Does The CIA Director Have Barack Obama’s Records That Prove He Is Ineligible To Be President?

FreedomOutpost.com ^ | 07-03-2013 | Leon Puissuger

[FreedomOutpost]

We know that John Brennan got the head job of the Central Intelligence Agency. However, as we stated in a previous article, by obtaining the records of Barack Obama he may well show that Obama is not eligible to be President.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/does-the-cia-director-have-barack-obamas-records-that-prove-he-is-ineligible-to-be-president/#ixzz2XzxgGS3K

[Jeff Winston]

On a more serious note, I agree that there COULD, theoretically speaking, be things in an image supplied to the public that MIGHT constitute evidence that the underlying document is a fake.

For example, if the image of the birth certificate clearly stated that the signing doctor was Everett P. Hamm, and it was absolutely established that there was only one Dr. Everett P. Hamm who ever delivered babies in Hawaii, and it was also absolutely proven that Dr. Hamm died of a heart attack in 1957, then that would be some really, really GOOD reason to think that the birth certificate was a fake.

However, all of those theories have been investigated.

“Obama Sr’s race said ‘African!’”

Well, that’s exactly what it WOULD have said, because the race was always recorded as what the parents said, and there’s no way he would EVER have described himself as “Negro.”

“Real birth certificates use tab stops!”

Well, the Nordyke twins’ certificates, which were filled out at the same hospital on or about the same day, didn’t use the tab stops, either. So clearly you had a typist who liked hitting the space bar rather than the tab one.

“Kenya wasn’t an independent country!”

No, it wasn’t, but it was a colonial area with its own identity that was so clear that people certainly did name it as “Kenya, East Africa.”

And on and on. Complete BS claims that have never done anything but fail.

So once again, we have a team who are known and proven to have presented clearly fraudulent evidence in the past. They also have presented “evidence” from various “experts,” every bit of which, to date, has been shown to be complete BS.

Ah, but THIS time, they say, they have some REAL evidence. Only it’s secret. We can’t know exactly what it is, only that it involves the opinion of yet another “expert” who, to the extent he is talking about what’s going on in the PDF, clearly lacks any qualifications to be making such judgments.

Especially given that the man who invented most of the technology said there’s nothing there but some rather sloppy tech programmed by someone else.

And especially in light of the PDF file you brought forth, 4Zoltan, which was scanned into a Xerox WorkCenter and shows the same effects as the PDF.

Ah, but in spite of the complete failure of the Cold Case Posse on literally every occasion to date, CCPS thinks THEY are the people who ought to be trusted.

Wow.

[Osage Orange]

Pimp your blog much?

[Osage Orange]

I think Jeff was just posting the obvious....

[Jeff Winston]

My take on it:

I think they shopped literally hundreds of document examiners before they found one who would say what they wanted.

It is certainly possible for someone who has just enough knowledge, and is really not that informed or rigorous, to look at the PDF and conclude that it must be forged.

If they REALLY understand what's going on there, they'll reach the same conclusion as de Queiroz, who has to be, probably by far, the best expert to look at it so far.

But there are people out there who understand just enough to imagine that they are experts, when they really aren't.

Reed Hayes seems to be that kind of person. 20 years ago - which as I noted earlier was before the PDF compression technology was even invented - he did some unspecified studies in using computers to mimic handwriting.

Has nothing at all to do with image compression. Has nothing at all to do with how a PDF is put together.

But because of this, Mr. Hayes no doubt believes himself to be an expert.

Here, in fact, is a list of Mr. Hayes' publications related to computer technology:

“Examination of Computer Generated Handwriting,” Journal of the World Association of Document Examiners, September 1995

One publication, from 18 years ago, on computer generated handwriting.

Absolutely nothing to do with the PDF.

Here's Professor de Queiroz's list of publications.

I've only provided a link, since there are nearly 200 of them, as well as 46 actual computer technology patents issued to him.

To give an idea of what they are like, I will quote only the BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION for the very first of them:

A. Zaghetto, and R. L. de Queiroz, ``Scanned document compression using a block-based hybrid video codec,'' IEEE Trans. on Image Processing, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 2420-2428, June 2013.

They're peer-reviewed. Written with other authors. Published. Presented at major conferences.

There is simply no comparison between Reed Hayes and Ricardo de Queiroz.

So here you have a guy who knows enough to think he's an expert, and a guy who actually is.

And which one does the Cold Case Posse choose?

Why don't they ask Professor de Queiroz for his opinion? After all, he's one of the top experts in the world.

Why don't they ask any of his co-authors, or other experts who invented various bits of the compression techology?

The answer is simple: REAL experts won't promote the BS they're trying to sell.

It's just like the Constitutional claims. It's all based on various disproven BS claims, and the BEST experts - in this case, de Queiroz - completely contradict the birther meme.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

” in this case, de Queiroz - completely contradict the birther meme.”

What has he officially stated about Obama’s birth certificate?

[Jeff Winston]

Don't you even know?

See, this is your problem. You take the words of the Cold Case Posse on faith.

You only read the stuff on all the birther sites. And because it sounds good, you believe it.

Then when someone like me, or 4Zoltan, or Mr Rogers, or Kansas58 says it doesn't hold together, you automatically assume, "Well, that's what they would say. Because they're (Obot, shill, whatever).

You can only learn the truth by reading both sides, and by really, deeply THINKING.

And by not being attached to whatever side you start out on.

I know for someone who isn't used to thinking in this way, it's frightening. What if you're wrong?

Well, if you're wrong, and you find that out, then you get smarter than you were. And that is only a good thing.

Here's the link to what Professor de Queiroz had to say about Obama's PDF. Particularly illuminating is when Woodman asks him a clarifying question at the end as to what his position and understanding actually are.

But really, you need to read and understand the whole thing. Yes, it takes work. Yes, it involves trying to understand the technology a bit.

If you don't go through this kind of reading and understanding both sides of the argument, thoroughly, then you can't possibly understand what it's really all about, and you can't possibly have any REAL confidence that your own take on it is correct.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

“Dear Mr. Woodman,

There is no possible way I can tell if the PDF of President Obama’s birth certificate (POBC) made available by the White House is a “forgery” or not.”

Professor de Queiroz

By the way Jeff, Woodman has no credibility. He is an ally with Dr. Conspiracy and Fogbowers. His arguments were destroyed by Sheriff Joe’s CCP expert Mara Zebest. Queiroz ignores many anomalies found on the PDF such as the little smiley face in Alvin Onaka’s signature.

[4Zoltan]

“There is no possible way I can tell if the PDF of President Obama’s birth certificate (POBC) made available by the White House is a “forgery” or not.”

That should be the response of any document examiner who has not examined the paper LFBC that was sent by Hawaii.

Which is why Mr. Hates response that he has reviewed the paper document is so interesting.

[Jeff Winston]

“Dear Mr. Woodman,

There is no possible way I can tell if the PDF of President Obama’s birth certificate (POBC) made available by the White House is a “forgery” or not.”

That's not what I'm referring to.

Woodman himself said pretty much the same thing in his book. Which you obviously haven't read.

"In order to prove a forgery... All we need is one single irrefutable proof. And we will do our best to find such a proof..."

"On the other hand, if we should find that we are able to safely dismiss every claim of forgery that has been made so far, doing so won't guarantee the authenticity of Barack Obama's long form birth certificate. A document might pass every test we can test it with, and still be a fake.

That's how REAL experts talk.

By the way Jeff, Woodman has no credibility. He is an ally with Dr. Conspiracy and Fogbowers. His arguments were destroyed by Sheriff Joe’s CCP expert Mara Zebest.

Obviously you haven't read his book. He destroyed Mara Zebest's arguments before she even made them. In fact, she barely even merited a mention in his book, which is more than 200 pages long and includes 175 footnotes.

I suggest you read it, if you want to know the real scoop.

Queiroz ignores many anomalies found on the PDF such as the little smiley face in Alvin Onaka’s signature.

Woodman addressed those in his book. You need to read it.

Woodman has no credibility... His arguments were destroyed by Sheriff Joe’s CCP expert Mara Zebest.

By the way, this is what birthers do.

They talk as if they really know something - because they WANT the result to be a certain way - when they haven't even read the book and don't have the faintest damn clue what they're talking about.

[Jeff Winston]

Sorry, should’ve pinged you to 329.

[Jeff Winston]

So much goes back to what I said to "little jeremiah," in response to:

I”m supposed to believe one words you type?

My response to him was:

No, you're supposed to go to the sources and verify for yourself what the truth is.

And that doesn't mean taking some birther promoter's word when they say they "debunked" Woodman's book. It doesn't mean taking my word, either, when I say they didn't.

It means going through the actual arguments. All of them. Point by point. And reasoning them through, tracing them back to the original sources, admitting it when the person you don't like tells the truth, admitting it when the person you do like tells BS. And keeping a score card, and seeing for yourself who's telling the truth.

[JohnnyP]

If the good professor actually invented the pdf technology, he should be ashamed of the output claimed as Obama’s genuine BC.

[Jeff Winston]

This is again why you and everyone else need to read all of the information ON BOTH SIDES, instead of just thinking that because you've read what some birthers have written, that you know enough to comment.

There isn't just one patent and one very specific, set in stone technique on how to do this. De Queiroz in fact said that the programming could have been better done, that the algorithm didn't look like one of his, but that it certainly DID look like MRC segmentation, probably along the line of techniques pioneered by DjVu:

What I see in the document are signs of MRC segmentation consistent with strategies in line with the techniques pioneered by DjVu. I (and my students) do not advocate doing the segmentation that way, but that is not the point either. In fact, I would not be surprised if the software which segmented the WH document was derived from some DjVu tool.

De Queiroz did research with Xerox from 1994 to 2002. During his time at Xerox he was awarded 37 patents for his work on image processing.

37 patents!

But he left in 2002. So obviously after he left, the folks at Xerox took their image processing algorithms in a direction that he personally wouldn't have gone.

So if you want to know who the "real forger" is, it's someone who wrote computer image processing software at Xerox, some time after 2002.

In fact, if you go to Xerox's web site and look for software related to their WorkCenter 7655, you can find software dating back to June of 2005, but no earlier.

So even the time line is completely in harmony with the experiment that showed it was a Xerox WorkCenter that made the PDF, with the 7655 model being a top candidate.

[Jeff Winston]

Okay, so earlier I opened the one PDF file that you posted a link to, to see if it had the same effects as Obama's.

It did.

But there was one thing I still wondered about.

One of the things people have made a big deal about was that Obama's birth certificate had some (but not all) letters in it that were completely, absolutely identical. Every pixel was identical.

So I wondered whether you would see that with one of these machines.

I didn't take the "birth certificate" PDF to look at, although I could have, because that was already corrupted enough from the original by taking the second-generation PDF file and printing it that I would think most of the letters would have ended up really different. The more copies and scans and generations you make from an original, the further away you get from what an original document looked like. If someone wants to go with that document you will probably find the same thing I found on the one I used, since we know both were scanned using the same kind of equipment. But you may have to look a lot harder.

So I grabbed the Obama tax return you posted and opened it up to look for totally duplicated letters.

I didn't have to look very far. There are totally-duplicated letters all over the place. Once again, it's the exact same thing you see in Obama's birth certificate PDF.

I grabbed a screen shot and have posted it below. This shows two things.

First, it shows that a lot of difference can exist between examples of the same letter. Compare the first t with the second one, and the two s's. They are very different.

This is the same thing as in Obama's PDF. SOME examples of the same letter are really different from each other.

But look at the second t and the third one. They are absolutely identical. Every pixel.

And this once more is EXACTLY what you see in Obama's PDF. It's another thing that birthers claimed was "proof of forgery."

But it isn't. It's just proof that the birth certificate (which again we have a PHOTO of in its original, hard-copy, paper document) was scanned onto a Xerox WorkCenter in order to make the PDF.

So the birther stuff is all over. Because it's very easy to get a PDF that is like Obama's in every way, that shows everything that birthers ever claimed was "proof of forgery."

You just have to take a printed birth certificate and scan it into a Xerox WorkCenter.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

How would the professor explain this?

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-10-04-smiley1.jpg

http://www.wnd.com/images/2011/07/110720exhibit12.JPG

[Jeff Winston]

I don’t see that the professor has looked at it. But John Woodman did. It’s in his book, which (again) if you want to be informed, you need to read.

[4Zoltan]

Compare it to the AP high resolution image. The smiley face is an ink smudge which appears because of the compression of the file.

Also look at TXE which now is THE. All because of compression.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

There is nothing informative about Woodmans book. He work has been discredited. Also his website is home to an entire democrat cabal of Obama supporters, namely posters from Fogbow and Dr. Conspiracy. Just linking to it damages credibility.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Sorry but that is not good enough. That is human manipulation indicating the document is not authentic.

[Jeff Winston]

Yeah. Actually, the smiley face is a result of the software’s simplifying the image. It just doesn’t look the same in the PHOTO.