Cold Case Posse Asked Orly to Stand Down

Most of it lines up except for the first name JOHANNA. Similar to OBAMA.

Not sure what you mean. When I draw vertical lines through the characters of the name "JOHANNA" down to the word "Honolulu", it appears the characters line up exactly as they should.

I was looking at Ray76’s image at post 469.

Characters produced by typewriters align vertically in columns. How could a typewriter have produced “None” in box 17a not vertically aligned with “August” in box 5a?

What explanation do you offer to explain the anomalous alignment?

There are a number of possible explanations:

1. The document wasn't typed in one continuous sequence, i.e., the clerk may have completed portions of the document based on information at hand, while awaiting some item to be completed (e.g., the child's name isn't often decided immediately, information about the father could be pending, etc.) So if the document were taken out and reinserted a second time into a typewriter, the characters are unlikely to align in the way you're demanding.

2. It's possible to type a form with the paper release not secured, which allows the paper or form to move easily. If that were the case at some point during the document's completion, slight discrepancies in alignment could occur.

3. There may be some distortion caused in the copying/scanning process. As I noted in my prior post, the Zatkovich analysis treats this as mostly like true scan of a hardcopy document with some "enhancements to legibility" made. Is it possible that during some post-scan "clean up" process that some slight alignment distortions were created? It seems so. I've not seen an argument by you our any one that precludes that possibility.

But there are things that you need to explain as well, as I noted in my prior post. If this document wasn't composed on a typewriter, but is a purely computer-generated electronic file (as some claim), then how is it that the image shows curvature along the left margin in the way one would observe copying a hardcopy document from a bound volume? How is it that the characters along the left side of the document DO align (which is remarkable, if the computer user is supposedly not aware a typewritten document would need to show that).

So what say you?

You still here? Fogbow boring or something?

1. ...So if the document were taken out and reinserted a second time into a typewriter, the characters are unlikely to align in the way you're demanding.

Already admitted to by everyone discussing this. Yes, if you remove the document from the typewriter, then re-insert it, you can produce this effect. But what plausible reason would anyone have for doing this? Likelihood as an explanation? Slim to the point of nonexistent.

2. It's possible to type a form with the paper release not secured, which allows the paper or form to move easily. If that were the case at some point during the document's completion, slight discrepancies in alignment could occur.

Demonstrably false by the fact that we have properly aligned characters on both sides of incorrectly aligned characters. We also have properly aligned characters interspersed with incorrectly aligned characters throughout the document. An unsecured paper release would need to be fixed once, not multiple times.

3...

Not even worthy of consideration. That is merely a pathetic straw towards which you are grasping.

If this document wasn't composed on a typewriter, but is a purely computer-generated electronic file (as some claim), then how is it that the image shows curvature along the left margin in the way one would observe copying a hardcopy document from a bound volume?

Because it was put into the bound volume after it was created. This is perfectly consistent with the evidence supporting an adoption by Lolo Soetoro.

How is it that the characters along the left side of the document DO align (which is remarkable, if the computer user is supposedly not aware a typewritten document would need to show that).

Because a misalignment along a margin is quite easy to notice, but one in the middle of a page is not. At least not without superimposing a grid.

VERTICAL alignment. NOT horizontal.

Upon closer examination, I noticed it is misaligned both vertically AND horizontally.

Look at it closer. Not only do the characters not line up in vertical columns, many of them don't line up in horizontal columns either.

Yeah, this thing is an utter fake.

You still here?

Yes. For once you get a point correct.

Fogbow boring or something?

I don't know. I'm getting the sense from people here that they know quite a bit about what goes on at that forum. I'm not sure why I get asked.

Already admitted to by everyone discussing this. Yes, if you remove the document from the typewriter, then re-insert it, you can produce this effect. But what plausible reason would anyone have for doing this?

I've already given some suggestions. The child's name wasn't known. The father's history wasn't presented (yes, this was the early 60's when men weren't routinely involved in the birth process).

Likelihood as an explanation? Slim to the point of nonexistent.

But you have to admit that mine is a possible explanation. Just as I have to admit that yours is a possible explanation. But possibility doesn't equate necessarily to plausibility. It's just that we don't agree on the respective plausibility of each other's explanations. That, then, becomes a matter of persuasiveness (i.e., the relative plausibility) of the respective explanations.

But every time you bring up the issue of persuasiveness you lose the argument, for all I have to do is note that Birther theories command a minority of adherence even among Freepers and most others who label themselves as "conservative."

So overlay your grids all you like. I don't find that argument compelling (i.e., I can see explanations that account for the anomalies, even if you can't). Nor do most people. I know. I know. Here's where you raise the "Argumentum ad populum" flag.

Your M.O. is predictable.

Demonstrably false by the fact that we have properly aligned characters on both sides of incorrectly aligned characters.

It's demonstrably false (or not) depending on whether the document was removed and reinserted for later completion and, if the latter, at what point(s) of completion the removal/reinsertion was done. (Or whether my explainations #2 and #3 to Ray apply.) But you don't know whether this was done or not. Hence my original point about Moncton's lack of control and validation of his methodology. A point you have so far failed to address (more on this below).

We also have properly aligned characters interspersed with incorrectly aligned characters throughout the document.

As I view the left side of the document (the point after the curvature -- another point you don't explain if your assumption this is computer-generated (i.e., not typewritten) document) the characters (pretty much all of them that I see) align. How is that possible if this is but a computer-generated creation done without heed to the typewritten alignment?

An unsecured paper release would need to be fixed once, not multiple times.

Unless throughout completion of multiple sections of the document the paper release was kept open. Like I said on my first post to you on this subject, I knew a clerk who would do forms that way. It was just easier to align the type to the various pre-printed "boxes" that way.

Again, can I prove it was done that way? No. Can you prove it WASN'T done that way? No. All you have here is your "spidey sense" that is strikes you as unlikely someone would complete form in that manner. Big whoop.

Not even worthy of consideration. That is merely a pathetic straw towards which you are grasping.

I can always tell with you which are my better points, because you consistently come back with this same "this doesn't warrant my reply" cop-out.

But it's a serious question: if this document is but a wholly computer-created "forgery" by a person who was just too stupid or sloppy to not know that all the characters had to align as if done on a manual typewriter in one continuous, paper-secured, Box-1-to-Box-17a manner, then how is it that the characters along the left side align?

What we have is an image that results after possible multiple copying and scanning iterations that show misalignment of characters as one moves from left to right across the image. And you have the analysis of Lord Moncton that this is by itself proof the document is somehow fraudulent.

To that I asked you whether Moncton had validated his methodology through any set of "controls," as any technical methodology must have (a point you, as a purported engineer, fully well know).

Here you ducked.

But here is what Lord Moncton offers up as his "control." Per American Thinker

Courtesy of Lord Monckton, shown in Figure MP3 is a very-beaten-up genuine Hawaiian birth certificate for the summer of Obama's birth, on which Monckton has superimposed a pitch-grid (blue lines) showing that a genuine typewritten Hawaiian birth certificate of that era maintains horizontal and vertical pitch on a form designed to accommodate double-spaced typewritten lines (as one would expect.) (The items "Waihee", "Negro", "Porter Service" and "6-13-61" are later modifications made with a different typewriter.)

So on a matter where a fundamental issue is the "anomaly" of the characters on an image not aligning from left to right, Moncton's "comparator" (control) is a birth certificate image that is split down the middle (thus rendering the whole left-to-right issue totally meaningless)!!

And this is your "authority." (Yes, I'm laughing my head off right now).

And it gets worse for your position. Note how as to Moncton's comparison certificate the article notes "The items . . . "Porter Service" and "6-13-61" are later modifications made with a different typewriter."

What??? So birth certificates sometimes have some items completed, but other items are left blank and completed at a later date, possibly even on a different typewriter? What a revelation? Here Sir DiogenesLamp tells me that such is a "slim to the point of nonexistent" possibility that is not worthy of serious consideration.

But this leads me to yet one more question (one I'm sure you'll duck again): did you not even ask what control sample(s) Moncton purported to use? Or did you know and just think it expedient to hide that fact?

Surely it's time again for you to retreat to the sidelines and remark to others how often I've been "spanked" so many times and how I'm an idiot not worth your time to reply.

Go ahead. It's what you do best.

So in my last post to you, I asked:

But there are things that you need to explain as well, as I noted in my prior post. If this document wasn't composed on a typewriter, but is a purely computer-generated electronic file (as some claim), then how is it that the image shows curvature along the left margin in the way one would observe copying a hardcopy document from a bound volume? How is it that the characters along the left side of the document DO align (which is remarkable, if the computer user is supposedly not aware a typewritten document would need to show that).

So what say you?

And your "explanation" is a cute photo of rainbows.

It's amazing how Birthers so quickly are reduced to incoherence and silliness.

I don’t need to explain anything.

I don’t need to explain anything.

I'm sort of thinking that as well at this point. CpnHook stretches credibility for any of the theories he suggests to be correct. I'm not sure I want to even bother trying to show him why. This is the sort of thing, if you can't see it, it likely can't be explained in a manner you can understand.

I don’t need to explain anything.

Don't need to. Really can't. These are much the same for you here. You don't have a coherent theory to start. Of course you can't explain your position when challenged.

A document that was wholly done via computer with someone moving a cursor to various "box" locations and either using a keyboard to enter text or copying/pasting text from another location would not show the uniformity of character alignment which the document exhibits along the left side to the center areas.

So the better view is the certificate was a hardcopy typed form, with the instances of right side misalignment explained potentially by one or more of the items I've previously listed.

You miss the point entirely.

I do not have to explain anything. Nor do you or anyone else. The only person(s) who do are those who proffer it.

That you come up with preposterous explanations is nothing but entertainment. For example:

Post 442 >> It could be that the lens of the device used to copy or scan the document added some slight curvature to the resulting copy.

This is magical lens. It’s distortion causes typewritten characters to move while leaving the preprinted characters unmolested. Truly magical.

Post 484 >> It’s possible to type a form with the paper release not secured, which allows the paper or form to move easily. If that were the case at some point during the document’s completion, slight discrepancies in alignment could occur.

There are two points of hilarity here. First, the data in question is last name, date of birth, location of birth... you know, trivialities. Secondly, releasing the paper bale so that the paper may be moved about is unlikely. Why? Because the characters on the right side of the page have the same baseline as those on the right.

As I stated in 473 “In my book analyzing these images is beating a dead horse. The WH PDF is a publicity stunt and a component of a devious ‘verification strategy’ intended to defraud the United States.” So there’s really no reason to dwell on this problem, except for the entertainment provided by those who feel compelled to defend Obama.

By all means continue to launch your rainbow farting unicorns. We all enjoy the laugh.

do not have to explain anything. Nor do you or anyone else.

That's funny. Back on Post #443 you were very desirous of my explanation of what you saw a proof the WHLFBC was forged or altered in some way:

"What explanation do you offer to explain the anomalous alignment?

And when I didn't respond in short order you followed up on Post #446 with the "Well?" remark.

I've responded and in turn have clearly stumped you (and DiogenesLamp) with the question "if this WASN'T originally typewritten, how do you explain the character alignment which exhibited along the left-side?" So now you're singing the tune of "neither of us has to explain anything?" LOL. How convenient.

That you come up with preposterous explanations is nothing but entertainment.

DL thought it preposterous ("Slim to the point of nonexistent") when I suggested as one possibility that such a document could be started, removed, and then reinserted. But then I was able to show how Lord Moncton -- the very source he used to start this 'grid' topic -- had utilized as a type of "control" another certificate from that era which showed very clear signs of later completion on a different typewriter.

So, indeed, there's lots of laughter going on here.

This is magical lens. It’s distortion causes typewritten characters to move while leaving the preprinted characters unmolested.

Distortion caused in the copying/scanning process IS possible. Just as an example picked more or less at random:

Most consumer level CIS modules have an LED illumination only on one side across the width, which amplifies all wrinkles and other surface distortions and produces good images only if the document surface is very even. http://www.imageaccess.de/?page=WhitePapersCCDOrCIS&lang=en

So if the document prior to scanning were wrinkled somehow -- like when going to form-feed a page and it jams? Ever have that happen? I have, many times -- then perhaps this left/right misalignment could result. To document expert Ivan Zatkovich this most likely was a true scan of a hardcopy document for which some "enhancements to legibility" were applied. You can purport to laugh all you like; what I'm proposing can't be excluded as a possibility without some baseline tests validating this supposed methodology.

I pointed out unusual features, you offer explanations. Explanations which are far-fetched.

You continue to explain the misaligned characters as being added at a later time. Don’t you realize you’re stepping on your own narrative? The date and place of birth are the very items at issue and here you are claiming they were entered at a later time!

Captain Crunch, purveyor of magic lens, you really are too much.

Captain! Your ride. Hurry!

I pointed out unusual features, you offer explanations.

And I point out features which make it near impossible to claim this was computer-generated (i.e,. not typewritten).

And you offer no explanations and exempt yourself from any apparent need to do so while believing you're making some point. Such silliness.

Explanations which are far-fetched.

You are entitled to your opinion on these points. Do let me know when you 'character alignment' argument gains any traction outside a small handful. "Far-fetched" is a relative thing.

You continue to explain the misaligned characters as being added at a later time.

That's just one of several explanations. Different anomalies may have different causes.

Don’t you realize you’re stepping on your own narrative? The date and place of birth are the very items at issue and here you are claiming they were entered at a later time!

Looking at the image DL posted (#382 above), the characters in "Honolulu" as the place of birth align in all respects with Kapiolani Maternity & Gynelogical Hospital." As far as the Article II issue goes, that ends the debate (unless you want to suggest there is some OTHER Kapiolani Hospital in some OTHER Honolulu that is not in the United States.

How is the date at issue? Even on the Indonesian school application (done circa 1968?) Obama's D.O.B. is listed as August 4, 1961 (along with listed "Honolulu" as the place of birth).

The Magic Lens (patent applied for):

Printed lines are undistorted
Printed characters are undistorted
Typewritten characters are selectively distorted as followed:
- Characters are shifted horizontally
- Character width is unchanged - no distortion!

I don't even feel like correcting you when you misstate my own position. For some reason you generate a powerful force of ennui in me.

What this website needs is a better class of Obama apologist.

Someone that actually feels like you've accomplished something when you show them to be wrong.

Sigh... they just don't make good trolls like they used to.

I just now (accidentally) saw this thread. I spewed Dr. Pepper all over the desk. Orly Taitz stand down? Bwahahahaha! She can’t stand down. She has a freak show to run.