Long-Form Forgery for Dummies

Butterdezillion's Blog ^ | 5-4-11 | Butterdezillion

[butterdezillion]

HOW WE KNOW OBAMA'S LONG-FORM IS A FORGERY - NO COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND:

The only non-manipulable image of Obama’s long-form that would have to show the certifying seal is an alleged photograph of the certified long-form. Unlike scans or black and white photocopies, actual photos always show evidence of a seal, as I document here through photographs of my own daughter’s death certificate.

But the alleged photo of Obama’s certified long-form shows no sign of a seal.

That proves that what he showed reporters was NOT the certified copy he received from the HDOH. It had no seal, and the reporters totally spaced off what any one of us who researches this stuff would have immediately checked, since it is the only part that gives the paper any legal value.

Obama had certified copies from the HDOH and he chose to present to the entire world something else, while CLAIMING it was what the HDOH sent him. Presumably it was a print-out of the manipulated PDF. If no manipulation had been necessary Obama could have simply shown the media the actual certified copy, as he CLAIMED to do. The absence of the seal gives it all away.

I don't know how to post the PDF here. It has the images and explanation. Here's a direct link to it: http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/longform-forgery-for-dummies.pdf If somebody knows how to post the whole thing here, I would be eternally grateful if they did. =)

[raygun]

Well, just run with your assumption that my graphic background is 'fairly limited'.

That being merely one of your assumptions.

[raygun]

Actually I’m after your proof that that such and such is mathematically impossible (per #10).

[moehoward]

In an effort to narrow the scope here. Have you any experience with vector or pixel graphics assembly, processing, color separation, process cameras etc. How about graphics software, Photoshop Illustrator Acrobat being primary.

[raygun]

All of your concerns are immaterial, in that you stated ‘mathematical improbablitiy’

I’m asking for that proof.

[moehoward]

"Actually I’m after your proof that that such and such is mathematically impossible"

It is possible. But in only one way. If it's done intentionally.

[raygun]

You can just state: "it is my professional opionion that it is highly unlikely, etc."

I want your proof concerning whatever mathematical certainty you are willing to put your name to.

I want you to state what you believe the mathematical probabilites are, or I want you to state that you're uncertain about those specific details.

[rolling_stone]

all they need is some 1961 birth certificate paper, identical ink, stamps, typewriter, and information to put on the document, and someone who can forge the signatures..then age it and insert it in the records..and of course the serial number must never have been issued to someone else or they would have to conceal all references to that. The sticking point is the number, and in Hawaii, that may be harder to prove the number is used as an imposter than in other states..Then their either are or are not records at the hospital claimed for his birthplace...now that is the first place to check to verify...need a court order...

[moehoward]

"All of your concerns are immaterial, in that you stated ‘mathematical improbablitiy"

If you have no knowledge of the process, it's kind of pointless. But here goes.

When that image was scanned in it was saved as a color pixel image. The image layer most have been focusing on, containing the bulk of information, was converted to a 50% threshold bitmap. If you did that a million times, you would not have a single matching pair of characters.

This doc has at least 5 identical and 1 partial matching pair that I know of, there may be more.

[raygun]

Really? For your assertaion to become assertion in any sort of empirical manner: where’s your work?

So you have any mathematical proofs in support of that conjecture? It IS the SECOND time you’ve made that assertation now.

Perhaps you don’t know how to frame your response in a mathematically rigorous manner. If that is so, you should be careful making statements wherein others may demand proof (sufficient for the rigours of mathematical proof).

In high school geometry we had to deal with ‘proofs’. You coulcn’t just claim the surface area of the radius of a circular manhole cover was less than the equivalent length of a square w/out a proof.

[moehoward]

Which is why I say, if you have no knowledge of the subject, it's pointless to show proof. On the other hand if you spend your days looking at film positives through a loop, you know just how absurd that document is.

If you have a problem with my use of the term "mathematical" as it relates to where bitmap pixels would be placed relative to their grayscale or color counterparts, how about you substitute physical impossibility.
Regardless both are true.

[rolling_stone]

I have no knowledge of the process...but for a minute assume the bc form was printed in a high quality manner (for 1961) are you saying two forms printed in the same run, that the chances of having the same pixels in say Hawaii are over a million to one?
thanks in advance

[john mirse]

This Stig Waidelich, whose “date filed” was supposedly Aug 8th like Obama’s, supposedly had a BC# that was something like 200 off from the BC#’s either Obama or the Nordyke twins were assigned. They expect us to believe they hop around by 200 in a single day? Sorry, charlie. I think it’s much more probable that CNN and Fuddy were in contact to know that Waidelich would be coming in requesting his BC so Fuddy could change the number just for when his COLB copy was issued, in order to try to put off the questions about why Obama’s BC# is out of sequence with the Nordykes.

******

Stig: Do you think that Stig would be kind enough to post a copy of his long and short forms on the internet where we can see them?

Stig's hospital, doctor, and local registrar: Do you have the names of any of those I listed?

Stig's hospital: Was Stig born in Kapiolani like Obama?

Thanks.

[moehoward]

"but for a minute assume the bc form was printed in a high quality manner (for 1961) are you saying two forms printed in the same run, that the chances of having the same pixels in say Hawaii are over a million to one?"

There would be no pixels. We know there are none because of the correspondence between the WH and the HDOH requests the two copies to be xeroxed from the original. That original is either transparent film, photostat, or archival paper. These two copies the WH requested would be virtually identical.

Is that what you're asking?

[rolling_stone]

let me try and clarify-i am thinking about the nordyke twins bc compared to what obama presented..it seems you are saying that its over a million to one that they would have the same pixels on the boxes and some letters - and is that true even if the docs were originally printed at the same time..is that because of the photocopy or scan procedures or original printing..? thanks for bearing with me...

[moehoward]

I think folks are comparing Nodyke twins BC for general layout. Where the certified rubber stamps are placed for example. Doctors names etc. Point being Obamas is a blatant forgery.

The issue with Obamas BC that I'm pointing out is posted on this thread. That there are identical pixel characters on the same document.

Sorry, I'm too lazy to post all the pictures here again. If that doesn't make it clear, let me know.

[raygun]

Your are either equivocating, or guilty of engaging in fallacial reasoning.

A fallacy is either an invalid argument or a specific error in some part of the argument which renders it invalid. In logic, fallacies of the latter sort are either formal or informal; because the validity of a deductive arguments depends on its form, a formal fallacy, or logical fallacy, is a deductive argument which has an invalid form, whereas an informal fallacy is any other invalid mode of reasoning ...

You made a specific claim with respect to probabilities.

I ask once again: show your work in that regard.

[Yaelle]

Bumping for the excellence and great layman explanation of Butterdezillion.

[rolling_stone]

thanks

[moehoward]

Those are the only possibilities?
LOL!!!

[raygun]

It would seem that your position is the 'artifacts' in question are a manifestation of contemporary technology.

Or is your position that there should be no difference in the artifacts whatsoever when examined with contemporary technology at extreme resolution?

It would seem to me that depending the resolution of contemporary OCR technology, that some degree of 'fuzziness' between characters would be acceptable (w/in clearly defined empirical statistical allowances).

To say there are no 'pixels' in manually typed documents that are electronically scanned via OCR software would be false. Forensic analysis can discern the specific equipment used to create the document in question (when several equivalent machines are lined up side-by-side). This is no different than having 100 identical machines w/ideintical software loaded on each, and it can be discerned specifically which one sent the criminal eMail.

Same w/copy or printers.

And as part of expert testimony: odds can be delivered stipulating certainty of one out of however many of such devices there are (or ever have been). And if one is on that jury pool, they'll get a mathematic lesson whereby such claim can be evaluated.

You want to revise your comments and state that in your professional opinion it is intuitively impossible? You do understand that mathermatical certainty and intuition are two different things, right?