I forget where this came from or if it's even real, but for what it's worth I am posting it here anyway. I found it in my archives from an earlier screen capture from I know not where.
Posted on 06/07/2011 6:45:09 PM PDT by conservativegramma
Typeface analysis shows images come from different machines
The online image of a Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth" was trumpeted by the White House when it was released on April 27 as "proof positive" that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Now an expert in typefaces and typography says it sure was "proof," but not of what the White House would have wanted.
Paul Irey, a retired professional typographer with 50 years experience in his business, has says an analysis of the typefaces used in the Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate that the White House released on April 27 reveals it absolutely to be a forgery.
"My analysis proves beyond a doubt that it would be impossible for the different letters that appear in the Obama birth certificate to have been typed by one typewriter," Irey told WND.
"Typewriters in 1961 could not change the size and shape of a letter on the fly like that," he said. "This document is definitely a forgery."
Irey acknowledges that an IBM Selectric typewriter could have produced different typefaces in a given document, but only if the Selectric ball was changed every time a different typeface letter was struck which would be unlikely to have been done to produce the word "Student," for example, that had two different styles of the lower case "t."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
>>Read it again bozo.<<
Jeeze, you really don’t like having to defend your position, do you?
>>It says parents.<<
Yes, and? There is not in the language in the Amendment that provides clarification of “owing allegiance to.”
I can do a search (as can you) that provides clarification on that term. In general, children born physically here have been adjudicated to be “natural born citizens.” They can get a US passport with just their birth certificate and can vote from the moment they hit 18.
You provide a difference without a distinction. Legally speaking.
It’s not just when they were made, but when they started showing up in working areas inside hospitals. These are not places where you toss a brand new high production machine ~ you use, instead, handmedowns. Typing was very secondary to the process taking place in the maternity ward and at the Birth Records section at the Board of Health.
Holy cow, you must have had a real demon of a taskmaster typing teacher! Sheez, I’m imagining Brun Hilda or something. LOL! My sympathies.
I forget where this came from or if it's even real, but for what it's worth I am posting it here anyway. I found it in my archives from an earlier screen capture from I know not where.
The drafter of (Bingham) s61 aka the 14th explained exactly what it meant on the house floor before the bill was passed.
Try reading it.
Although almost certainly fake, with the help of the MSM it has almost completely defused the birth certificate issue.
Again you miss the point. There would be no MIX OF MATERIAL anywhere on the parts where the form would BE FILLED IN, aka typed information.
Go back and re-read the article again.
Commonality in the tab settings have nothing whatsoever to do with different sizes in the typeface or slant of the typeface.
Go back and re-read the article again.
>>Comprende? Res Ipsa Loquitur.<<
No offense, but you have misapplied “non sequitur” and have now misapplied “the thing speaks for itself” - an incredibly strong legal fundamental.
Literal translation does not necessarily translate into the meaning behind the phrase.
It does not follow that political non-viability of this loser argument means that I (or anyone else) have abandoned the Constitution — your thesis. The new claim of absurdity is, let us say, “interesting.”
It is like saying “you don’t like the color of my car so you don’t like the beach at sunset.” One does not follow from the other.
Likewise, there is no obvious statement that speaks upon its face. Bandying terms might be fun, but understanding them before you do may be the better part of valor.
That's why when one becomes a U.S. citizen he takes an oath of allegiance.
Let’s just say there’s enough expert analysis as to possible forgery that an investigation should be launched.
Or I should say, IF Obama were a Republican, an investigation would have been launched already!
The only part of the latest document to show a possibility of kerning is the curved part of the sheet. That's an artifact of using a single fixed lens ~
Someone in congress..get the evidence and arrest the imposter!
>>The drafter of (Bingham) s61 aka the 14th explained exactly what it meant on the house floor before the bill was passed.
Try reading it.<<
And yet that is not what was in the Amendment. Nor is that analysis part of any legal decision. If you know of one then I will hand my pinball crown to you...
*shrug*
Not just ‘the media’, there is a small army of obamanoids working sites like FR to squelch even the discussions of the items on the fraudulent thing. On this very thread there are at least two working hard to foment anger nad ill-tempered responses to the clear obfuscatory crap their spewing at every factual post. We had a couple of such zotted a while back, but many remain active.
their = they’re
“Nor is that analysis part of any legal decision.”
It was the the framing of the law.
It was the true intent.
It was the legislative intent by the congress.
>>Proportional Spacing Is Not Kerning. Kerning does make use of Proportional Spacing.<<
You are sort of right — for example look at the word “Ward.” Kerning to make it look correct would tuck the “a” under the right upper “leg” of the “W” In addition, the designer may decide to tuck it to the left a little more (that is manual kerning) to make it visually pleasing. Likewise, the “r” might look like it is now not even part of the word so it might be manually kerned to the left a tiny bit to visually associate it back to the original word.
I owned and operated a Compugraphic Typesetter for several years (before Windows 3.x) and we had to interpret kerning codes and sort of “guess” what the result would be. And the film was EXPENSIVE! A miss could easily cost 10 or 20 bucks. Do that 5 or 6 times a day and it could get into some money.
>>It was the legislative intent by the congress.<<
But it isn’t instantiated.
Is your wife an American Citizen through marriage or did she take an oath to become an American Citizen?
There is no other interpretation than mine. Either you defend the constitution or you abandon it. There is no middle ground in ignoring consitutional qualifications for POTUS. Either you uphold it, and fight to defend it, or you abandon it. Claiming it is 'not a viable political option' is pure abandonment. I know it sucks for you to have to face the truth here, but it is what it is.
Sorry, but the faulty 'interpretation' belongs to you alone. Therefore not only is MY interpretation the correct one, but the non seqitur is yours. Not surprising you can't grasp this since you can't seem to grasp the word 'parents' in Bingham's statements on the floor of congress either. Another freeper called you dense, I'll leave it at that.
And no I have not misapplied Res Ipsa Loquitur either. Your actions definitely do speak for itself, like it or not.
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.