Posted on 05/19/2011 6:28:25 PM PDT by Red Steel
Re: Legal proof that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have irrefutably proven that the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama presented to the world on April 27, 2011 is a fraudulently created document put together using the Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator programs and the creation of this forgery of a public document constitutes a class B felony in Hawaii and multiple violations under U.S. Code section Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Sec.1028, and therefore an impeachable offense. When this comes to the public’s attention, it will be the greatest scandal in the country’s history—nothing comes even close. This will surpass the all previous scandals including the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration.
My Credentials
I have a unique background for analyzing this document. I owned a typesetting company for 11 years so I know type and form design very well. I currently own Archive Index Systems since 1993, which sells all types of document scanners worldwide and also developed document imaging software (TheRepository). I know how the scanners work. I have also sold other document imaging programs, such as Laser. Fiche, Liberty and Alchemy. I have sold and installed document imaging systems in city and county governments, so I know their procedures with imaging systems and everything about the design of such programs. This will be important in understanding what has happened with Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth.
What President Obama Presented to the Public is an alleged Certificate of Live Birth.
What President Obama presented is not the hospital birth certificate. The birth certificate would have the imprint of the baby’s footprint, weight, length and other information such as the religion. The Birth Certificate would be the source of the same information that would be typed onto the Certificate of Live Birth (the Long Form). What President Obama released is supposedly the Long Form that the County gets from the hospital, which is typed on a blank form given to the hospitals by the county. That copy is then mailed to the county Board of Health and kept as a legal government document. On Obama’s form (Figure 1) the County Clerk supposedly hand stamped the form on the upper right hand corner with a bates stamp. The number is a sequential number that reflects the sequence of Certificates that come into the County Health Department. The reason I know it was stamped by hand is because the number is crooked. The County Clerk also hand stamps the date of acceptance (box 20 and box 22). Obama’s Long Form was supposedly received on August 8, 1961, four days after his birth.
Continued in SCRIBD document below...
News Release: Legal proof that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery.
BFL
Graphic arts and technical support on BOTH Macs and PCs in both hardware and software in companies producing magazines and newspapers.
You don't know what you are talking about nor does the character who claimed the layers were artifacts of OCR. I've examined the certificate and various of the characters that were supposedly typed with the same typewriter DO NOT MATCH from line to line in either size or style. A comma on one line has a much larger ball and a curved descender, next line down, a continuation of the typing, another comma, the ball is much small and descender is decidedly straighter. It's from a different typeface. In another two locations a typed "b" is EXACTLY identical down to pixel aberrations. . . indicating they were cut and pasted from the same source! The odds against the two being identical by accident is huge.
"I follow the COLB fraud threads. You have been shot down on every one of them. You do not offer facts, but claims and testaments."
I challenged you to factually refute the claims I made earlier in this thread. You declined to do so.
Let's be a bit more specific.
The first of the four claims I made that I identified as easily testable was:
Blow the document up to a really high resolution. You can do this just in your web browser. Get the smallest pixels BIG.
Then look, and you will see that the leftmost portions of the typewritten letters dip downward.
Below is indisputable proof of my factual claim.
In the first of my testable claims, then, the author of this piece is incorrect, and I am correct.
It is also a fail for your contention that I do not present factual arguments.
So far, the score of irrefutably proven items is Douglas Vogt 0, PA Engineer 0, Jeff Winston 1.
I would appreciate an apology for your false personal attack.
You, sir, made assertions without providing evidence. You made claims that fly in the face of what I can see with my own eyes. I subjected this document to my own deconstruction, and did not rely on what others claimed and made measurements that show your claims to be false. Ergo, they are NOT factual nor true. They are twaddle. You continue to repeat similar claims without evidence. Please provide some graphical evidence of your claims. I submit you have earned the statement I made about the level of your cluelessness.
I also notice the certificate on top uses upper case “X” while that on the bottom uses lower case “x” - makes a difference. I certainly remember if I typed fast and didn’t hold the shift key down properly, the caps hit above the line.
"I follow the COLB fraud threads. You have been shot down on every one of them. You do not offer facts, but claims and testaments."
I challenged you to factually refute the claims I made earlier in this thread. You declined to do so.
The second of the four claims I made that I identified as easily testable has to do with the layers.
Are the layers necessarily proof of human creation, or are they more likely (as I claim) artifacts of a machine process?
I will present two reasons for my belief.
First, the one I mentioned at the time:
...look up “National Review Online obama birth certificate layers” in google. That will lead you to the article on National Review in which their reporter investigated the layers and found that he could easily duplicate the same thing.
That article is here. Someone has brought up a valid point: that the layers in the National Review Online document do not contain identically the same kinds of items as those in the Obama document. And this is quite true.
However, NRO has clearly demonstrated that scanning and optimizing a PDF file can and does produce layers.
In order for the layers to be identical, we would need the identical document, the identical equipment scanned on, the identical software used to optimize and process to PDF, and the identical settings (which can often range from 0 to 100 on multiple items) in order to produce more or less identical results.
If you know as much about computers as you claim to, then you know that this statement is absolutely true.
So has Nathan Goulding over at NRO PROVEN that the Obama document layers were created by machine? No, but he's proven that such creation is definitely a possible explanation.
In so doing, he has demonstrated that the layers phenomenon, at this point, is NOT proof of fraud.
I will now present my second reason for my belief.
In order to believe the layers-fraud theory, you have to believe that the layers in the PDF file are the layers as manipulated by the forger.
It would not make sense for the layers in the PDF to be something other than what the forger forged, because then we would have to have some other process (computer software) that processed the original forgery document into what we see now, and kept the original layers intact while substantially altering them.
Such a belief incorporates the machine-alteration idea that the forgery theory is trying to refute!
So it is therefore ESSENTIAL to the belief that the layers are evidence of fraud, that you also believe the layers were created by a person, not altered by a machine, but AS ORIGINALLY CREATED BY THE FORGER.
Explain then the existence of the much HIGHER-resolution version of the document released by the Associated Press on the same day as the PDF file, a small portion of which is displayed below.
This HIGHER-RESOLUTION document shows almost none of the things complained about in the PDF. White halo? Not present. Some letters black-pixel, some in grayscale? Not present.
In fact, the document is FAR different from the PDF, and it's all at a MUCH higher resolution.
So in order to believe the layer-fraud theory, you must believe that a forger SEPARATELY went through a ton of work to create some sort of forgery in the green PDF file, and also, SEPARATELY, did the same kind of forgery work on a second document at a much higher resolution.
But why do that? Surely anybody with half a brain would only do the high-resolution forgery.
Well, maybe he did the PDF forgery first, and then decided he needed a higher-resolution version.
Okay, well, anybody with half a brain at that point would have used the high-resolution version to create a high-resolution green-background document.
As someone else put it in this thread (more or less), do you really believe that the most powerful man in the world can't find anybody better than a plain idiot for a forger?
At the very least, I've proven that the layers-fraud theory is NOT, at this point, proof of fraud.
Actually, that's putting it mildly, but we'll leave it at that.
Even so, for the thing we can clearly examine, that still makes it: Douglas Vogt 0, PA Engineer 0, Jeff Winston 2.
I would appreciate an apology for your false personal attack.
I will also be waiting for you to defend your apparent belief in the layers-fraud theory, even with the existence of a much higher resolution document that shows the same thing.
Please see post 144 before posting such things.
Please see post 147.
The fact that some items are solid-color and some are grayscaled are the result of a computer optimization process. If you detect items that should likely be black, and make them the same color, it allows you to save space in your final document.
We have a much higher resolution document that displays no such effect: ALL items in that document, including the black-pixel ones in the PDF, are GRAYSCALED. That is because a different file format and optimization process were used.
What if they post them in ALL CAPS? How ‘bout then?
Um... well, ALL CAPS might help... lol...
BTW, please have a look at some of my recent posts in this thread if you get a chance. :)
If you compare Obama’s Colb with the Nordyke twins Colb are there similarities ?
Differences?
It would seem that the Nordyke twins document is as close to “validated” as one can get
Please see my #151 ....I should have addressed it to you as well
Then you'll have absolutely no difficulty in explaining exactly why, after spending many hours producing a lower-resolution forgery PDF, somebody also spent even more hours producing a high-resolution forgery as well.
See post # 147.
Oh, and you'll also have absolutely no difficulty in explaining exactly why someone felt it was necessary to manually copy approximately 50 apparently random letters and checkboxes in the PDF file (which are to-the-pixel identical to other letters and checkboxes in the image) rather than simply scanning in a real form, or using the image of a form already scanned.
Or why the now fact that such duplication to the pixel of letters is now KNOWN AND CONFIRMED to be an artifact of scanning and optimizing documents (see my recent pings for details.)
By the way, PA Engineer, I would appreciate an apology for your baseless ad hominem attack on me.
Also see posts 147 and 153.
I challenge you to refute what I've posted.
If you are unable to do so, then I expect a sincere apology for your claim that my posts are "not factual," "not true," "without evidence," "twaddle," and "clueless."
I would also appreciate an apology for your earlier ad personal attack on me.
I also challenge you to explain the same things I asked PA Engineer to explain, in post 153.
Just how do you explain the FACT that the "Alvin P. Onaka, Ph.D" stamp at the bottom of the supposedly scanned page extracts as an image that had been separately scanned, reduced by 24%, and that had been rotated to a minus 90°??? This was according to the Meta Data that Adobe Illustrator extracted from the layer. . . THAT would not have been created by any attract of OCR or image optimization, I assure you!
Attract= artifact
Where’s Frank Abagnail when you need him?
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.