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

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

[Jeff Winston]

There is nothing informative about Woodmans book.

NOTHING informative about Woodman's book?

Having read the book for myself, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

And this comes from someone who has never even read the book. So you don't know squat about it. And still that doesn't stop you from making the claim.

Again, this is what birthers do: They make "authoritative" claims about things they don't know jack about.

If there's "NOTHING informative" in Woodman's book, then why the hell has just about everyone who has ever reviewed it given it 5 stars out of 5?

Only one person who reviewed it gave it 4 stars. And that was Kevin Davidson - who is also known as Dr. Conspiracy!

And don't say that ALL of the reviewers are just "Obots," or that the reviews are "fake," because you can click through to their other reviews and see that isn't the case.

Click through on the first one, for example, and the first thing you see of the other products reviewed by that person is a bunch of shooting supplies.

Yeah, that's just the kind of thing that's at the top of the liberal shopping list.

He work has been discredited.

Where? Show me where.

In order to "discredit" his work, then it has to be refuted. In other words, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, has to have written something that says, "John Woodman is clearly wrong, and I will explain why."

And when they say it, their reasoning has to be good.

So show me that paper.

And bear in mind that it can't just say, "I think John Woodman's work is wrong."

Woodman wrote a 200-page book on the subject. That's a lot of detail.

So you say Woodman has been "discredited."

All right. Show us where. Show us exactly who has refuted every major point of his 200-page book, and show us where they did it. Give us a link to the report.

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.

Here's the difference between you and me.

I'm not afraid to read stuff that wasn't published at Birther Report.

Because I do the work to figure out what's true and what isn't. And I'm not afraid to change my opinions if I'm wrong. And I'm not afraid of the truth.

[4Zoltan]

According to Zullo the AP image and the pdf were made from the same computer file. But the AP image is a higher resolution than the pdf.

Why does TXE become THE at the higher resolution? Why does the smiley face become an ink smudge at the higher resolution?

[Jeff Winston]

It’s sometimes possible to enhance an image and make detail that is present, but subtle, more visible.

But you can’t take an image that has less detail, and do some sort of mechanical manipulation on it to get one that actually has MORE meaningful detail in it than the original.

Just not possible. So if this is what Zullo is claiming, he’s been smokin’ something really, really good.

[JohnnyP]

So we are to believe it’s just routine for a $34,000 Xerox WorkCentre to produce output with so many anomalies on one document?

http://www.office.xerox.com/multifunction-printer/color-multifunction/workcentre-7755-7765-7775/enus.html

I’m sure the owner’s manual has technobabble to explain why this may occur.

[Jeff Winston]

So we are to believe it’s just routine for a $34,000 Xerox WorkCentre to produce output with so many anomalies on one document?

No. You're not to just "believe" anything.

You can and should verify for yourself that the Xerox WorkCenter does produce these anomalies.

I have never asked you or anyone else to just "believe" ANYTHING. Every single thing I have ever said about this subject, every point I've made, is VERIFIABLE.

It seems that those who take the birther position can't be bothered by the facts, and can't be bothered to verify for themselves whether Claim A or Claim B is true.

Well, that makes sense. Because if you DID verify everything for yourself, then you would KNOW what bullsh*t the birther claims are.

As for whether the Xerox WorkCenter produces the effects seen in Obama's PDF, I have verified it for myself. It does.

[JohnnyP]

Post the pics then.

[Jeff Winston]

I was looking back through this thread, and I noticed that in post 329 I mentioned was I wasn't referring to, but forgot to mention what I was referring to.

Here's the summary what Professor de Querioz had to say about the PDF:

In summary I can only say I see much stronger signs of common MRC algorithmic processing of the image rather than some intentional manipulation.

So then Woodman asks him to clarify a bit:

I understand your overall conclusion to be that the things you see (including the bitmask layers, etc.) are explainable by MRC compression; and you do not see anything that appears to you likely to have been the product of manual manipulation. Is this correct?

And de Queiroz answers:

Yes.

[Jeff Winston]

You asked me to post “pics” or proof that the Xerox WorkCenter produces the effects seen in Obama’s PDF.

Okay. Let’s start by listing the claims that have been made by birthers.

1. The layers in Obama’s PDF can’t occur without someone manually creating them. They are “absolute proof” of “forgery.”
2. The fact that some letters are blurred, and some next to them aren’t, can’t happen without someone manually creating them. They are “proof” of “forgery.”
3. The white halo doesn’t happen unless someone manually creates it. It is “proof of forgery.”
4. The fact that some letters are absolute duplicates of others - right down to the pixel - couldn’t possibly happen unless someone manually copied them. This is “proof of forgery.”
5. The fact that the date stamp, or actually part of it, is on a different layer, and you can grab that layer and move it around, isn’t possible unless someone has manually created that using a graphics program. It is “proof of forgery.”

So those are the anomalies we’re looking for.

There are a few other “anomalies” that have been claimed to be “proof of forgery,” like the fact the typist used the space bar and not the tab bar, that don’t have to do with the PDF itself. Obama’s fathers’ race says “African” and not “Negro.” And so forth. Woodman dealt with these extensively in his book. And no, no one has debunked or discredited the things he said in that book.

But let’s deal with the PDF stuff, because that’s the topic.

Now right here, I want to note that if someone makes a claim, and it’s proven to be BS, then that right there is a stain on their professionalism and expertise.

If they make 2 or 3 BS claims in a row, then you really start to wonder whether they are a total quack.

If they make 5 or 6 in a row, then you KNOW they’re a quack.

Blogger NBC printed out a color copy of Obama’s PDF file. Obviously, this doesn’t start with as much detail as an original paper birth certificate has. That paper printout was only a rough approximation of a genuine birth certificate. So if we scan it into a Xerox WorkCenter, we wouldn’t expect the exact same level of detail that we would get with a genuine original birth certificate.

Still, we would expect that we might be able to get most of the same effects.

And that is exactly what he got. I looked at the PDF that resulted to see whether it contained “anomalies” 1, 2, 3, and 5. It does.

Here is the PDF file. You can easily download it.

http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf

You can get a free trial of Adobe Illustrator, open the PDF for yourself in Illustrator, and verify it for yourself.

Here’s where you can get the free trial:

https://creative.adobe.com/products/illustrator

Now, I didn’t look for anomaly number 4 in that file, because if you want to see what the Xerox WorkCenter does with a scan of crisp, clean text, then you need to scan in something that has crisp, clean text - like an ORIGINAL birth certificate.

Or a TAX RETURN:

4Zoltan provided the following link to Obama’s tax return PDF, so I looked at that:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/POTUS_taxes.pdf

And that absolutely shows the duplicated characters. See the image I posted in post 334.

So you get literally every one of the anomalies by scanning into a Xerox WorkCenter.

The birther “experts” can’t possibly produce the anomalies in the PDF manually and explain why they were done that way.

They can’t produce a single document in the history of hand-done computer graphics that has letters from the same word spread out over a bunch of different layers, or explain why anyone would ever create such a file.

They can’t produce a single document in the history of hand-done computer graphics that has the white halo, or explain why anyone would ever create such a file.

In spite of the fact that they can’t possibly produce a file demonstrating their theory, they’ve demanded that those who don’t believe their theories produce a file that has the anomalies of the PDF.

Now someone has.

And instead of admitting the obvious - that their theories were complete and absolute BS from the start - they will just find some other excuse to cling to their disproven BS.

As for you, Johnny, I’ve handed you the proof you asked for, on a silver platter.

You can look at things for yourself, or you can come up with some excuse for insulating yourself from the truth.

Your choice.

[JohnnyP]

You so funny.

Blogger NBC printed a copy of the forgery and it still looks like the forgery. Why am I not surprised?

Please explain why the two “n’s” in this pic are of different sizes:

http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/071511letters6.jpg

And the two “e’s”, the two “a’s”, the two R’s”, etc.

[Jeff Winston]

You so funny.

No, there's nothing funny here.

The birther "experts" claimed that every one of those 5 things proved Obama's PDF was a "forgery."

I've given you the concrete demonstration that that's complete and total BS.

Blogger NBC printed a copy of the forgery and it still looks like the forgery. Why am I not surprised?

No, the POINT was that the PDF produced by NBC's scan on the Xerox WorkCenter shows the EXACT SAME EFFECTS that the birther "experts" claimed were proof that someone had hand-created the file.

Therefore, the birther "experts" are totally, absolutely full of sh*t.

They have no more evidence of "forgery" than the State of Florida has that George Zimmerman hunted down and murdered Trayvon Martin.

It's all total BS, in both cases.

Please explain why the two “n’s” in this pic are of different sizes:

Ah, so now we're moving on to one of the other allegations.

First, we should note that the previous 5 claims by the birther "experts" are all bullsh*t.

Now, having done that.

The most thorough examination of the fonts that I've seen is, again, in Woodman's book. I wish he had posted all this stuff online so that I could just give you a link. But he didn't.

In any event, he spends about 25 pages doing an extremely detailed and careful examination of the letters in that image. He points out various causes of distortion of those images, and finally concludes that there's no reason to think the differences are due to anything other than distortion.

In fact, you can tell the letters are distorted just by looking at them:

I'm not going to try and quote long passages from the book. I suggest you get a copy.

Again, I don't ask anyone to believe anything just because I said that's the way it is. Go out and look at the evidence for yourself.

[Jeff Winston]

Look at the s’s, both upper-case and lower-case. Look at the i’s. Look closely and carefully at them. Look at the A’s.

It’s clear there’s a lot of distortion there. You can tell just by looking at it.

[JohnnyP]

The letters are obviously from different typewriters.

Desk top counterfeiters would laugh at you.

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/11/features/the-inkjet-counterfeiter

[Jeff Winston]

The letters are obviously from different typewriters.

No, they're not from different typewriters.

First of all, there's some significant variation in the same letter struck twice by the same typewriter. A lot depends on the varying texture of the paper, the texture of the roller at that specific place - and the roller texture CAN vary - on whether the typewriter ribbon was wrinkled at that moment or not, on how hard the typist struck the key, and on how much the typewriter was jumping around at that particular moment.

And that's BEFORE you scan and digitize it all and then run it through something that smooths out the pixels.

Woodman spent like 25 pages carefully analyzing each and every character. One by one. He was very meticulous.

But frankly, I think it's a lot simpler than that.

You can tell just by looking at the damn letters that they are quite distorted.

If you take ANY font, cleanly printed, and put it up against any of those letters, the distortion will be pretty obvious.

S s i R

[JohnnyP]

You haven’t proved distortion is the reason the groups of letters don’t match each other.

The simple explanation is they were taken from different typewriters.

WND Exhibit four compares groupings of letters from the Obama forgery to those from a 1961 BC submitted by a private party.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/342937/

[Jeff Winston]

You haven’t proved distortion is the reason the groups of letters don’t match each other.

You're the person making the extraordinary claim.

Woodman actually attempted to prove or test whether it was different fonts (again, read the freaking book). He looked at a couple hundred different typewriter fonts - literally a couple HUNDRED of them - from 1961. I had no idea there were even that many fonts available back then. But there were.

In the end, after going through all kinds of examination, he concluded there was really no indication of different fonts.

But I think it's even simpler than that. The letters are obviously badly distorted. I think they also relied on a very small number of pixels to form each letter.

When you do that, you get significant variations.

The simple explanation is they were taken from different typewriters.

No, the simple explanation is that the letters are badly distorted, and came from images that relied on only a few pixels to make each letter. When you do that, you get significant variations in the letters.

[Jeff Winston]

Oh. And by the way.

So you have absolutely nothing to say about the fact that the Arpaio Posse’s “expert” claims about the PDF turned out to be nothing but bullsh*t?

[JohnnyP]

Flimsy claims and explanations aren’t proof.

[Jeff Winston]

Flimsy claims certainly aren’t proof.

Arpaio’s experts made claims. The claims never stood up to reality.

There’s a lot more we could say about this. But the claims were so flimsy to start with, and so against the existing evidence, that they were pretty much disproven before there was ever a demonstration that the Xerox WorkCenter produces the effects in the White House PDF.

The actual demonstration only made conclusive that which was already known.

[TheOldLady]

"You're a freak." -- Jeff Winstone Post #311

"Personal attacks are not an argument." -- Jeff Winstone Post #311

You may want to refrain from them yourself, sir.

[Jeff Winston]

That was a direct response to:

Jeff Winston.........you have proven that you side with the opposition, namely the Fogbow and Dr. Conspiracy. You are exposed. There is no need to pretend any more.

The fact is, I side with the truth. Period.

The poster had no rational argument to make. He had nothing to say about the facts.

ALL that he could do was make a silly personal attack on ME.

And this is after I've pointed him to the facts repeatedly, and talked about the evidence, and he has absolutely nothing to say about those.

Except to accuse me of siding with "the opposition" and say that I'm "exposed."

Well... like I said. If the "opposition" is "people who look at the facts, discuss them and tell the truth about them," then I'm guilty.

Otherwise... he's blowing total and absolute BS.

So. Personally, I think that makes him a freak.

What do you think? And do you have any points to make about the actual facts and the evidence?