Posted on 05/04/2011 10:01:56 AM PDT by BigFinn
So why chose to lie about it?
I made the point over and over again in full context that the State of Hawaii has a statutory policy directing the issuance of birth certificates for children born outside of Hawaii, and it also directs the place of birth be obtained from the the parents and/or any other witnesses used to verify, despite the possibility of perjury by the parents and witnesses. It is your problem when you attempt to twist the semantics out of context to the original topic and deny it. In other words, Hawaii does not have a statute directing the Department of Helath to issue the Certificate of Birth with a place of birth indicated different from the true or false information provided by the parent/s and/or witnesses when there was no attending physician or other like independent official to challenge the information and thereby reject the application. In the absence of such a challenge the State of Hawaii directs the Department of Health to use what was provided and issue the Certificate of Live Birth with the place of birth provided. I also provided a real life example of just such a falsified birth certificate issued by Hawaii for Sun Yat-Sen.
You are now welcome to withdraw your false accusation of a lie and apolgize anytime.
The above is not true - thus a lie. Either you made it up or someone else did so - but you could not substantiate it - and now you accuse me of semantics and taking it out of context? Sorry - you said the above and it is not true.
Eat crow and like it. Be careful what you ask for - you might get it.
Even the U.S. Government's DHHS released a report titled as Birth Certificate Fraud which commented upon the way in which state governments almost always refuse to enforce or prosecute known cases of perjury on the birth certificate applications the states direct their offices to issue. So, your abusive comments have no basis in fact, and the readers can judge for themselves. They can see just what you are made of by your own remarks.
At this point, I'll accept that it's got a few hitches in its gait if it's trying to walk like the ostrich the White House claims it is. But it's also not walking like a duck, to my eyes--the forgery story just doesn't make sense on so many levels. Like the ones I mentioned before--they cloned some A's and not others? I find that really unpersuasive.
None of that confirms that, as a default setting - for a child born anywhere in the world - the State of Hawaii directs that “Honolulu” be put there.
You said that there was such a directive. Now you claim that it would be put there if parents fraudulently claimed Honolulu.
Parents claiming Honolulu and the default setting via directive from the State of Hawaii to their DOH being to print Honolulu for a child born anywhere in the world are OBVIOUSLY two entirely different things.
Your words are there for all to see, along with your cowardly inability to own up to them.
Which may very well be their intent. Especially when considering the AP version contains no similar evidence
I agree, providing an amateurish counterfeit which may contain legitimate information is fairly unsexy. But remember, it took time to get to the bottom of the Killian documents (RatherGate) controversy.
As to the legitimacy of Obama's information, time will tell. I was only interested in confirming whether or not the WH doc was an honest representation. It is clearly not.
“the State of Hawaii directs the Department of Health to report them as being in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, even when the births occur anywhere else in the world,” WhiskeyX
WRONG!!!!!! Absolutely unequivocally 100% in error and a lie.
Eat crow and like it.
AllBSdreaming is a democrat.
Well, I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt and just chalk it up to a developmental disability which manifested itself as an imaginary “birther” persecution complex and conspiracy delusion.
Butter,
This is the kind of analysis that I was attempting to encourage in my private communication to you, the only difference being that Moe analyzed the characters, not the security color background. Regardless, it is the same principle. A scanned document containing too many identical shapes is statistically so unlikely as to be nearly impossible.
Your raised stamp issues are OK but as it concerns only one raised stamp it could be argued away as an anomaly of lighting. Eg, you did not use sufficiently high powered lighting in your tests, whereas the scanner used for the Obama COLB used a high powered xenon bulb or whatever which had the side effect of washing out raised irregularities. I know, it is unlikely, but theoretically possible, and that is all someone would need to poke a logic hole in the contention...
I'm guessing he may be referring to the "convert to text file" option most OCR apps have. As you probably know when they come across a character they can't process, say the "t" in "cat", they print a series of apparently random characters, resulting in "ca$%gvbLo@*"
One other point. OCR does not always convert to text, for instance products used to read handwritten items like checks or envelopes.
Really? I'll take your word for that--I've never seen it. I've seen the OCR make a bad guess, giving you "ca4" or something like that. And if there are a bunch of characters in a row it can't recognize, it might produce gibberish: "cat in the hat" might come out "ca4 m 4be ba4." But in my experience, you can almost always match input and output character for character and see what was substituted where.
Yeah. I have only two options “Text” or “Searchable PDF” in my OCR app.
Searchable PDF produces the results you mention. Text option, the one I mention above.
ping for later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.