Posted on 06/26/2011 12:57:41 PM PDT by steadcom
Those old cloth ribbons had their own problems.
You could analyze the heck out of the typeface information and arrive at only one conclusion ~ two typewriters were used at different times in the production of the original document BUT they had their tabs set identically. I suspect they were made by different typewriter manufacturers but I don't know. Someone needs to hustle up their grandfather who used to repair typewriters for a living ~ see what he says.
"They" only have to go back to a certified copy, not to the original hard copy. I suspect the original hard copies in Honolulu county are out there in the landfill
At the same time I've prefaced all my comments on such devices with "widespread" and "commercial use" ~ they just aren't showing up where people do real work these days.
I can think of several situations where you'd want them however. Out where you don't have electricity.
The claim was that someone's father bought a bunch of brand new manual typewriters in the 1970s. I simply asked what the nature of the business was.
It is a trivial matter to hit a piece of paper with a rubber stamp. Then photograph it with your cellphone. Transmit that image to a website. Download the image to WORD or some other sort of software that can handle images. Then print it.
They will look identical.
They're not, of course, but that's one way to do it.
So, yes, your office has the functional equivalent of a bracket to guide a rubber stamp.
It is a trivial matter to hit a piece of paper with a rubber stamp. Then photograph it with your cellphone. Transmit that image to a website. Download the image to WORD or some other sort of software that can handle images. Then print it.
They will look identical.
They're not, of course, but that's one way to do it.
So, yes, your office has the functional equivalent of a bracket to guide a rubber stamp.
Not really, because it mirrors the original as closely as possible. If the letters are particularly illegible, it might have a hard time recognizing the correct letters for the purposes of searching, though. In terms of what the document looks like, it's not going to drastically change the content.
Yours were the only significant claims in this discussion. A couple of factual claims pertinent to the topic. Those claims, evidently based upon generalizations of your own personal experience are thoroughly rebutted by linked and abstracted citations of typewriter history and databases.
What you are talking about is really old news and no longer worth discussing. There's been a full exposition of typewriter history, rubber stamp history, electric typewriter history, computer history, laser printing history, and a whole host of other items.
We've had people deny folks had electric typewriters earlier than 1961, and those who denied manuals were used later than 1959. Some have argued that rubber stamps simply can't produce letters as crisp, or smudgy, as those in Obama's COLB/LF.
Others rejected the idea that anyone could have mastered manual typewriter operations well enough to produce anything but clumsy, smeary work.
Etc.
You think of it, they've claimed it.
My experience in the matter covers the technology from the early 1960s right up to the present day with THOUSANDS of difference pieces of equipment that might have been involved in producing or forging these documents.
So, not being able to fight the facts you are taking on the writer ~ ?
I think you've lost the debate before you can even begin. Now, for a final reference for you ~ a piece on how to make a rubber stamp-like image using PHOTOSHOP. The comments end in May 2011.
KOINKYDiNK? You be the judge. Try: http://www.laughing-lion-design.com/2007/07/photoshop-tutorial-create-a-rubber-stamp/
I should add that you can see this in the birth certificate PDF by comparing the product of the scan with the OCR output that was posted around the Web. Notice how the scanner detected the 4 in "10641" as a 1, but the actual PDF represented it as a (slightly faded) 4.
I believe there's an option that would replace the scanned letters with a standard font version of the detected letter, but you would only use that with pristine text, not a 50 year-old typewritten document.
As a general FYI to all.
Electric typewriters were around since the mid 1930s and were well available by the early 1940s.
The IBM ‘Selectric’ with the chrome ball came out in mid-1961. Unless Hawaii was buying brand new typewriters in 1961 it is unlikely the DOH was using an Selectric.
So electric typewriters that could type with some consistent pressure and create somewhat uniform looking letters were around for a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric_typewriter
Could these electrics be consistent enough to generate a letter that when encoded via a digital document archive system using single bit encoding that the letters would be down to the pixel exactly the same? That is hard to say. But with single bit encoding you get either a 1 or a 0 or a black pixel or a white pixel. Since no shades of gray are involved an exact duplicate may be more possible than if gray tone or color encoding was used.
Suspicious anomaly - yes.
Proof by itself - no.
If you've seen the article to which *I* am referring, then you have missed the salient proof contained in it. The "t" is so distinctly different in it's several iterations, that it simply cannot be argued to have come from the same typewriter. No conceivable distortion of ribbon, paper, or any other conceivable typewriter mishap can account for the distinct difference in shape between one of the "t"s and another.
I am having difficulty finding the article, if you know where it is, do you have a link?
"They" only have to go back to a certified copy, not to the original hard copy. I suspect the original hard copies in Honolulu county are out there in the landfill.
I don't know if anyone is insisting on the Original paper document. What we are insisting on is a Chain of custody to the original paper document. Microfiche's are still available, but if they are not, then Obama is just out of luck as far as i'm concerned. Digitized abstracts are in my mind a breaking of the chain of custody, and therefore not acceptable as proof.
If Hawaii has destroyed it's Microfiche copies, then it is run by idiots who have seriously mismanaged the records of it's citizens, rendering those records useless for certain legal requirements.
Apart from that, we have the comments from the various heads of DOH that the document still exists. Fukino described it as "half written half typed." A description that looks nothing like what has been shown, but is a good description of what a "born at home" affidavit ought to look like.
You made two claims of fact about the disappearance of manual office typewriters. The two claims were inconsistent with the facts as I recollect from my own experience so I did some research which quickly came to show actual facts to be contrary to the two facts about MANUAL typewriters you stated.
No it's not hard to say. If the image pixelation is reasonable for archival image storage, it is very unlikely. There will be some probability of having two letters in different places have the pixel pattern, but that probability is low. How low?
Experiment and find out! That's my advice. Attempt to duplicate what the process history of the proffered image might have been.
It would be helpful to know which models of equipment that department Hawaii used over the years, and certainly in 1961.
The alignment of tab stops, of inter-key-impression, interline gap and typefaces in the Nordyke and other COLBs of that era are good data set to start with. That should narrow down or suggest a particular model.
IMHO, you are dealing in that reply with someone set to fog, confuse and obfuscate on this issue. My advice is to ignore his posts.
I agree with all the points.
What is really needed is the actual supposed certified copy in physical form. Along with the actual physical COLB that was the subject of the Fact Check photographs.
But ‘the most transparent administration in history’ will not be....transparent. And the pathetic media refuse to do their job and challenge them. We, as citizens, should not have to play guessing games with digital images released from the White House version of Pixar.
I think you are right, but as I hadn't ran across his handle before I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I daresay that there are so many people contesting each and every bit of evidence that this indicates in my mind that the opposition considers this issue significant enough to field many teams of obfuscators.
The "flaky" and highly questionable opinion is in this case that the images released by Obama are legitimate and require no further scrutiny and extra verification of the facts they claim.
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.
