Replies

Cicero, yeah, I show up on these threads simply because SOMEBODY might well come up with something that cannot be readily refuted.

Then we'll have something to prove the LFBC provided by Obama is a forgery.

We even had this way back with the forgeries Dan Rather tripped up on. Virtually everything could be demonstrated to be able to be done ~ even the format for the "letters" (simply following a Department of Air Force style book that was current up into the early 60s but was no longer used in the 70s. We found that in the military mail cancellation situation down in the Florida in the 2000 election that Department of Navy had NOT replaced their copies of the Domestic Mail Manual on ships at sea or foreign military basis for probably 10 years. So it is possible for military people to forget to play with the paper in the correct order.)

The one final absolute certainty was that the typographer who'd produced the forgeries used a font not available in the early 1970s AND he'd left "kerning on".

That wasn't available at that time either on typewriters of the kind ordinarily found on Air Force field facilities. Conseuently when our guy produced IDENTICAL COPIES with WORD that proved the forgeries to be forgeries. In short, the PROOF was the ease of making an identical duplicate elsewhere.

What we are finding with the Obama materials is that there's no magic bullet. On the other hand he claims to have been born in 1961 in Hawaii, and at that time (2 years after statehood) folks would have been lucky to have any idea of who was in charge, where to get it, how to use it and a million other problems attendant to regularlization of administrative due process by the NOW state of Hawaii.

No doubt "mistakes were made". If they weren't we'd need to be very suspicious given the conditions.

About 95% of the items people draw attention to would have logically been created in 1961 when the original document was prepared. About 2% involve artifacts in the "image" introduced at the time everything was photographed for transfer into what was probably a microfiche system (then popular with government offices who had large file storage and retrieval problems ~ they really cut the cost).

The rest of the problems ~ 3% ~ relate to final "production", and there you need to know a little bit about scanning, pixelation, xerographic process (essentially the same as laser printing), paper quality, and dirt.

People like Mr. K don't want you to know that. His ambition is to GET RID OF OBAMA.

That's my ambition too, but I don't see that we advance things very much by trying to gloss over "strange" elements that can be readily explained, or which should, in fact, be expected.

I can see him walking into court with the pixelation querries ~ the judge's eyes will roll up in his head.

Much better to walk in with PROOF that this is a forgery ~ and one way we can find that proof is to look for the IMPOSSIBLE, not just the apparently statistically IMPROBABLE.

Imagine a professional forger with decades of experience behind him and the best equipment in the world at hand to produce whatever he needs. Do you really think that person is going to give you cheap clues? Is he going to hide the truth in plain sight? Or, is he going to make sure that everything you see is perfectly consistent with equipment capabilities at the time various "changes" could have been expected with any original documentation. Fur Shur he's not going to put his signature in ink dots at microscopic levels.