two types of spacing. So how do you explain it?
CarlOrcas has given you a good explanation above. And some letter combinations lent themselves to the fast typist scenario, “ty” for example because of the their location on a typewriter keyboard.
LOL! So, having been informed that kerning is—by definition—not present in the typewritten portions (the “the areas of the form that had to be filled in” as you put it) … you respond that you are only concerned with the “kerning” present in the typewritten portions.
*triple facepalm w/a half-twist and a baleful gaze of contempt on the side*
If every letter got the same amount of space when the letter was typed, the the letter “i” would take up the same amount of room as “W”. You would see uneven spaces in between many letters, like extra space in the word in, would look like i n because they would use the same typespace as WW, or Raymonde would look more like R a y m o n d e, because each letter uses the space of a capital W. That letter sent by Patton has variable spacing. The vast majority of the letters have the same space size between them, regardless of the letter.
You other points about being worn and having been repaired seem to have some merit to me. I would need to consider it a little more. But letters in typewriters generally worked consistently, I mean you mentioned the little a, but it typed that way each time, you can see the no in 12b only happens once, and looks different in 2 other spots.
This is, excuse me, a cretinous statement. I can’t believe you can write something as stupid as this and not be dribbling at the mouth.
Think for a minute: the White House would never post a forgery knowing that the State of Hawaii could expose it as such. It would be like stealing the Mona Lisa and then offering it for sale on ebay under your own name.
On the other hand, if the State of Hawaii (or some officials therefrom) was in on your ridiculous conspiracy, then they would have given the White House a perfectly “authentic” BC, in the same fashion as, say, the CIA can give one of its agent a perfectly authentic US passport which is nevertheless not true, but will pass any inspections because it’s been issued by the same entity that issues real passports. So in this case the WH BC would be perfectly authentic, even if Obama had been born in Moscow.
You don’t strike me as a total imbecile, and yet you write statements that are mind-boggingly stupid.
It does not directly relate to the question of kerning.
If it was not clear before, let me try to be clearer now.
I am not worried about kerning where there was typesetting in a preprinted form. I am concerned about kerning where information was filled in or added to the form.
Mark, go back to the Patton letter, the second line, the last word “conversation”. Look at the letter pair “on”. The first is clearly separated while the second are almost touching. They should be the same no matter whether it is a monospaced or proportional spaced type.
How would you explain that?
Oh, you’re very clear … clearly making a triple-down.
Two years behind the curve and dense as a neutron star!
If you don’t have access to a typewriter, here’s the next best thing. Study images of their output:
https://www.google.com/search?q=typewritten+pages&tbm=isch
Back again to the Patton letter. Third paragraph that begins “You know”. The word “to” occurs three times, the first and third time the space between the letters is the same but the second “to” has different spacing.
I am glad that I do not come across as a total imbecile, perhaps I may be moving up in the world yet.
The statement you put up, it seems so damn crazy around this issue. It gets into thinking all kinds of things. Stuff like what you say is part of the reason that I am still seeking answers to what I believe is a forgery. Sometimes it seems like it is too damn crazy too be true, but then what if 30% of it is true? Still scary.
So are you telling me that I never have reason to question anything any govt official says? I should never try to get a better understanding of things if a govt official gives a story that may sound right?
So far you folks have been willing to at least give a response to the question I have asked, was I only supposed to agree with whatever you say? I cannot have an opinion that differs from yours?
Even if I am a dishonest, hypocritical troll, I still did not know what your answer to the question was that I asked. Did you think I thought I would come in here and try to convert you all to my way of thinking?
You guys have seen my stuff in fb, I have been making posts on the LFBC for over a year and a half, I could barely get a conservative interested, and you think I would try to change your opinion?
I have the answer you gave about kerning, it is worn out typewriters. Need to consider it some more.
I have more questions as well. but there are so many posts that to try and answer them, it is getting kind of overwhelming. So far 1 person does not care to have me ask anything here anymore, and another does not want any more questions until I answer the natural born citizen question. And now I need to prove my own birth or I am a hypocrite
Right now I am just trying to answer stuff related to the current posts and questions I asked. I need to sign off, been working on this since 5, and it is 1 in the morning, getting tired.
No they don’t they depend on wear and tear which introduces variability. A lot depends on variance and typing speed. It’s easy to jump to conclusions when not understanding these issues but rather than let it cause you to suspect malfeasance, why not educate yourself?
It appears that there is a kind of ring on the side of the n. I looked at the on in Washington, conversation, occupation, on, one, position, on, soon. I then looked at several other n’s as well. There seems to be the double n in Kenner has the same problem.
I did the enlargement, that is hold the ctrl button while pushing +. When the picture is enlarged I swear I can see a little ring coming out of the left side of the n in several places. It appears that sometimes that ring gets more ink then other times and it may partly depend on the letter next to it.
I do not think this matches the definition of kerning, it may be an example of wear and tear on the typewriter, or just a weird n.
The wear and tear is something that happens gradually, when you are using it for one letter you should not see a big sudden change in the type style. I would be willing to bet, that if you had a typewriter and used it for 5 years, you may notice a big change from year one to year five, but you will not see big changes every time you typed.
I would also be willing to bet if a typewriter, like anything else that does not work right, was not able to make a legible letter, for whatever reason, they would at least set it aside for repair and use one that works.
what if spartacus had a piper cub?
Well, so far 2 people would like me to not ask any questions here, 1 until I give an answer about natural born citizen. Would anyone else want to add in on that?
This is a truly idiotic statement. As I said, no politician would put up a (clumsy) forgery and risk being so easily exposed by the issuing authorities. If there was a scam involving Obama’s birth, it would be perpetrated by the highest authoritries, including some from the State of Hawaii, and there is no chance that the paperwork would look like a forgery; in fact it would be just as authentic as any official document.
There is no “30% is true” — no more than if you see the Mona Lisa for sale on ebay, you’re going to analyze the image scan to see if maybe 30% of it is “true”, especially of the original is still hanging in the Louvre. Are you truly naive enough to think that maybe, it is the real painting that’s for sale?
I have no stake in the issue, being a foreigner and opposed to many of Obama’s policies. I don’t care if he’s legitimate or not. But by coming up with nonsensical statements like this, you, on the other hand, come across as the kind of gullible imbecile, the type who give all their money away to a Nigerian scammer.
Or else you’re just a troll.
It looks like an amazing example of cognitive dissonance covered in a very thick gravy of Obama Derangement Syndrome. And yes, “30% is true” is incredibly asinine like a little pregnant, very unique or slightly dead.
why do you hold that belief?
Simple question there, so let’s not dilly dally over the answer…..
Hahahaha. That may be the silliest thing you said yet. Obviously if a typewriter could not produce a legible document it would not be used but a few misaligned letters would not make the document illegible. It obvious you have never used a manual typewriter.
Your claim is that there cannot be proportional spacing in a typed 1961 document but you agree that a 1943 typed document has proportional spacing.
Here are two more Hawaiian BCs. Look at the word “Maternity” in the hospital name.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2009/Jul/28/M1139416728.GIF
Here is a “kerning” game.
http://type.method.ac/#
Hey Mark, do you have to wear a back brace when you go moving goal posts, as often as you do?
Ah Crap.. Lesson of the day.. do not quickly scan the Constitution and then post when you are tired from attempting to clear a clog in the shower drain. You might miss Article I, Section 2. and end up looking like an idiot.
Have you ever used a manual typewriter? Ever even seen one?
There simply is no way for what you describe to work.
It’s really simple: Each movement of the carriage is in fractions of an inch – 10 for pica and 12 for elite – and it doesn’t matter which key is struck or whether it’s the space bar.
Bottom line: There is no kerning or proportional spacing on manual typewriters. Never has been and never will be.
For the sake of your sanity (and ours) please drop it and move on.
Ah, missed the rest of your response.
Before I go further with this one just tell me: Have you ever used a manual typewriter? If so, what kind was it and in what sort of situation?
Don’t feel too bad. I did find it in the text of the Constitution (just searched for Virginia) but I kept getting 14 states. It took me three or four tries to realize I was counting “Rhode Island and Providence Plantations” as two states!
If you can’t defend the position or explain why you believe it why do you continue to believe it? Do you not find this to be absurd?
I want you to pay attention to the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause. The Department of Health says they issued the document Obama scanned. Any claims about “kerning” or nonsense on the PDF are meaningless. The information contained within the PDF is what matters and the authority in Hawaii that has final say on Birth Certificates says it matches the original they have on file. What part of the information contained within the PDF matches the original on file do you not understand?
There is no kerning in the document. You’ve had your hand held while explaining this to you several times.
A word of advice if you think something you believe sounds crazy, like say the President somehow forged his own birth certificate and that the issuing authority stands behind said forgery, chances are, it is crazy.
How about answering our questions before rambling on like a troll Mark?
And I would be willing to bet that you have no idea what your are talking about.
As someone who worked extensively with manual typewriters during the sixties, I don’t ever recall one being “set aside for repair” because it was creating the minor spacing “anomalies” seen in the LFBC. The LFBC is perfectly legible, which is all that counted. Typewriters were taken out of service for repair only when there were major issues, such as keys sticking or a particular key not registering at all.
The Hawaii Department of Health FAQ on Obama’s birth certificate says:
That White House web page contains the PDF of the long form.
Should I keep that text in a file on my desktop so I don’t have to ping the State of Hawaii’s web site every time some birther pretends the State of Hawaii hasn’t verified the PDF.
The language on the official verification letter is the standard form of their Verification in Lieu of a Certified Copy.
Mark Whiteman: what I believe is a forgery.
SERIOUSLY????? the leader of the free world couldn’t find a competent forger? undocumented immigrants and others find them all the time to prepare forged documents – isn’t that why we have all of these RIDICULOUS voter ID laws …….. so that only real americans can vote?
wouldn’t it be more believable to conclude that some lowly staffer or intern was asked to copy obama’s birth certificate once received from hawaii and just stuck it into the nearest available machine ……… probably the Xerox …………. to pass out?
why is mitt’s mom’s age on the (VOID) certificate he released different from her DOB? is that forged? why is the bottom cut off? to HIDE something?
what’s “glenn garland’s” title? janitor?
where’s the raised seal?
here’s a questioned copy:
http://www.plewto.com/news/entertainment/bLIEve_in_America.html
Therein lies your problem. You “believe” it is a forgery because you want it to be a forgery. You’re not seeking answers, you’re seeking confirmation of your belief. You’re just like Arpaio and Zullo, who claimed that they wanted to prove that Obama is legitimate and then turned to Jerome Corsi for their “evidence.”
When someone, as you did, raises a large number of issues–all of which are stupid–lots of folks reply to each, multiplying the number of comments by the number of commenters. It’s like a nuclear chain reaction.
People, Internet trolls, know this behavior and do it for fun, to see how much disruption they can cause.
On this site, eventually I step in to moderate the discussion (the same role played by a moderator in a nuclear reactor) and/or ban the troll.
It is fascinating, isn’t it? If the government says it is so then it’s a lie. But if some person with the handle BatCrapCrazy666 posts it on FreeRepublic it must be true.
Crazy!!!
What you think you think is a curved background is an optical illusion. Place a ruler across your screen and you will see that the background is not really curved. If you want to download the PDF, right-Click and “Save Link As”:
http://whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
I think most of his problems are the result of optical illusions that he doesn’t recognize or understand. The spacing of unkerned characters is another example.
More troublesome is the willingness to believe that what you see on your own computer monitor (with the variations created by its quality, drivers, etc.) of a copied or scanned document (with the variations created by the scanner or copiers quality and drivers, etc.) tells you anything about the original document is just mind boggling.
Huh????
What is the important information conveyed in a birth certification?
Birtherism in a nutshell.
I do not believe that just because the president or high government official commits a crime, that it will be perfectly done.
gorefan: Your claim is that there cannot be proportional spacing in a typed 1961 document but you agree that a 1943 typed document has proportional spacing.
Here are two more Hawaiian BCs. Look at the word “Maternity” in the hospital name.
I do not recall saying that there was no proportional spacing in typewriters, there is. I said there is no kerning in typewriters and that kerning and proportional/variable spacing are not the same thing.
I looked at Maternity, I do not see any kerning in the susan document, the Gretchen one is blurrier and harder to tell. Personally I do not think kerning is there, but need a closer look to be sure. Also the same for the ap in Kapiolani where there is kerning in the Obama one.
The birthers aren’t saying it is imperfect. They are saying that it is wildly inept,that rank amateurs with no training in forensic document analysis can find dozens of things wrong with it.
Are you really suggesting that the President of the United States would put a document on the White House web site that is transparently a fake?
You may consider answering this question as a condition for being allowed to continue posting here.
You’re giving sophistry a bad name.
What are the definitions of “kerning” and “proportional spacing” that you are using?
And, again, have you ever used a manual typewriter?
When my niece was three years old, she called me from across the country. “Look, Uncle L! I’m brushing my teeth!” (This was before the Skype that all the kids twitter on their MyBooks to each other now, mind you.)
I gently pointed out that this was a telephone; I could only hear her, and couldn’t actually see her brushing her teeth.
[pause]
“Look! I’m brushing my teeth!”
It really makes a lot of sense to “forge” a BC with the SAME information on it. Help me out. What is the advantage derived from forging the document with the same information on it?
Now, you might counter with: “People don’t always do things for sensible reasons, sometimes, they just do them.” BUT, if no advantage is gained by reproducing a document, it is not a “forgery,” is it?
For instance, if you xerox a c-note, frame the reproduction, and hang it on your wall, is that counterfeiting? While it is apparent, even to a birther, that the reproduction is not the real thing, the real hundred-dollar note is unsullied.
Not in manual typewriters. Only the electric IBM Executive had proportional spaced letters. It was introduced in 1946.
You need to review what proportional spacing is :
“A proportional typeface contains glyphs of varying widths, while a monospaced (non-proportional or fixed-width) typeface uses a single standard width for all glyphs in the font.”
“Most manually operated typewriters use monospaced fonts.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typeface
And from the Wiki for Kerning:
“In typography, kerning (less commonly mortising) is the process of adjusting the spacing between characters in a proportional font, usually to achieve a visually pleasing result. Kerning adjusts the space between individual letter forms”
The Patton letter and President Obama’s LFBC are monospaced but with examples of proportional spaced appearing letters.
The president himself would not have done the work. In fact, in following the chain of custody in how the BC came from Hawaii to the White House, the president can have plausible deniability in this issue. He never actually carried the BC anywhere that I know of.
Also, yes many people have stated that the LFBC was forged by somebody who was either very much an amatuer, intentionally did such a bad job so as to catch the administration, or what seems more likely if it is indeed a forgery, somebody mistakenly put up a working file instead of the completed file. Each of those statements have been made. If i had to pick one, I think I would pick the last one.
Given that multiple experts have looked at the document and not found any indication of forgery, and given that the State of Hawaii said plainly that what’s on the White House is a certified copy of his original birth certificate, I can only conclude that you are an idiot, insane or lying.
In any case, your spinning impossible scenarios and taking up other people’s time shooting them down is not welcome. If you had an argument that would be one thing, but that’s not what you are doing.
It’s interesting that you leave out the third possibility: That the the long form birth certificate on the White House website is a simple scan of the certified document secured at the President’s request.
Why did you ignore that possibility?
BTW….have you ever used a manual typewriter?
Was that a rhetorical question?
I just succumbed to my tendency to masochism.
You’re being obtuse; it does NOT matter whether it’s perfect or not — the original is hanging in the Louvre, you silly silly man. Same with the BC: the State of HI could have disproved any forgery no matter its quality.
You don’t seem to be a cretin; why do you act like one?
I’ve always felt that to be a birther one had to be either an idiot, willfully ignorant, or lying. I don’t think insanity figures in most of the time (except extreme examples like Butter-de-de-de-bazillion or Orly). I’m beginning to suspect that Mark is all three, but willfully ignorant is the only one he’s unquestionably claimed so far (in my opinion).
You have not yet explained why someone would go to the trouble of “forging” a document with the same information as the legitimate one.
And why is it you believe there are only two scenarios which would require rather complex explanations instead of the more simpler and realistic one that it is a scan of a certified copy of the long form birth certificate issued by the Department of Health?
Mark,
Thanks for explaining your thoughts on this subject. I was curious to know how a birther would respond to this issue.
Well, Mark, I’ve read your material, and yes, you do come off as a troll and, more importantly, someone with “a penknife to grind.” I use that phrase on people who have some issue that obsesses them, which is not big enough to be “an axe to grind.”
You claim that we’re all “left-of-center” and therefore biased, and we have already determined that you’re a “pissed-off right-winger” and supporter of folks of that ilk. Consequently, you already have substantial biases of your own, and the last thing you probably want is for Barack Obama of someone of his views, ideologies, and, most important, ethnicity, to stand on the presidential podium.
You certainly do not want his presidency to succeed at any level, and like many ideologues, you want to hurl any available brick towards him to give him a black eye.
Well, that’s your right as an American citizen, and the validity of your political views is something that will only be determined by how these policies come out.
But while you have your right to your own theories and philosophies, you do NOT have a right to your own personal set of facts. The issue of Barack Obama’s birth certificate has been settled by forensic experts, courts of law, and the issuing authorities. The lawsuits of Orly Taitz, the bait-and-switch con games of the Cold Case Posse, and these endless and nonsensical arguments over the capabilities of photocopiers do not change the essential truth: Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, and is a native-born American citizen.
That’s a fact, like the Nazis cold-bloodedly butchering millions of Jews, Slavs, gays, and other innocents from 1933 to 1945. Incidentally, if you dig deep enough on the web, you will find plenty of equally vociferous adherents to the idea that Herr Hitler’s legions did NOT murder any Jews at all, and that the Holocaust was a hoax dreamed up by villainous and rapacious Jews to defraud Christian civilization and plunge it into endless wars, pending the destruction of the Planet Earth, on orders of their satanic masters.
Go ahead. Do the web search. You will find plenty of people marshaling “evidence” that the Holocaust did not happen, heaps of supporters, and links for financial donations. All these sites with fantastic graphics, massive articles, all kinds of “scholarship,” and fiery conspiracy theory rhetoric. But just because that stuff is published, does not mean it has any validity. Those guys are entitled to their opinions that Jews are evil and Hitler was a wonderful fellow (and a good painter), but they are not entitled to their own facts — that Hitler was a sadistic butcher who had it in for Jews and his minions acted on his orders with bureaucratic efficiency.
So yes, your purpose here IS trolling. And your lack of education IS showing. Your considerable bias IS absolutely clear. You have not presented us with clear, provable facts, backed by proper research, no “theory of the case,” no explanation as to “what really happened,” only repeated manifestations of your own biases and lack of knowledge, followed by evasions, when confronted by the truth.
So we are going to treat you as a troll. That’s what you are.
And as for Barack Obama as president. He was born here. His term ends on January 20, 2017, at noon. His successor will take the oath, make a speech, and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue to review the troops. Meanwhile, former President Obama will walk down the Capitol steps, get into a helicopter from VH-1, make a last loop over Washington, DC, and head for Andrews Air Force Base (for another final review of troops), and then back home to Illinois, to start working on his memoirs.
He will be remembered with a presidential library, a National Park Service site, statues, and a commemorative postage stamp the year after his death, on his 100th birthday, and every time the US Postal Service honors all the presidents in a stamp series. As the years go by, he and his presidency will look increasingly better, and children growing up now will tell their grandchildren that the Obama presidency was “the good old days,” remembered with foggy nostalgia.
Orly Taitz, the CCCP, Terry Lakin, and all these other “birthers” will be remembered by postgraduate students doing master’s theses and Ph.D. dissertations on histories of American conservative radicalism. And that’s all.
Here endeth the lesson.
Obviously you are of the “post-typewriter” generation. I can assure you, typewriter repair was not that easy, and government agencies, with their tight budgets, used typewriters pretty much until they were dead. And even then, they kept on using them.
Well said.
Many of us gave Mark the benefit of the doubt at frist, knowing full well that he was probably nothing more than a dishonest birther troll, but offering him every chance to prove differently by demonstrating some intellectual honesty or the ability to learn and understand, but he, like so many birthers before him, chose to hold true to his biases and bigotry against the president. Well, there isn’t any more doubt for him to benefit from—he’s made it clear that he is nothing more than a dishonest, willfully ignorant birther troll and should be treated as such.
So you seriously expect me to believe that a vast and grandiose conspiracy of this nature, something so galactic, involving so many agencies, with such massive planning, devious operations, something so critical to the future of the United States would let itself get exposed by posting the “work-in-progress” and not the “completed work” in public….and then LEAVE THAT THERE for years, to be picked over by their enemies?
You must have watched too many “Batman” episodes or “James Bond” movies, where the supervillains leave clues lying around for the Caped Crusader or 007 to latch on to and defeat their plot.
Or perhaps you’re one of those people who subscribes to the idea that the movie supervillain, before executing the heroic James Bond, tells him the whole story of what he’s going to do. Then at the last second, Bond uses the latest toy Q gave him, to escape imminent death.
Here’s a simple explanation: James Bond and Batman are FICTION. And by the way, while my background may not be in computer technology, I do have an MFA in Creative Writing, so I can tell you a couple of things:
1. Fiction is about things that never happened.
2. Writing for fiction includes enormous rules about characters, development, story arcs, plots, plot twists, “red herrings,” endings, back stories, conflict, the unities of Aristotle (single time, single plot, single place), conflict resolution, drama, comedy, narrative voice, narrative arc, and other concepts we studied in my classes, WHICH HAVE NO RELEVANCE to real life.
Or to put it simply, the words of Anton Chekhov: “If you hang a shotgun over the fireplace in the first act, it must be shot off in the third act.”
In real life, if you hang a shotgun over the fireplace on Monday, it can very well still be sitting there 30 years later.
Well, that’s just really stupid.