Posted on 07/18/2011 4:28:59 AM PDT by RobinMasters
NEW YORK Unless the typewriter used to type Barack Obama's purported Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth" in 1961 was magically capable of producing different size and shaped images with the exact same key, the document released by the White House April 27 is a forgery, says a professional typographer with 50 years experience.
"Steel-stamped letters do not expand to larger sizes and morph into different styles of type," retired New York City typographer Paul Irey told WND.
As WND previously reported, it would be impossible for the different letters that appear in the Obama birth certificate to have been typed by one typewriter, according to Irey.
"These are irrefutable proofs of forgery," he said.
His newest analysis suggests the document was assembled from images of letters or words taken from other documents.
"The forger who produced the Obama Hawaii long-form birth certificate may have thought that all typewriter typeface styles were alike," he said.
"To get his letters, the forger must have understood that he needed to copy the old typewriter styles," he continued. "So the forger probably scanned a bunch of old birth certificates, without realizing that the letters in the old files were from different typewriter styles. That's why the letters in the forged document do not match each other."
Irey used as a source document the Xerox copy of the Obama birth certificate the White House press staff handed to the press assembled in the White House pressroom on April 27, as seen in Exhibit 1:
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Exactly. But for the sake of argument I looked over the OCR theory and found it wanting.
Because some characters were scanned as the lower-res background layer and not the enhanced text. The most likely reason for this is that the letter was faded and wasn't detected by the scanner.
I remember hearing/seeing and of course many times reading. I believe it was on Youtube also. Has anyone contacted Keyes?
“You and I obviously have a difference of opinion regarding the word “Honest.”
Assuming (for the sake of argument) Barry is born in Canada to an Underage Girl, yet gets a Hawaiian birth certificate created by an Affidavit from his Grandmother, and is subsequently adopted by same Grandmother, you think it’s perfectly reasonable for a Hawaiian privacy law to cover up the fact that he would NOT meet article II requirements?
And then you have the GALL to cite the 4th amendment, thereby asserting that it would be an ILLEGAL search for a document to prove the President is legal? SERIOUSLY?
Let us get you on the record so that no one need waste any further time with you. Please tell us that you honestly believe that a state law of Privacy has more legal weight than Article II compliance.
Your answer will be reposted to you every time you try to engage in this discussion just to show people that you have faulty judgement and/or are dishonest.
It is now nutcracking time. Make your words sweet and tender because I assure you that you will be eating them later if they are not.”
I would advise anyone pursuing the hypothetical theory presented above to go to a judge and present their evidence and see if a judge will issue a court order for all records pertaining to the birth of one Barack Hussein Obama II that the state of Hawaii may possess. That way Hawaii’s privacy statutes, Article II, Section 1 and Article IV, Section 1 all can be honored.
I would have no problem at all with any state or federal Court ruling that Article II, Section 1 takes primacy over Hawaii’s privacy statutes but I see no need for such a ruling since Hawaii law provides a method for satisfying both state and federal law.
I had the gall to reference the 4th ARTICLE of the US Constitution not the 4th AMENDMENT to the US Constitution.
I’ll assume that you do know the difference between articles and amendments and that you just misread.
Were I making erroneous arguments I would doubtlessly move smoothly between them. As it is, I must content myself with moving smoothly between valid arguments in contrast to your jerky and inconsistent movements between faulty arguments.
But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.
-No video of BHO saying that exists. The video of the debate doesn't support that it was ever said.
No video of the Gettysburg address exists. The lack of video is not proof that it didn't happen. You might be right, but this is not proof.
-The transcripts of the debates do not include that line, but one transcript includes a very similar line leading to the strong suspicion that this line is simply being misrepresented.
That increases plausibility for your argument, however the articles I have found regarding this issue indicate that the comment was not said during the moderated portion of the debate.
-Keyes has never claimed that BHO made such a statement, even during his effort at pursuing legal action.
The lack of a claim is not a denial. If Keyes says it didn't happen, I'll regard that as proof. I will try to get a response from his office today.
Any other three year old, easily debunked birther myths you want to discuss?
No, just a precept of logic. It's really HARD to prove a negative. Some would even say it's impossible. (argumentum ad ignorantiam) Look it up. :)
All in All I would have expected a better standard of proof to arrive at your level of "CERTAINTY."
Debate transcripts:
http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=367
http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=373
http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=370
The third one has the money quote: “I’m not running to be the minister of Illinois. I’m running to be its United States Senator.”
Actually, it never happened.
You’re a silly person.
See 247?
nonsense -
duplicate this result - if you can.
I tried on a mac to scan to PDF with multiple different settings for enhancement including enhance for OCR (not actually ocr) - and NO SUCH layering or differentiation in pixel size occurred.
Then you can be certain too.
No reason to give it a different pixel size and bit depth. Suppose it's just a glob of ink, undetectable as a letter? Why change to larger pixels and a finer dynamic range?
It is obviously recognized as text for it is in the middle of a text string. Sorry, but you are invoking Deus Ex Machina. LITERALLY!
Odd how the stories always grow and change to insulate themselves from the cruel lens of reality.
I would have no problem at all with any state or federal Court ruling that Article II, Section 1 takes primacy over Hawaiis privacy statutes but I see no need for such a ruling since Hawaii law provides a method for satisfying both state and federal law.
Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury,the Witness presumably did not understand the question. We are not INTERESTED in what you think a Judge will do. We are interested in knowing if *YOU* believe that a State Law should triumph in covering up a lack of ARTICLE II eligibility? This is a question of *YOUR* intellectual honesty, not whether courts can go through motions.
This is a yes or no question. Do you believe state privacy laws should be allowed to permit an individual to skirt Article II compliance?
I had the gall to reference the 4th ARTICLE of the US Constitution not the 4th AMENDMENT to the US Constitution. Ill assume that you do know the difference between articles and amendments and that you just misread.
You got me on that one. I was in error. You are correct, I am incorrect. That actually makes me feel better, because I regarded invoking the 4th amendment as unbelievable chutzpah.
Just keep asking the question. Like water on limestone it will wear away Obama’s support. If it doesn't get him out of office wearing handcuffs, at least it will erode, along with his other baggage, support in the voting booth.
And....Polls now show that only 47% of the population say they are sure Obama was born in the U.S. IMAGINE THAT!!! Less than half the people will, with certainty, say that their president was BORN here! There is NO possible way that this can help Obama in any way.
Those polls were taken in May. It must be far worse for Obama now because far more people **know** that he posted flamingly crude forgeries.
I am not going to look up the polls for you, but HUGE numbers of Republicans believe that a usurper is sitting in the White House and are really ticked about it. If they get out the vote for Republicans then **all** Democrats will suffer in the voting booth. Will Democrats allow that or will they arrange for Obama to be dumped? ( Who knows?)
There are **attorneys** sitting in our various state legislators who do know about Obama’s very questionable eligibility and who have gone to tremendous effort to write bills to have every candidate prove their eligibility. Do you honest think that these attorneys, who have real influence in their state, are going to let Obama skate right on through to the ballot? Really?
How many states had bills pending? A dozen or more? One got all the way to the governor's desk. It takes a lot of work to get a bill that far, and legislators don't do that work unless they are committed to the issue.
Personally, I think Obama is in a lot of trouble. He may even be in trouble criminally. We will see.
And....There are a lot of paid trolls in this site. Personally....I believe you are one of them. I am not lying about this.
That could be the origin of this meme. However, the Post and Email claims two witnesses to it, and under different circumstances, However witness testimony is unreliable in my opinion. At the moment I am going to classify it as unproven.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/21/2nd-witness-to-obama-admission-in-keyes-vs-obama-2004-debate/
You can take his word for it. He wasn't there!
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.