Yummy.
Posted on 08/02/2013 5:35:11 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.) is no John McCain.
At a town hall forum in her district on Monday that was sponsored by a local tea party group, Roby was asked by an attendee what she would do to counter the supposed abuses of President Barack Obama, whom the man described as ineligible for office, a communist, and a tyrant. Here's how the fellow put it: "What I need from you is to know what you can do, you and your fellow non-communist colleagues in the lower House, what you can do to stop these communist tyrannical executive orders laid down by this foreign-born, America-hating communist despot?"
After the room erupted in laughter and supportive applause, Roby responded with a smile: "Thank you for your question—he said it loud enough that you all heard it." Roby did not push back on the questioner's claims. Instead, she validated his fears. "Look I can't emphasize the oversight part of my job enough," she said. "And I think that that gets lost in what we do every day, because that's exactly what we're doing—we're chasing down these executive orders, we're chasing down these rules that are promulgated, that are backdoor legislation, whether it's the EPA, the IRS, go down the list."
At the blog at the link it is claimed that “all” features are replicated, but where is the so-called “replicated” pdf file, which would have to have a movable signature block for Onaka and all the other suspicious features found by critics?
Original BC's from the 50's were not printed on hash-marked paper. Furthermore, they were microfilmed. In order to make an official copy of the BC, the microfilmed image was copied onto the modern hash-marked paper, which was then stamped with the date the "official copy" was made and also with the stamp of the department's official and also with the raised seal stamp.....that's the theory. What we have though, is some serious contention with the supposed images that were copied onto that paper.
Are you proposing this idiocy just rile everyone up?
what gal was videotaped ordering a long form BC? (first I am hearing about this)
It really doesn’t matter in the least. The replication of digital images and their artifacts is an academic exercise for computer geeks to have fun with on Internet blogs, only.
If there was ever to be a serious LEGAL question on document authenticity presented in a court of law, hard copy documents would be introduced into evidence, not third generation digital reproductions.
The original, vault copy, August 8, 1961 edition, long form birth document resides in state Registrar Dr. Alvin T. Onaka’s safe at the Hawaii Department of Health and it can be made available to a Trier of Fact for inspection under a court order from a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction.
There has never been a CRIMINAL legal proceeding challenging the authenticity of the ORIGINAL birth vital record. (forgery, official document alteration and election fraud are crimes). A formal criminal proceeding would involve expert witnesses and cross-examination by the opposing side.
What there has been is civil lawsuits using (only) digital reproductions of the original document as supporting exhibits in plaintiffs’ and defendants’ briefs for judges to consider.
As I’m certain that you are aware, the way the scientific method works is that an experiment is conducted and results are published (usually in a scientific journal) and then other scientists attempt to replicate the results based on the published data from the original experiment.
For an amateur computer science experiment like the attempt to replicate an exact copy of Obama’s whitehouse.gov birth certificate, the “experiment’s” every step is spelled out in excruciating detail on the experimenter’s blog, including the hardware and software used.
It is now up to other objective experimenters to see if they can replicate the result or not using identical methods, but all the information needed is available on the “Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored” blog along with the very helpful rebuttal of another experimenter/skeptic who challenges the findings.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/
What would be great is if professional, credentialed and named (rather than user-named) computer scientists jump into the fray.
You are correct, Governor Lingle, being interviewed in 2010, a year after the second Chiyome Fukino media release, added the information that the original birth certificate named Kapiolani Hospital as the place of birth.
But I’m certain that you remember the following article which identified Kapiolani a year before Governor Lingle did.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2170432/posts
“It is now up to other objective experimenters to see if they can replicate the result...”
What result?
Were is the claimed “replicated” pdf of the WH LFBC?
The fact that the nativeborncitizen blogger hasn’t made available his/her claimed replicated pdf is “best evidence” that no such replicated pdf exists, IMO.
It’s just a blog experiment. If it were ever needed to be replicated in the real world, what has been discussed on the blog might be a starting point for professional computer software experts, nothing more.
Another blogger makes a salient point ( I am excerpting and editing a post that is too long in its entirety to put up here):
“The [first, 1983] scanner I used was roughly 10 DPI, in other words I had 10 measurements per inch. Today’s scanners have up to 600 measurements per inch, giving much more information on each line of data (600 DPI), they also scan many, many more lines, and color scanners also have to measure the light’s color spectrum. Today’s programmers have to take each of those measurements into account when producing an image from the scan. The image you see of the President’s LFBC is not a duplicate image, but a computer programmer’s guess of what the image would look like via a file of light reflection intensity readings created by the scanner. Ever wonder why you have to load certain scanners, printers and monitors onto your PC before you can use them? That’s so the raw data can be translated to properly read or write the data to create the printed copy or to display it. Again, as written by programmers.
My original 1983 Programs: 10 DPI X 8 inches per line X 60 lines = 4800 dots per page
Modern Programs 600 DPI X 8 inches = 4800
600 DPI X 11 1/2 inches = 6900
4800 page width X 6900 page height = 33,120,000 dots per page
Not only do modern color scanners record the light intensity, they record the light’s color spectrum. However, they do not duplicate a scanned item. They translate it into digital numbers representing what the copier reflects. Then, a program translates those digital readings into a standard that can be used by a PDF reader, such as Adobe.
Let me stop here and mention something that the birthers seem not to know or understand. There are NO PICTURES ON THE WEB. There are only digital representations of images. Manipulations of those digital representations do NOT reflect what is ACTUALLY a part of the underlying document, only a program’s interpretation of what the digital image MIGHT look like if you could do the same with a document.
Let’s look at just a piece of the analysis that Mr. Zullo’s team did. When you take an image on your computer screen and increase the size of it by zooming in, you are NOT looking at the image as if you had a piece of paper and were looking at it through a magnifying glass. Very important, a used copier salesman would not know this and as you can see in the report does not understand that. Let me show as simply as I can what I mean. If you had a single line opened up in a PDF file it might look like this:
__________
If you were to zoom in to double the size of the line, if there was no manipulation of the data, the line would look like:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Why is that? Because that is all the data it actually has, zooming in just spreads the data dots out on your screen pixels.
But, because of SOFTWARE manipulation, you see: ____________________
Whenever you zoom into a digital image, what you actually see is NOT ALL BUT A PART OF THE IMAGE, up to 50% or more could actually be software created and NEVER A PART OF THE IMAGE at all. Why is that important in this case? The white halos that Zullo claims show forgery? All they are is computer software generated guesses at what the image might look like if you could zoom in. That’s it. Zullo is blaming the President for computer software written by a group of programmers to create and edit PDF files.
What Mr. Zullo did was not an analysis of the LFBC, it was an analysis of the software used to create the image seen on the screen. Software that has nothing to do with the underlying document.”
Me again: the bottom line is that the only Obama birth certificate that matters and will ever matter resides in Dr. Onaka’s safe at the Hawaii Department of Health.
If there is a need to inspect the original document, it can be made available by court order or congressional subpoena (which has the effect of a court order).
“It’s just a blog experiment.”
So your guess is that nativeborncitizen (NBC) blogger did NOT actually replicate 100% of the features of the WH LFBC pdf, as it was claimed he/she was able to do, so there is NO pdf that experimentally shows 100% of the features of the WH LFBC pdf.
You would think that some Obot/Fogblower with $$ and access to the Xerox and a Mac would have come up with a replicated pdf by now (if it could be done) just for the pleasure of claiming they had “punked” “birthers” one more time...
From looking at the blog posted articles, the actual data and the comments in discussion, my opinion is that the blogger was able to successfully test his hypothesis against a competing forgery hypothesis and that he showed valid explanations of the following features:
The presence of multiple monochrome foreground layers and a colored background layer
The background layer contains the full green basket paper
The resolution of the background layer is half that of the foreground layers
The background layer is encoded in JPEG, creating many artifacts
There is a masking layer created by Preview
There is an embedded comment in the JPEG
The 8 bit alignment of two sides of the monochrome images (observed by a previous experimenter)
The alignment of the remaining sides touching the interior (also observed by a previous experimenter)
The Quantization matrices match, and
The scaling and rotations match.
“From looking at the blog posted articles, the actual data and the comments in discussion, my opinion is that the blogger was able to successfully test his hypothesis against a competing forgery hypothesis and that he showed valid explanations of the following features:..”
But NO posted pdf file confirming these claims and no claim of replicating the “floating signature block that I can see.
NBC says that he will reveal the PDF when he is ready and not before.
From the native and natural born citizen blog:
NBC says:
June 30, 2013 at 02:26
We have seen some people open up illustrator trying to understand the document and concluding that it is a fraud. And we have people like Woodman and gsgs who have shown how algorithmic processes explain the data much better, and now I have shown how the issue is resolved.
We have already seen Obama’s natal records and they show him born on Hawaiian soil.
I am merely showing how those who claim that the PDF is evidence of fraud, are wrong.
The same way I have shown why people who claim that natural born means born to two citizen parents are also wrong.
It’s a hobby, it’s a lot of fun and I do not have any burden of evidence to make my case really as the status quo is fine with me…
But the birthers are in an interesting situation right now: Either they admit that they were wrong or refuse to do so and be exposed the next time we see them ‘testify’, however unlikely such an occurrence may be.
I will just sit back and watch them self destruct, attacking each other (Zullo/Gallup vs Kessler/Taitz) and while the courts will continue to reject their follies.
I have provided all the help anyone needs to confirm or disprove my findings. Let’s see how good birthers are at doing some real work…
It took me two days… Surely we can expect something by… let’s say… just to be fair… the end of the year?
Come on birthers… I know that there must be someone amongst you who can do it? I may even help by explaining which tools to use and what commands to enter. Yes my friends, it’s command line and hex editors now, not some high level program that hides all the details.
“NBC says that he will reveal the PDF when he is ready and not before.”
Very convenient.
I note there is still not any sign I have seen that NBC has claimed to have specifically replicated the “floating” Onaka signature block.
Zullo has staked much of his personal belief and claim that the BC is forged on the inability of his numerous experts to recreate a floating artifact in a “one-button” copy scan.
Per NBC (nativeborncitizen)
“I have provided all the help anyone needs to confirm or disprove my findings. Let’s see how good birthers are at doing some real work…”
NBC has not provided the claimed replicated pdf, but only made unsubstantiated claims to have replicated 100% of the pdf. He/she has actually shown bupkis! So why should “birthers” try to debunk something never shown by NBC? NBC is stroking himself/herself, IMO.
Time will tell whether NBC’s claims are substantiated or not. He is challenging others to try and replicate his findings.
His failure to post images of an actual PDF are no more or less convenient than Mike Zullo’s failure to disclose the Reed Hayes report.
Both sides are playing their cards close to their vests.
Yummy.
I don’t disagree with your view of the courts.
It’s the same dilemma Chief Justice Marshall (and others since) faced in Marbury v. Madison.
The high court often faces the possibility that its decision will be ignored by the Executive and the power of the judiciary will be diminished.
It happened under Andrew Jackson in the most flagrant manner one can imagine.
The problem historically (and presently) is that the only apparent limit on the executive is its own audacity and willingness to be restricted by the Constitution and laws.
The other branches are without a paddle so it seems.
I’m not describing my preference but merely the reality in place at the present time.
I’m with you on your frustrations.
You've never shown this.
The Framers told us what "natural born citizen" means.
The Framers in Article II distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.
The first Congress, many members of which were Framers, in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.
We know that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are different.
Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” by parental US citizenship.
Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795, et seq, no longer made such a distinction and declared all persons naturalized to be “citizen”.
In the centuries subsequent to the 1795 Act "natural born citizens" have continued to occur.
What other persons have parental US citizenship? Quite obviously those who are not "born beyond sea", i.e. those born within the US.
The Framers deliberately distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born citizen". Congress in 1790 deliberately distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born citizen", that distinction was parental US citizenship.
That statement was a quote from the blogger at the native and natural born citizenship explored blog. It was not a statement by me.
However, the courts have ruled that: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
James Madison, the Framer known as “The Father of the Constitution” in a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, said:
“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
CURRENT U.S. law states that one of the criteria to be considered a “Citizen of the United States at Birth” (as opposed to a naturalized U.S. citizen) is: “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, that any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person.”— 8 USC 1401
You cite Ankeny, which is a farce, and a naturalization statute and then claim a naturalized “citizen at birth” is a natural born citizen. Your own cite states “citizen”
What a joke.
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.