Xerox 7655 Overview Picture (Obot claims to replicate Obama LFBC pdf w/floating signature)

Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored ^ | August 6, 2013 | NBC

[Seizethecarp]

The following image is a composite created by scanning the WH LFBC using Xerox WorkCentre 7655 upside down using the automatic feeder. The resulting file was opened in Preview, the image rotated 180 degrees and printed to PDF. The resulting PDF was opened in preview, the layers unlocked and moved to the side. In addition, a close up of the signature was ‘blown up’ to show how the background layer, not surprisingly, has filled in some of the white that resulted from the separation of the background and foreground layers.

Note how for example the signature block is fully separated.

[4Zoltan]

Cruz’s BC is nearly identical to this 1932 Alberta, Canada BC,

http://pearn-family.com/reports/birth/GordonPearn.jpg

[Seizethecarp]

NBC has now put up a blog post spinning a comment made by Mark Gillar on his Tea Party Hour of Power program (link not yet found by me).

There is a comment on this NBC blog post attributed to Mark Gillar (seems genuine to me) which rebuts NBC’s spin...

“Mark Gillar – From 100% certain to 1% certain”

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/mark-gillar-from-100-certain-to-1-certain/#comments

Mark Gillar says:

August 25, 2013 at 23:48

If this is an example of the type of inductive leaps you take when you do you research, I’m not at all surprised that you think you’ve cleared up all of the anomalies in the LFBC PDF. My point in making the statement about a 99% genuine dollar bill still be counterfeit is that you don’t get to claim victory after explaining some of the anomalies. You have to explain them all.

THIS WAS IN NO WAY MEANT TO IMPLY THAT OBAMA’S LFBC PDF WAS 99% GENUINE. It was merely meant to make the point that a document is either genuine or counterfeit. There is no in-between. Saying the LFBC is mostly genuine is like saying that a woman is mostly pregnant. A lady is either pregnant or not. A document is either genuine or counterfeit.

I have also not formally announced which of your findings I think may be accurate and which I think are not. Frankly, your list of the yet to be explained anomalies is far from complete.

Is this an example of how your thought process works? Agreeing that the document went through Xerox at some point in its life, is not the same as me agreeing with all of your findings. My quote regarding the dollar bill also would not lead most people to believe that I or anyone else believes the Obama LFBC PDF is 99% genuine. It was an example meant to explain a concept. Sorry if you didn’t get that.

[thecodont]

Has anyone “felt” BO’s supposed LFBC? :) I mean, is there a printout for anyone to handle?

I was at a fast-food restaurant this evening, and one of the clerks was explaining to the other how she suspected she’d been passed a counterfeit $1.00 bill. She said it didn’t feel right to her, it was too smooth, it didn’t have the “stickiness” or coarseness of genuine (made from linen fibers) U.S. currency. I suppose if you’ve handled enough of the real thing, you can tell the fakes even by touch.

(Not really joking here. Security paper has a certain “hand” to it.)

[Seizethecarp]

Here is what NBC quotes Mark Gillar as saying...which NBC then tried to spin and Gillar appears to have responded to:

MG: “For two years every single anomaly pointing toward the forgery of Obama’s LFBC has been dismissed by OBOTS as something could have been caused by the specific scanner used to scan in the LFBC PDF.

“With the exact machine now known and plenty of 1961 LFBCs at their disposal, the CCP now knows where the scanner anomalies end and the indisputable signs of forgery begin. As one CCP expert said, a dollar bill that is 99% genuine is still counterfeit.”

[Seizethecarp]

“Has anyone ‘felt’ BO’s supposed LFBC?”

Only one MSM news reporterette was allowed to fondle one of the “original” LFBC copies with the “raised seal” which she claims to have felt and photographed with her cellphone, IIRC. No other journalist or competent document examiner was allowed to touch one, as far as I know.

[4Zoltan]

"...a comment made by Mark Gillar on his Tea Party Hour of Power program (link not yet found by me)."

Actually it is a comment made by Tea Party Power Hour on the YouTube video linked by Cold Case Posse Supporter in post 760.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UhCRrSHREn0

Mark Gillar who produced and narrated the CCP's videos said in part,

"With the exact machine now known and plenty of 1961 LFBCs at their disposal, the CCP now knows where the scanner anomalies end and the indisputable signs of forgery begin."

Does this mean the CCP accepts NBCs results?

According to the CCP what are the anomalies caused by the scanner versus those caused by forgery?

Does the CCP concede that their experts were wrong about MRC bwing a source for the digital anomalies?

[Plummz]

BTW, did you see that Senator Cruz’s BC doesn’t list a hospital, a doctor’s signature or mother’s signature.

So what are you saying, he is the secret son of Juan Carlos?

[Plummz]

So it’s basically a Candian COLB. Let’s see the real one.

[bluecat6]

What ‘document’?

Its a digital file of 1s and 0s. There are not analyzing an actual document.

You can never, ever conclusively prove a digital replication of a document is authentic or not. You can conclusively prove it is a fraud though.

To say - ‘we win’ - NBC must produce an actual document. By design and intent modern secure documents are meant to avoid perfect replication. Thus digital ‘copies’ are not acceptable for almost anything on consequence.

This is a fools game. Just simply show the damn document to an independent examiner. The document - not some goofy computer file.

And show the original 2008 COLB actual document. And the cancelled passports from 1968 on. Then this will all be put to bed.

[Seizethecarp]

“Does this mean the CCP accepts NBCs results?

“According to the CCP what are the anomalies caused by the scanner versus those caused by forgery?

“Does the CCP concede that their experts were wrong about MRC bwing a source for the digital anomalies?”

Zullo, Gillar and Gallups have all explicitly stated that NBC’s claims to date are NOT 100% EXCULPATORY. Partially exculpatory is NOT fully exculpatory (take note Fogblower Butterfly Bilderberg, Esq) as explained clearly by Gillar.

The CCP team are NOT going to reveal which subset of anomalies out of their universe of evidence and identified LFBC anomalies (MRC, typographic or other) have been explained/replicated by NBC.

Nor are they going to reveal what additional evidence CCP has to support an alternate birth location and birth narrative quite apart from the LFBC. CCP is intimating strongly that this additional as yet unreleased evidence provides conclusive proof of LFBC forgery.

Given recent revelation of Barry’s abuse of the IRS to attack the Tea Party and abuse of the FBI to spy on journalists and the ability of NSA to spy on any of Barry’s enemies at will combined with some horrific suspicious deaths, Zullo and CCP appear to have gotten the message in the past few weeks that they need to stop blabbing about who they are trying to enlist to support a congressional investigation.

Barry’s minions have $$ millions of dollars and vicious operatives who can find out who is talking to CCP and try to crush them preemptively.

[4Zoltan]

“Zullo, Gillar and Gallups have all explicitly stated that NBC’s claims to date are NOT 100% EXCULPATORY.”

Zullo, Gillar and Gallups also explicitly stated that the digital artifacts on the PDF could not be caused by simply scanning a document into a computer.

If their experts were wrong about that, what else were they wrong about?

[GregNH]

Nor are they going to reveal what additional evidence CCP has to support an alternate birth location and birth narrative quite apart from the LFBC. CCP is intimating strongly that this additional as yet unreleased evidence provides conclusive proof of LFBC forgery.

The only way you can make that statement above is if you have his genuine LFBC and it does not match any information on the one released.

[bluecat6]

“If their experts were wrong about that, what else were they wrong about?”

Gee, it took this long to get to the punch line.

Its not the truth or the facts that matter it would seem. It is the discrediting effort.

Never saw this coming.

The reverse engineering game is a fools game.

Will the national archives buy some computers to show all the (in)famous ‘documents’ from this administration since it appears none really exist as an actual document.

Real documents matter - LFBC, COLB and passports. All else - is just 1s and 0s.

[BigGuy22]

"Real documents matter"
__

What about the Letters of Verification?

They are "real documents" -- they are printed on paper, and they have signature stamps that you can hold up to the light and raised seals that you can feel.

They -- the paper documents -- verify the information on the LFBC and the COLB, and they have been submitted to court where they can be examined by the judge and challenged by the opposition.

Since they have stamps and seals, they are self-authenticating, and because they are prima facie evidence, all the information they contain will be accepted as valid until such time as they, the Letters of Verification themselves, are proven to be invalid.

I haven't seen any evidence that the LoV's are inauthentic. Have you?

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

“I haven’t seen any evidence that the LoV’s are inauthentic.”

Butterdezillion has. They might be on alleged authentic paper but they are not legally valid.

[4Zoltan]

“Its not the truth or the facts that matter it would seem. It is the discrediting effort.”

If there is any effort to discredit the CCP, it would seem to be by the CCP.

From the March 1st 2012 press conference to the June 1st, 2013 CSPOA presentation, Zullo, et al have said unequivocally that the digital artifacts on the PDF could not have been caused by anything other than human manipulation.

Remember when they told us that the statistical codes were unequivocal evidence of forgery?

How many members of Congress are going to jump on this train if they think they have been lied to or if there is even the hint that the CCP is a bunch of incompetents?

How important is credibility in a criminal investigation?

[BigGuy22]

“They might be on alleged authentic paper but they are not legally valid.”
__

LOL, “alleged authentic paper”!!!

The paper makes no difference. They have seals and signature stamps. It doesn’t matter what kind of paper they are printed on. Under the law (Federal Rules of Evidence 902), they are self-authenticating documents.

And since the physical documents have been submitted, the only relevant question is whether the other side’s attorneys have challenged their authenticity.

I don’t believe they have, in which case it’s a closed matter.

But if you believe opposing evidence has been presented, please tell me what it is. Needless to say, if no legal challenge to those specific documents has been filed, what Butterdezillion may think is of no consequence.

[ConstantSkeptic]

I was at a fast-food restaurant this evening, and one of the clerks was explaining to the other how she suspected she’d been passed a counterfeit $1.00 bill. She said it didn’t feel right to her, it was too smooth, it didn’t have the “stickiness” or coarseness of genuine (made from linen fibers) U.S. currency. I suppose if you’ve handled enough of the real thing, you can tell the fakes even by touch.

Obviously not. Who on earth would counterfeit a ONE dollar bill???

[justiceseeker93]

No one on our side should be wasting too much time with whatever legitimacy which NBC and his fellow Obama defenders are trying to claim about the purported LFBC posted on the White House web site back in 2011.

The CCP already has an affidavit from a Certified Document Examiner who has previously done work for Obama lawyer Bob Bauer (in all likelihood a Democrat himself), saying that he is certain that it is a forgery. That alone should trump any propaganda from them.

[BigGuy22]

“The CCP already has an affidavit from a Certified Document Examiner ... saying that he is certain that it is a forgery.”
__

But, as I said earlier, the Letters of Verification remain unchallenged. They are hard-copy legal documents that independently confirm the information in the COLB and LFBC.

The LoVs have been submitted as evidence in court, and since no one has even attempted to contest their validity, they firmly establish the President’s birth data.

Now, there isn’t a Certified Document Examiner in the world who can prove that a document is a forgery once it has been established in court that all the data in the document is correct. No falsehood, no forgery.