The Weepy A:
Posted on 05/28/2011 8:54:29 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
If so then this who "fake" -vs- "REAL+ controversy is moot.
If they can just create one NOW and call it an 'original; then all bets are off. They can create anything Obama WANTS IT TO SAY.
Take a look at the paragraph you just quoted:
The document released yesterday contains a signature at the bottom because it is a re-release. As I understand it, most states only issue two "original" birth certificates: one goes to the parents, and one goes to the state. If the parents lose their original, then the state can issue a certificate but not another original. (The states won't give up their original, and the phrase "another original" defeats the purpose of "original".) However, Hawaii made an exception at the President's request and re-issued a new original. Make no mistake: this new document is an original, even if it was not created on the day he was born.
It contains two obvious errors, both of which are immaterial to the author's argument.
First, hospitals only issue one original, and it goes to the official agency that records births in the jurisdiction (the Hawaii Department of Health, in this case). Those funny pieces of paper with footprints that they hand out to parents are known as souvenir certificates. They are not official.
Second, Hawaii did not re-issue a new original
. As, the author himself points out, the phrase
What Hawaii did, at Zero's request, was to make an exception to their apparent current policy of not giving out certified another original
defeats the purpose of original
.copies
of original long form birth certificates.
So, we are talking about a certified copy of an original. The birthers are claiming it's a false copy, based on crapload of pseudo document science, which the author convincingly refutes. And in any case, if it's a false copy, Hawaii still has the original!
I am not un biased or I wouldnt be on FR but as far as most birther stuff I think I can see both sides of the issue..... your point about this guy Krawetz is well taken .....I dont put him in an unbiased category....which makes me doubt the accuracy of this article.
I would love for someone to come up with a tech expert who all sides can agree is un biased
Check out the stamp from the COLB: http://factcheck.org/Images/image/birth_certificate_images/birth_certificate_9.jpg
Note the “A” at the beginning of Alvin T Onaka in this picture.
There is no smiley face.
Here the A is not smiling. Not smiling at all.
Instead the A is actually weeping. I calls it the “Weepy A”.
Obviously shedding tears for the forgery that someone was forced to manufacture. Probably at gunpoint. Probably also with the threat of having their family lowered into a vat of crocodile sharks swimming in acid.
So when Obama went back and told him “Make with a forged long form this time or back into the acid with them!” the forger figured that they were getting away with it so they changed from a sad face to a happy face.
The Weepy A:
Here is a serious(?) theory that I will put out there.
Obama has a BC from Hawaii ....but there is something on there he wants no one to see. He and his lawyers get the BC folks to sign off on whatever changes they make. (some of this probably has a lot to do with Obamas adoption.)
So the released doc is a combination of stuff it is doctored but the lawyers have all signed off on it making it legal
Once you get lawyers involved its cover your ass time all the time.
I've got to the point I'm not really interested in this BC info that much much less the real details of the latest issued documents.
What interest me more is the data on the presented documents what is actually on file with the State of HI? If so I don't care if it's presented on scratch paper, memo graph paper, by computer, scan, photocopy, ink, pencil, charcoal or blood. If the data is legit then that is all that matters. We have two people in the state saying that the data provided is what is in or on file and have their careers and integrity on the line. Until we know that the data provided isn't what is in or on file with the State of HI then this is an exercise in futility as the form it is presented in isn't the most critical aspect, imo. Interesting anyway. Take care.
Karl Denninger explains clearly why it’s a forgery and he voted for Zero!
I don’t know where the thread on FR is but here’s a link to his site:
Scroll down and there’s a video of KD talking about it:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=185119
Here’s his article:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186343&page=1
He may have written more; seems that I’ve seen a longer piece of writing from him. If I see it I’ll try to remember to post a link here.
Dunno. I’ve wondered that myself.
It does seem possible.
I am skeptical though that whatever it might or might not be is related to eligibility.
I think baby Obama was registered in Hawaii (the empty line 23) but his Pink Slip says he was born in Mombasa.
If this was a betting wager in Vegas I would put money on it.
"The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious. "
Mine: Bullshit.
He is wrong on every single point and this is a classic example of 'obfuscation'. He uses so many unrelated and convoulted 'explanations' the reader is left confused, unless he is another computer image evpert- like me.
NONE of his arguments make any sense, and he ignores the more damning points completely.
So... the Hacker Factor guy is a long-time anti-birther
That’s correct. And the one on Obama’s COLB is exactly the opposite. The text reading forward is depressed. The text reading backward is raised. All of the examples I’ve seen of Hawaiian short-forms have the text reading forward as raised and the text reading backward as depressed.
The ‘layers’ do not prove the document is fake, but the layers themselves are intersting.
The fact that they are there at all is odd (in the first place) and none of this convoulted “OCR” or pdf explanations can take that away.
There is NO REASON for this to have layers. If it was a scan of one page.
The layers themselves contain all the proof that it is a fake. They COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM ONE SCAN of an image.
The pixel alignment and color-vs- greyscale are the smoking guns.
To put this another way- if this was an actual scan, then it should be relatively easyt to reproduce the same way. SCAN IT AND TRY IT YOURSELF. I guarantte wou will never produce anything like this.
The forger blew it for Obaba by not reducing the layers to one image. If not for that, all of these things would have been speculation.
THIS DOCUMENT IS MANUFACTURED- not scanned
The ‘layers’ do not prove the document is fake, but the layers themselves are intersting.
The fact that they are there at all is odd (in the first place) and none of this convoulted “OCR” or pdf explanations can take that away.
There is NO REASON for this to have layers. If it was a scan of one page.
The layers themselves contain all the proof that it is a fake. They COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM ONE SCAN of an image.
The pixel alignment and color-vs- greyscale are the smoking guns.
To put this another way- if this was an actual scan, then it should be relatively easyt to reproduce the same way. SCAN IT AND TRY IT YOURSELF. I guarantte wou will never produce anything like this.
The forger blew it for Obaba by not reducing the layers to one image. If not for that, all of these things would have been speculation.
THIS DOCUMENT IS MANUFACTURED- not scanned
That’s basically where I am too.
I asked for a copy from their 1960-64 birth index book, sent via e-mail if possible. The first time they sent an electronic scan of the page; the second time they said they could not send it electronically so they sent a photocopy of the page. Their photocopy is the one that had the 1960-64 date heading, even though neither the earlier scan to me nor the photo taken by “Researcher” (reported at Post & Email) had the heading.
They may have sent me an electronic printout rather than a copy of the page from their book as I asked for. That would be about par for them. But they still also sent me a photocopy from a 1960-64 birth index that is different than the 1960-64 birth index book they are showing the public at their office. So they may have THREE different versions.
The question is “Why?” And why do they include legally non-valid records in their list - especially when they also claim that having a name on their list actually means something in a legal sense? Seems to me that having a name on the list could mean that person has their name and birth claim written down on a kleenex somewhere. It means nothing.
So why did they alter their 1960-64 birth index so that it means nothing? I believe the public deserves an answer to that question. An answer backed up by the computer transaction logs, since the folks at the HDOH seem to lie as easily as they breathe.
Maybe I need to go look again, but to me it appeared to me to be the opposite of that.
That is the forward reading text is an outie and the reverse reading text is an innie.
The words “STATE” and “HAWAII” can fool the eye, as they are close to being palindromes, especially “HAWAII”.
But “DEPARTMENT” and “HEALTH” give a reference with the ‘DEPA’ and the ‘ALTH’ visible at the top of the photo.
The people at the HDOH have already shown they have no integrity so nothing is on the line.
They have at least 2 different versions of their 1960-64 birth index, and their 1960-64 birth index documentably includes legally non-valid records which show the HDOH to be in violation of the law and in contempt of the court which sealed those non-valid records.
Those people already have so many years in jail if this ever gets legally investigated, that the only thing that could save their hides is for it to never get legally investigated. They will commit any crime to make sure that’s the case. They are the scariest criminals of all right now - the ones who have nothing to lose.
And THAT is what matters to me. Obama is a loser who only gets his power from the criminal government agencies who cover for him. And as long as we have the mafia in control of our government agencies they can put into place whoever they darn well please. They can hide their rules whenever they want. They can lie when convenient. They can refuse to report forgeries as if they can’t reveal content on a BC even though they do it EVERY DAY through their EVVE system.
If the government is gonna be lawless anyway, then why bother making laws? Why bother electing different people so that different laws will be made? If this nation has no rule of law we may as well forget the stupid facade and just say the truth: it’s the law of the jungle, folks. Those with power survive; those without power are enslaved.
That’s what is at stake here, and you better believe it matters.
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.