Lord Monckton: ‘I’m no birther,’ but Obama birth certificate ‘plainly a forgery’

The Daily Caller ^ | March 22, 2012 | Jeff Poor

[iontheball]

On Dennis Miller’s radio show Thursday Lord Christopher Monckton, a former policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and an activist against global warming “alarmism,” went all-in on questioning President Barack Obama’s citizenship.

Monckton, the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, hinted about his position on the issue in April 2010 at a tea party rally on the National Mall near the White House. But on Miller’s show, he said the birth certificate issue was far more important that combatting so-called anthropogenic global warming.

[ILS21R]

There's nothing unusual about layers showing up when you open the document in Illustrator.

I didn't say there was. What IS unusual is what is contained in those layers. Did you watch the vid? Would you like to comment on it?

[Kleon]

As I said before, we’re not dealing with a pristine document, so if you understand why there are “layers,” then you can see why they can look like that.

[punchamullah]

And, while we’re at it, let’s get all the names right. Jason Robards Jr played Ben BRADLEE.

[1066AD]

Surely the foreign gov’ts know the truth, whatever it may be - UK, France, Russia, Israel etc.

[ILS21R]

As I said before, we’re not dealing with a pristine document, so if you understand why there are “layers,” then you can see why they can look like that.

You're wrong. It's impossible for the layers in Obama's birth certificate to contain the data that they do by software processing alone.

I find it interesting that you fail to comment on the video link I sent you. It clearly shows that Obama's birth certificate is not a scan or an optimization of a scan.

[sodpoodle]

That is interesting - the UK might have access to Kenyan records; the French in Indonesia; Russia on the US Communist Party and Israel on any Muslim connections.

Would explain his strange foreign policy snubs and suck-ups.

[DiogenesLamp]

I am interested here mainly in the limited question of the electronic document. So based on what you said, you do not think the electronic document was materially altered in the pdf the WH released, is that right?

I think the White house added the Green Anti-Copy paper background to the document. We've seen pictures of the document which were purported to be the Originals from Hawaii, and they are blue colored without that green crosshatch.

I believe the copy which the White House staff posted on the White House web site was transmitted electronically from Hawaii through email. I believe it was originally transmitted to Obama's lawyer as a proof copy to see if the document met the requirements he petitioned the court for. I believe Obama's lawyer sent this electronic copy to the White House staff without knowing that PDF files can contain the information used to create them. I believe the Hawaiian DOH staff was also unaware that PDF files contain the layers used to create them.

Neither the Attorney, nor the Department of Health employees are knowledgeable computer experts, and neither have probably ever dealt with an electronic copy of a created birth document before. In the case of Hawaii, they create these things, then print out a paper copy, but in Obama's case, they probably wanted to make sure it met the approval of his attorney.

I am guessing the Attorney approved the document, and they then printed out two copies which he then hand carried back to the White House.

I recall reading that you have some experience with computer graphics, so I assume you know what bit-depth and resolution mean? I will point out something curious about the document which doesn't make sense unless you postulate it was created by patching pieces from different file formats together. Look at the following img for example.

If you will note the pixel size of the "A", and compare it with the pixel size of the "R", you will notice that the pixels of the "A" are four times denser than the pixels of the "R". You will also note that the "A" contains pixels with a bit depth of 1, (Binary. On or off) while the "R" contains pixels with a bit depth of at least 4. (16 distinct shades of gray.)

What can explain this? One would think that all letters would be in the same resolution with the same bit depth. (Binary grey scale or color component.)

What would explain it is if the source of these letters came from different file formats. The "A" was taken from an image file with the character saved in 4 times the resolution, but two color only (black or white) data file, while the "R" was taken from a lower resolution 16 bit gray scale image file.

If you have any familiarity with binary image files, or bitmaps, then you know exactly what I am talking about.

Hawaii has been digitizing their records archives for a very long time, and possibly changed their image storage file formats more than once in the last 30 years. All previously used image formats are openable by modern software, so any file format can be opened, copied and pasted to a destination image file.

Modern software can easily mimic the resolution and bit depth of any previous format using the modern high resolution format with 24 or 32 bit depth color. (a Black pixel would be represented as 0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000 and white would show up as 1111,1111,1111,1111,1111,1111 in a 24 bit pixel format.)

So to summarize, it looks like they copied letters from different files with different formats, and then pasted them onto their destination surface which recreated their original look in the Modern High resolution high bit depth format.

Nothing else makes sense to me. An optimization program would hardly pull out the "A", and change it to one particular format, then use a completely different format to create the "R" in the same word. One would think that whatever happened to the "A", the exact same thing would also happen to the "R" during any automatic process. They should have ended up with the same pixel size, and the same grey scale or color bit-depth.

YMMV

[DiogenesLamp]

I have been agitating for one, just 1, state AG to get off his ass and do his job: part of which is removing suspect characters from the ballot. It is the only way to get Team Obama into court to be heard as PLAINTIFFS on the merits of the eligibility case. They throw unqualified people off ballots all the time ... why not in this case?

You and me both. I have been saying since 2008 that we NEED to make sure he can't get on the ballot unless he presents a certified copy of his ORIGINAL birth certificate. Not an "abstract", not a replacement, but a copy of an ORIGINAL document. No weasel words allowed.

Hawaii used to certify their documents as a "TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RECORD ON FILE."

Nothing else can be accepted, because it always leaves the door open for it being a replacement document.

At this point, i'm not sure any state is going to force him to cough up an original.

Anyway, I did a quick internet search for a Hawaiian "Certificate of Home birth" but the search results are completely bogged down with Obama birth certificates, etc. A picture of an Original Hawaiian "Certificate of at Home birth" would help people to understand that this really could have happened.

Surely someone has one?

[Revolting cat!]

Monckton for President of the U.S.

He's not eligible, he wasn't born in Kenya.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not likely.

In January 2011 Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of re-election in 2012.

Yet, the Obama PDF has a change date of 2008.

This document was crafted by somebody within Obama's inner circle and held until it was needed.

I don't see how your information conflicts with my theory. Having this legal manipulation occur in 2008 works just as well as having it occur in 2011.

The part I don't think people are getting, is that Hawaii can't remain silent if people OTHER THAN THEM are creating fake Hawaiian birth certificates. Hawaii is not disputing the validity of the document he has posted, and the only explanation that makes sense is that THEY created it. Had Obama's staff created it, Hawaii could not possibly remain silent about such an obvious usurpation of their Governmental power.

I am confident the document came from Hawaii, and was fabricated by no one else.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes it is. But exactly what document? The HIDOH started by saying this was an "Abstract of Data on file." Over the months that has morphed. Now it's a "copy of the BC." Soon I suppose,it will become a "Certified Copy of the BC."

That wording "OR an Abstract of the Data on file" means that the document may simply reflect what HAS BEEN PUT INTO THE RECORD.

In other words, it completely destroys the certainty of the document being a copy of the original record.

Just for kicks, i'll tell you what *MY* replacement birth certificate says. (I was adopted.)

I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy, original of which is on file in this office.

This is VERY clever wording. A quick reading of it would make you think that it is certifying that it is a copy of the original document. It does not say this. It says "the forgoing is a true and correct copy." It also says the Original is "on file in this office." Both statements are true, but unrelated to each other.

It *IS* a copy, but of the replacement, not of the original. The *ORIGINAL* is also on file in their office. It is a very clever way of swearing the document is legit, without attesting that it *IS* a copy of the original.

Hawaii is a very corrupt place, in which fundamentally simple natives have been completely overwhelmed by more sophisticated and very wily immigrant tribes who absolutely run the place for their own benefit, among which are some Caucasians.

Having learned what I have learned, I think it is unreasonable to take their pronouncements at face value. I don't think the nation has ever had an adopted President before, which has just compounded the problem.

[DiogenesLamp]

Diogenes, If 0 didn’t also have a fishy selective service registration form, and a social security number from a state in which he didn’t reside, then if he had that kind of birth certificate, then what you said would fit the situation.

I have not addressed the social security number or the draft registration card. Having gotten into the federal government, i'm confident he can insert anything into the record he so chooses, but it is not so easy with a state. He cannot "order" Hawaii to do anything, but he can work through their legal process to achieve the same result.

But then if he had been adopted by Soetoro, that opens up a whole other can o worms too.

I am fairly confident that Lolo Soetoro DID adopt him. I have six pieces of circumstantial evidence which indicate this is indeed the case. I'm too busy to list them at the moment, but if you can search my posts in the past, I have listed them before.

[ILS21R]

I don't see how your information conflicts with my theory. Having this legal manipulation occur in 2008 works just as well as having it occur in 2011.

You don't understand.

In January 2011 Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of re-election in 2012.

You're trying to convince yourself (apparently) that the Hawaii Department of Health was hiding the document from the Governor of Hawaii. Why?

Hawaii is not disputing the validity of the document he has posted..

Who is Hawaii? The Governor? The one who said in 2011 that the long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. Please.

I am confident the document came from Hawaii, and was fabricated by no one else.

You're wrong.

Obama's birth certificate was poorly crafted by somebody within Obama's inner circle. It was held until it was needed. It is the only possible explanation.

[DiogenesLamp]

In January 2011 Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of re-election in 2012.

You're trying to convince yourself (apparently) that the Hawaii Department of Health was hiding the document from the Governor of Hawaii. Why?

Not at all. I don't regard the statement above as being conclusive. "that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. "

In other words, it doesn't prove anything. Abercrombie is a bit of a flake, so the stuff he says is plausibly just as much nonsense as it is valid. I put little stock in this comment as proof of anything. Unless the Governor himself went down to the DOH office and looked for it himself, he's relying on what people are telling him.

His statement MIGHT mean something, but it also might not. That is the trouble with this entire issue. There is all sorts of indicative information, but not a lot of conclusive information.

Who is Hawaii? The Governor? The one who said in 2011 that the long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. Please.

It IS a curious statement. Perhaps the birth certificate was created AFTER 2008, and the Change date in the document is the result of someone having the date on their computer set wrong. I have several machines where the date and time are not set correctly.

Where exactly are you seeing this 2008 change date in the document anyway? I haven't gotten into an extensive analysis of every aspect of it. Noticing that the resolution and bit depths of the text characters are different is all I needed to see to convince me the document was pasted together from multiple sources.

Show me what you're talking about, and i'll mull it over.

You're wrong.

Maybe so, but you haven't demonstrated me to be wrong. You are just saying it.

Obama's birth certificate was poorly crafted by somebody within Obama's inner circle. It was held until it was needed. It is the only possible explanation.

In my mind that is a childish and stupid explanation. It postulates an illegal conspiracy involving suspects unnamed in the Obama Administration with complicity of Everyone in the Government of Hawaii (to include the Governor) who has access to the original birth document. Obama's attorney would also be in serious trouble, and could lose his law license and possibly serve prison time if such a thing were discovered. Why go through all this when the document can be legally faked without all of those nasty loose ends?

If you are going to suggest such a ridiculous idea, you need to have far better proof then an offhand statement from an idiot governor and a change date on a file. For all I know, they used a previous file from 2008 as the starting point in crafting the new one in 2011. I reuse computer code all the time, and if I was constantly doing something redundant, (like creating replacement birth certificates for adopted children) I would likely start with the last similar file I created and modify it from there.

My own personal opinion is that the idea of a "conspiracy" always needs to be rejected if there is any other plausible idea on the table. If everything else is ruled out, then and only then should the notion of a "conspiracy" ever be suggested. Using a "conspiracy" as your starting point for anything you don't understand just gets the rest of us labelled as nuts too, and is a large reason why it's difficult to get anyone else to pay attention to the issue.

[ILS21R]

Unless the Governor himself went down to the DOH office and looked for it himself, he's relying on what people are telling him.

Those people would undoubtedly include individuals within the Hawaii Department of Health. If they can't find it, what makes you think Abercrombie could. Again... if it existed, why would they hide it from Abercrombie? It doesn't make any sense.

Where exactly are you seeing this 2008 change date in the document anyway?

It's in this video between 3:00 and 3:30:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIsQJNTvlUE

The HEX Editor for Obama's PDF birth certificate shows a timestamp of 6/12/2008 8:42am indicating a change using Adobe Photoshop.

In my mind that is a childish and stupid explanation. It postulates an illegal conspiracy involving suspects unnamed in the Obama Administration with complicity of Everyone in the Government of Hawaii (to include the Governor) who has access to the original birth document. Obama's attorney would also be in serious trouble, and could lose his law license and possibly serve prison time if such a thing were discovered. Why go through all this when the document can be legally faked without all of those nasty loose ends?

It's not childish and stupid. It is, in fact, the only explaintion. You discredit yourself with your inane assumption that there is some "original birth document" that needs to be "legally faked".

Furthermore you don't consider the enormity of the situation. Be it candidate Obama or President Obama, we're talking about the Office of the President and the crime associated with it. Now, would you or could you trust some HDOH clerk(s) and staff to whip up a fake BC for Obama and keep it quiet? Of course not. The fewer people who know of this crime, the better. That is just common sense. And those few are most certainly in Obama's inner circle.

Or let's try it your way if that helps. If it was a "legal fake", then who did it? Those involved have nothing to hide. I mean.... it was all legal right? So who did it? I'm sure they would be happy to justify their actions. It being legal and all.

We also have no way of knowing exactly how the BC made it to the WH website. Nobody has been put under oath... have they? Just people saying things like "I did not have sex with that woman...blah blah blah".

For all we know the fake birth certificate could have been on a flash drive in Valerie Jarrett's desk drawer for years until it was needed. I hope this helps.

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[MHGinTN]

The truth will have to be released by a foreign country’s intel division to be ‘death proof’. Little barry bastard commie was not born in Hawaii, the actual location is a known fact and documentation exists which is being ‘held’ until it must be used. The reason it is being withheld is related to the odinga methodology which little barry bastard commie’s thuggery will employ if his affirmative action ass is threatened with removal. Sadly, black people have been trained to react with violent behavior when their emotions are stroked. If anyone doubts it, just look at the Treytable incident in Florida, and the irrational blood lust the Jackson/Sharpton/Shabazz thuggery has ginned up so easily. Before super tuesday 2008, Hillary and Barry were summoned to Feinstein’s DC residence and told whom would be the nominee and why. The lack of a black vote if Hillary exposed little barry bastard commie would have devastated the democrap party and it’s power base, so little barry dunham was selected and Hillary was shuffle to the side.

[cynwoody]

Yet, the Obama PDF has a change date of 2008.

No, it doesn't. It shows a create / modify time stamp of 2011-04-27 12:09:24. It also mentions "Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext". Mac OS 10.6, aka Snow Leopard, was not released until August 28, 2009.

[ILS21R]

Playing good cop, bad cop today?

*yawn*

[TheOldLady]

Click the Cute Chicks

Are You A Chick Magnet?
Become One by Supporting Free Republic

Please Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each new monthly sign-up!
FReeper RonC will donate $25 for each new Dollar-A-Day Club member!